Attitudes of Dutch citizens towards male victims of sexual coercion by a female perpetrator

Abstract

This vignette study examines the differences in Dutch people's attitudes towards sexual coercion perpetrated by a male against a female versus sexual coercion perpetrated by a female against a male. In total, 583 Dutch citizens (16-86 years, 59.7% female) evaluated a control scenario and three sexually coercive scenarios (verbal coercion, purposeful intoxication and force), in which the sex of perpetrator and victim was purposely varied. The variables studied include: (1) scenario acceptability, (2) victim responsibility, (3) perpetrator responsibility, (4) victim pleasure, (5) victim distress and (6) support for filing a police report. The results indicate that sexual coercion of men is taken less seriously than sexual coercion of women, especially among Dutch men. However, most differences between attitudes towards male and female victims were found only in the physical force scenario. The findings highlight the importance of educational programmes to raise awareness and reduce stereotypical views on male sexual victimisation. Male sexual coercionThe issue of sexual coercion in adulthood has attracted a lot of attention from researchers. This scientific interest is hardly surprising, considering the stressful nature of these experiences. Krahé, Tomaszewska, Kuyper, and Vanwesenbeeck (2014) define sexual coercion as "behaviour carried out with the intent or result of making another person engage in sexual activity or sexual communication despite his or her unwillingness to do so" (p. 546). This covers a broad range of behaviours, such as manipulating the other by continuing to insist after the other person refused sex, lying about feelings or intentions, threatening with anger, withdrawing love, or using force.Considering the gendered nature of sexual aggression, the larger part of studies conducted in this area has focused on situations with male perpetrators and female victims. However, sexual coercion by females occurs as well (e.g. Breiding et al., 2014). Only in 1991 was the legal definition of rape under Dutch law rephrased into a gender-neutral wording. Before this time, rape was by definition committed by a male perpetrator against a female victim (Römkens, 2008). Even though it is now recognised that males and females can be victims of sexual coercion, research on the subject of male coercion by a female perpetrator remains limited.It is also acknowledged that situations of sexual coercion where the victim and the perpetrator are of the same sex are also only scarcely included in research. However, these situations are beyond the scope of this article, as the aim of the current study is to investigate the attitudes of Dutch citizens (16 years and older) towards adult male victims of sexual coercion by a female perpetrator. This type of research has not previously been conducted in the Netherlands.

Rape Myth Acceptance of Police Officers in Portugal

“…This contributes to viewing rape as something that is not as severe or may not have even happened (Spohn et al, 2014). A possible explanation may be supported in the analysis by Huitema and Vanwesenbeeck (2016), of the heterosexual sexual script, which suggests that men play the role of sexual "barometers" and women are the guardians. In other words, it is men who seek sex and it is up to women to decide whether or not they accept.…”

“…Therefore, the older the police officers and the longer their years of service, the greater their RMA and their stereotyped representations of the victim and perpetrator, that is, rape is legitimized based on the absence of physical violence during rape (Huitema & Vanwesenbeeck, 2016) and on the idea that there is a previous affective bond between the victim and the perpetrator (Eyssel, 2009).…”

Revising the Male Rape Myths Scale.

“…First, “can’t happen” myths are beliefs it is impossible for men to be raped. “Can’t happen” myths reflect stereotypes that men control and initiate sex and that certain physiological responses such as erection or ejaculation mean that the man must have consented (Eaton & Matamala, 2014; Huitema & Vanwesenbeeck, 2016; Smith et al, 1988). The second type of myths are victim blaming myths (e.g., that the victim should have fought harder; Doherty & Anderson, 2004).…”

Sexual coercion perpetration and victimisation in females: The influence of borderline and histrionic personality traits, rejection sensitivity, and love styles

“…Future research should establish factors predicting whether coercive behaviour results in sexual activity together or related consequences such as distress or relationship dissolution (Collibee & Furman, 2014). Perpetrator and victim gender have been found to influence perceptions of sexually coercive behaviour (Huitema & Vanwesenbeeck, 2016;Judson et al, 2013) and future research should consider responses to women's disclosure of sexual coercion perpetration or victimisation. Finally, previous research has established the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce women's exposure to sexual violence (e.g.…”