‘You Couldn't Say “No”, Could You?’: Young Men's Understandings of Sexual Refusal

Abstract

While several psychological theories of rape have been developed, Tannen's ‘ miscommunication’ model is dominant, informing ‘expert’ and popular accounts alike. Rape is constructed as an extreme example of miscommunication – whereby women's ‘failure’ to say ‘no’ is interpreted by men as sexual consent. Kitzinger and Frith have demonstrated that young women have an implicit understanding of the normative interactional structure of refusal, and it is this that explains their difficulty in ‘just saying no’ to unwanted sex. However, Kitzinger and Frith's study could not demonstrate, but only argue, that young men share this sophisticated understanding, such that women saying ‘no’ should not be necessary to refuse sexual intimacy. Here we extend Kitzinger and Frith's study, via the analysis of data from two focus groups held with young men. We demonstrate that, as Kitzinger and Frith suggested, men not only do have a refined ability to hear verbal refusals that do not contain the word ‘no’, but also – and importantly – an equally refined ability to ‘hear’ the subtlest of non-verbal sexual refusals.

What constitutes a “reasonable belief” in consent to sex? A thematic analysis

“…The means of conveying consent or refusal mentioned by these participants are similar to previous findings (e.g. Beres, 2010;O'Byrne et al, 2006) that have demonstrated that non-verbal communication of consent and refusal is well understood by both young men and young women (Kitzinger & Frith, 1999;O'Byrne et al, 2006;O'Byrne et al, 2008). However, they also recognise that other people might read more into these behaviours (see 'Interpreting Consent' theme, below), and they also went on to emphasise the importance to them of verbal consent and refusal.…”

“…Beres, 2007Beres, & 2010Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1999), people's ability to understand indirect and non-verbal sexual refusals (e.g. Kitzinger & Frith, 1999;O'Byrne et al, 2006), and factors that influence verdicts in court style judgements (e.g. Grubb & Harrower, 2008;Hammond et al, 2011).…”

“…It is well established that sexual consent or refusal may be undertaken verbally and non-verbally, and that very subtle indicators are used and understood by both men and women (Beres, 2010;Beres, Herold & Maitland, 2004;Kitzinger & Frith, 1999;O'Byrne, Hansen & Rapley, 2008;O'Byrne, et al, 2006), even in casual sexual relationships (Beres, 2010). In his sample of US college students, Hall (1998) found that consent was most frequently communicated non-verbally, and that consent is usually not specifically given for individual sexual acts that are part of an ongoing sequence.…”

“…Kitzinger and Frith (1999) reported the often indirect nature of women's sexual refusal, and also highlighted that social conventions mean that people rarely 'just say no' to any kind of an invitation, including (but not only) unwanted sex. Developing this idea, O'Byrne et al (2006) demonstrated that young men are able to perceive women's refusals, including verbal refusals that do not contain the word 'no', and also other more subtle non-verbal refusals.…”

“…Previous qualitative research has examined how sexual consent is negotiated in personal relationships (Beres, 2010;Kitzinger & Frith, 1999;O'Byrne, Rapley, & Hansen, 2006). Quasi-experimental studies have also identified various victim, offender and offence characteristics that may influence perceptions of consent and verdicts in rape scenarios (e.g.…”