Coach–athlete sexual relationships: if no means no does yes mean yes?

Abstract

Coach-athlete romantic relationships and consensual sexual relations are commonly accepted among coaches and athletes, although a growing number of sport organisations discourage or prohibit such relationships. In research, coach-athlete sexual relationships are lumped together with sexual abuse, suggested to harm athletes' wellbeing, performance, athletic career and team dynamics, and to inherently constitute an abuse of power, trust and ethics. Additionally, mistrust of coaches' motives, related to physical touch and fear of sexual misconduct, has resulted in a growing anxiety among coaches. This paper highlights and critically discusses research conceptualisations, contextual understandings and critical issues surrounding coach-athlete sexual relationships, on which there is no comprehensive research outside the sexual abuse context. Studies of authority-subordinate romantic relationships in other social settings have reported that such relationships facilitate both positive and negative characteristics and outcomes. To prevent and reduce harm and to promote wellbeing, functionality and safe practice in coach-athlete sexual and non-sexual relationships, Isuggest that comprehensive research outside the sexual abuse context is required. In addition to the previous research focus on harmful and abusive relationships, coach-athlete sexual relationships that are experienced as consenting and mutually fulfilling by the involved parties need further examination.

Too hot to handle? A social semiotic analysis of touching in “Bend it like Beckham”

“…In a series of articles 2013;Garratt et al, 2013;Garratt and Piper, 2014), relating to a recently completed ESRC project, Hands off sports coaching: the politics of touch (RES000-22-4156;…”

“…Some observers (Brackenridge, 2001 and others) argue from the 'point of view' of Kant's categorical imperative (Acton, 1970), that irrespective of particular circumstances it is de facto always wrong for a professional in a position of power and responsibility to become intimately involved with an athlete; to ignore the imperative would constitute a breach of conduct and possible sexual exploitation. However, in this view the athlete is always positioned as subordinate in the relationship and conceived as vulnerable; assumptions which can be strongly questioned on many levels (Johansson, 2013).…”

Young Athletes’ Perceptions of Coach-Athlete Sexual Relationships: Engaging With Competing Ethics

“…While sport organizations have shown a marked increase in the attention they pay to CASRs, the topic remains under-researched in sport sociology (Fasting, Sand, & Sisjord, 2018;Johansson & Larsson, 2017), at least from perspectives other than the sexualabuse framing (Johansson, 2013). Existing CASR research has also focused primarily on the elite level.…”

Too hot to handle? A social semiotic analysis of touching in “Bend it like Beckham”

“…In a series of articles 2013;Garratt et al, 2013;Garratt and Piper, 2014), relating to a recently completed ESRC project, Hands off sports coaching: the politics of touch (RES000-22-4156; , we discussed the practical impact and moral significance of safeguarding and child protection policy in contemporary coaching practice. We argued that the wide, pervasive and moral crusader-led discourse of safeguarding and child protection has created a 'folk devil' and moral panic (Cohen, 1999;Piper, 2014), escalating fear among coaches and radically disturbing the role of the coach through the adoption of questionable defensive and self-protective practices (Taylor et al 2014).…”

“…Some observers (Brackenridge, 2001 and others) argue from the 'point of view' of Kant's categorical imperative (Acton, 1970), that irrespective of particular circumstances it is de facto always wrong for a professional in a position of power and responsibility to become intimately involved with an athlete; to ignore the imperative would constitute a breach of conduct and possible sexual exploitation. However, in this view the athlete is always positioned as subordinate in the relationship and conceived as vulnerable; assumptions which can be strongly questioned on many levels (Johansson, 2013).…”