Wanna Have Sex?
Untangling the Complexities of Sexual Consent
Among Warren Wilson College Students
An Anthropology/Sociology Thesis
Jillian Metcalfe
5/7/2012
Abstract
Previous research on sexual consent has largely been limited to quantitative
measurements of heterosexual behaviors of sexual consent (Hall, 1995, Hickman &
Muehlenhard, 1999, and Humphreys, 2004). Little research has explored behaviors of consent
among students of varying sexual orientations (Beres, Herold, &Maitland, 2004), and qualitative
research methods in consent research has also been minimal. My research qualitatively explores
Warren Wilson students’ sexual scripts of consent. This research includes students’ definitions
of consent as part of their sexual scripts, and includes participants of varying sexual orientations.
In my research, the complexities of consensual sexual scripts will be examined Simon and
Gagnon’s Sexual Script Theory, which states that sexual scripts are informed on cultural,
interpersonal, and intrapsychic navigations (1986). I conducted nineteen student interviews in
order to explore the ways in which students navigate their relationship with larger sexual scripts
and the sexual scripts introduced through Warren Wilson College. I discovered that students’
adopted language and concepts from the definition of consent outlined in the Warren Wilson
Sexual Misconduct Policy, however, specific levels of consent and verbal and nonverbal
communications of consent adhered to larger culturally designated sexual scripts, or
interpersonal and intrapsychic navigations of consent.
2
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 4
Review of the Literature ............................................................................................. 6
Methods .................................................................................................................. 10
Results and Analysis ................................................................................................. 16
Congruent Scripts: Institutional Navigations ..................................................................... 16
Common Language ............................................................................................................................. 17
Communication ................................................................................................................................... 20
Divergent Scripts: Interpersonal Navigations .................................................................... 24
Length of Relationship ........................................................................................................................ 24
Drugs and Alcohol ............................................................................................................................... 26
Other Cultural Influences ................................................................................................. 28
Family .................................................................................................................................................. 28
Religious Institutions ........................................................................................................................... 28
Media .................................................................................................................................................. 29
Non-WWC Educational Institutions: Middle and High School ............................................................ 32
Gendered Socialization ....................................................................................................................... 33
Sexual Orientation .............................................................................................................................. 36
Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 38
Limitations of Study.................................................................................................. 39
Further Research ...................................................................................................... 40
Appendices .............................................................................................................. 41
Appendix A: Flyer............................................................................................................. 41
Appendix B: Inside Page Message ..................................................................................... 42
Appendix C: Campus Mailbox Mini-flyers.......................................................................... 43
Appendix D: Informed Consent Form ................................................................................ 44
Appendix E: Interview Script ............................................................................................ 47
Appendix F: Research Instrument ..................................................................................... 48
References: .............................................................................................................. 49
3
Introduction
In 2009, thirteen forcible sex offenses were reported on the Warren Wilson College
Campus. In 2010, eight forcible sex offenses were reported (2010 Clery Act). These sex offenses
were in violation of the Warren Wilson Sexual Misconduct Policy found in the Student
Handbook, which defines sexual misconduct as any of the following acts: sexual harassment,
nonconsensual intercourse, nonconsensual sexual contact, or sexual exploitation (2011:84-85).
The Warren Wilson Misconduct Policy (SMP) also states that: “In order for individuals to
engage in sexual activity of any type, there must be clear consent of those involved” (2011: 82).
The SMP explicitly defines sexual consent and discusses specific ways that students can obtain
consent from a sexual partner. Yet, no previous research has compared Warren Wilson College
students’ definitions and descriptions of consent with descriptions found in the SMP. In order to
address this existing gap in research, this research studies explores Warren Wilson students’
sexual scripts through their verbal descriptions of consent.
Sexual scripts will be viewed through Sexual Script Theory, pioneered by Simon and
Gagnon (1986). Simon and Gagnon argued that sexual scripts are informed on a variety of
different levels: cultural, interpersonal, and intrapsychic. These levels are negotiated at the time
of a sexual interaction (1986). In sexual situations, studies have shown (Hickman &
Muehlenhard, 1999; Beres, Herold, & Maitland, 1999; and Hall, 1988) that college-aged students
will often reenact sexual scripts offered to them by cultural institutions. My research explores
the cultural influence on Warren Wilson students’ sexual scripts, and additionally explores their
interpersonal and intrapsychic navigations.
Koestner and Sokolow publicize that most college campuses today have consent-based
sexual misconduct policies, but many of these colleges do not explicitly define what sexual
consent is within those policies (2000). If an educational institution does not offer students
4
guidelines for behavior, students must then navigate the complexities of sexual interactions
based on sexual scripts offered to them through other cultural structures, such as family, media,
or religious institutions.
Many studies that have previously measured consent have employed quantitative
research methods (Hall, 1988; Hickman & Muehlenhard; 1999, Beres et al., 2004; and
Humphreys and Herold, 2007). This research employs qualitative research methods so as to
explore the language used by students in their descriptions of consent.
Hall studied the behaviors college-aged students used to indicate consent. He
discovered that college-aged participants mostly used nonverbal communication to initiate and
reciprocate consent (1988). Humphreys and Herold developed a consent measurement scale in
their research on the behaviors of consent (2007). In addition to Warren Wilson College (WWC)
students’ consensual behaviors, I explore their definitions of consent, which no previous
research has studied.
Both of the previously mentioned studies measured consent in heterosexual
relationships. The voices of non-heterosexually identified people have been left largely absent
from research on consent, with few exceptions (Beres et al., 2004). Beres et al.’s study
developed a same-sex consent scale in their study of consent in same-sex relationships. With
the inclusion of participants of varying sexual orientations, my research expands upon Beres et
al.’s findings.
The purpose of this study is to analyze students' sexual scripts through their verbal
explorations of sexual consent. My study seeks to answer the following research questions:
1.
What are students’ sexual scripts surrounding consent?
a. How do students navigate verbal and nonverbal elements of consent?
b. What larger social scripts influence students’ sexual scripts?
5
2. Are students’ scripts of consent congruent to the definition and descriptions of
consent found in the Warren Wilson Sexual Misconduct Policy?
When Sexual Script Theory is applied to this research, the results of my study indicate
that WWC students’ sexual scripts are a negotiation of: (1) cultural Influences, including the
institutional influence of WWC, family, media, structures of gender, and structures of sexual
orientation, and (2) Interpersonal and intrapsychic navigations of length of relationship, and the
presence of drugs and alcohol in a sexual interaction. Not only do students actively negotiate
vertical levels of influence, but negotiations also exist horizontally within levels of sexual scripts,
found in students’ navigations of cultural scripts (institutional and other cultural influences).
Review of the Literature
For the purposes of this research, sexual consent is viewed to be a social phenomenon:
culturally constructed, historically and socially negotiated, and subjective (Creswell, 2009). For
my research, the operational definition of consent is the definition found in the WWC Sexual
Misconduct Policy (SMP). I chose this definition because my research focuses on WWC
students; therefore, all participants are expected to adhere to the definition outlined by the
SMP. The SMP’s definition of consent is adapted from Koestner and Sokolow (2000), and
Berkowitz (2002). Koestner and Sokolow outline effective sexual consent as “informed, freely
and actively given, mutually understandable words or actions, [and] indicating an agreement to
engage in mutually agreed upon (sexual) activity (2000:3). They also believe that “Silence and
passivity do not equal permission” (2000:2).
In my research, students’ sexual scripts are comprised of their definitions and
descriptions of consent. I analyzed students’ sexual scripts of consent through Simon and
Gagnon’s Sexual Script Theory (SST). According to Simon and Gagnon, “for behavior to occur
something resembling scripts must occur on three different levels: cultural scenarios,
interpersonal scripts, and intrapsychic scripts” (1986:98). Cultural scenarios indicated by Simon
6
and Gagnon are determined and regulated by activities deemed socially acceptable, with whom
it is acceptable to interact with, and the place and time interactions should take place.
Negotiations of cultural, interpersonal, and intrapsychic scripts happen at the time of a sexual
interaction (1986). As Dune and Shuttleworth later indicate: “Interpersonally, individuals try to
act out what has been culturally scripted” (2009:100).
Kimmel discusses the development of the sexual self at length. He deconstructs the
Simon and Gagnon’s (1986) theory of sexual scripts though various cultural institutions,
including family and religious institutions. His analysis is extensive, but in summary, he theorizes
that family structures are one of the first to influence our psychological understandings of sexual
interactions. People adopt these ideas directly into their sexual scripts. He views religious
institutions to produce the same effect: the ways in which sexual events are discussed (or left
absent from discussion) within religious institutions form our sexual understandings and sexual
scripts (2007).
Bussel argues that media provides a sexual script, but that consent a consent is not part
of the dominant sexual script present in society: “Many of us have been told that we’re
supposed to look and act sexy, but we are never given a script, outside of porn, regarding how
to go about doing that” (2008:49). Essentially, then, society gives its members a sexual script
through cultural influences, as previous research suggests (Beres et al., 2004; Dune &
Shuttleworth, 2009; and Humphreys, 2007), but, like Bussel argues, the most widely culturally
accepted sexual script in U.S. society does not include sexual consent within dominant sexual
script.
Media influence does not provide the only cultural script available, however.
Educational institutions are considered part of the cultural influence, as well. Scott (2001)
theorizes that institutions give people guidelines for social behavior (2000). Educational
7
institutions, then, give guidelines for behavior, including sexual behavior. With the application of
Scott’s theory, WWC, as an institution, has an influence on WWC students’ scripts. No research
has previously measured the institutional influence of WWC on students’ understandings of
consent. My study also explores the relationship between WWC students’ definitions of consent
and the definition found in the SMP. My research deconstructs WWC’s institutional influence on
students, as well as other cultural, interpersonal, and intrapsychic levels of influences students
navigate through their definitions and descriptions of consent.
Burrow, Hannon, and Hall posit that the Antioch College Sexual Offense Policy (which
requires, through the assumption of nonconsent, explicit verbal, mutual, and constant sexual
consent) is difficult to practice based on typical behavior patterns college students use to
express sexual consent (1998). Similarly to Antioch’s policy, sexual consent is explicitly defined
in the WWC SMP. However, it is unclear if the presence of this explicit definition affects Warren
Wilson students’ sexual scripts. In this qualitative research, I explore the dominant sexual
scripts present among Warren Wilson students’ introduction to Warren Wilson sexual scripts
through the context of the larger these scripts are created and navigated in.
Hall was quantitatively measured different forms of communication used by college
students to indicate consent. Hall discovered that while no individual behavior patterns
emerged from his study, a progression of sexual acts was visible, with most intimate sexual
activity taking place through nonverbal communication of consent (1988). My study qualitatively
expands on Hall’s exploration of consent among college students, specifically WWC students.
Hickman and Muehlenhard continued qualitative measurement of consent; their study
focused on the differences between how men and women initiate and reciprocate sexual
consent. They discovered, like Hall, that sexual consent occurred through a combination of
8
verbal and nonverbal communication. They also discovered that gender deeply influenced
perceptions and communications of sexual consent (1999).
Social constructions of sexual interactions reflect larger social constructions of gender
power dynamics. Indeed, studies conducted after Hickman and Muehlenhard quantitatively
expanded upon the relationship between communication of sexual consent and gender, and
again revealed distinct behavior differences among men and women (Beres et al., 2004;
Humphreys, 2007).The ways in which men and women are socialized into gender roles
influences their perceptions of sexual relationships, and their expected gendered roles within
those sexual relationships.
Within heterosexual relationships in American culture, men are seen as the sexual
initiators and women as the gate-keepers of sex (Bussel, 2008; Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1999;
and Humphreys, 2007). Dune and Shuttleworth reflect this sentiment in their research, stating,
“being a man in a Western civilization may mean fulfilling the expectation that one is the sexual
aggressor, knows what their partner enjoys, and is able to do so flawlessly” (2009:99).
Bussel argues that gender relations influence sexual consent, by stating, “it seems to be
assumed that, in male/female hook-ups, it’s the man who must do all the asking” (2008: 49). As
a result of this cultural understanding of men as the sexual initiators in heterosexual
relationships, men have the power of consent. Humphrey’s study solidified the notion that
gender differences affect the perception of sexual consent. He found that men more frequently
interpret behaviors to be indicators of sexual consent (2007).
This gender role assignment can lead to a harmful non-consensual interaction, as
Berkowitz points out, “Many sexual assaults take place because one of the parties (usually the
male if it is a heterosexual couple) thinks that he has consent when he does not. Academics call
this ‘misperception of sexual intent’” (2002:49). Studies that have measured consent, including
9
those that focused on gendered perceptions, have been largely limited to heterosexual
relationships; little research has examined sexual consent among same-sex sexual relationships.
Beres et al.’s study addressed this research gap their study of sexual consent in samesex relationships. Beres et al.’s study used SST to “identify which behaviors people use to ask for
and to indicate sexual consent to their same-sex partner(s)” (2004:475). Beres et al.
hypothesized that “Given that same-sex couples may not have to deal with the same issues of
gender differences in communication styles facing heterosexual couples, it is conceivable that
the consent process might be different when same-sex individuals initiate a sexual encounter
(2004:477).
Beres et al.’s findings were that in both women-and-women sexual interactions and in
men-and-men sexual interactions, nonverbal initiating behaviors were more likely than verbal
initiating behaviors, parallel to heterosexual sexual initiating behaviors. These researchers,
therefore, came to the conclusion that a larger culturally-implemented sexual script makes nonverbal sexual initiating behaviors more comfortable or acceptable to use in all sexual
interactions, contrary to their initial hypothesis (2004).
While their study addressed a major gap in the existing research describing heterosexual
views of sexual consent, Beres et. al. did not study definitions of consent for men and women in
same-sex relationships. In its inclusion of participants of varying sexual orientation, my research
addresses the existing gap for non-heterosexual definitions of sexual consent. My study of
sexual consent qualitatively strengthens Beres et al.’s (2004) quantitative work through the
inclusion of participants who identify as both heterosexual and non-heterosexual.
Methods
Participants in this research were Warren Wilson College students over the age of
eighteen years old; I asked that participants be at least eighteen years of age to ensure this
10
measure. I conducted nineteen qualitative interviews on the WWC campus. Qualitative
interviews were chosen in this research because they allow an exploration of the complexities
surrounding consent. Through semi-structured interviews, students were able to use their own
language within their sexual scripts to describe consent.
I employed non-probability sampling methods in order to gain participants. I posted a
flyer on campus describing my intended research and asking for participants of all races,
genders, and sexual orientations (see Appendix A). Diversity of participants was requested on
this flyer in an effort to represent a range of demographic viewpoints in this research. I posted
the flyer in academic buildings, dorm buildings, and in main student centers.
In addition to posting the flyer around campus, I posted a message on the Warren
Wilson Inside Page (see Appendix B) and put Campus Mailbox Flyers in every student mailbox
(see Appendix C). The flyer, Inside Page message, and Campus Mailbox Flyers included my
contact information; students who were interested in participating in the research contacted
me via email. I then initiated snowball sampling with participants after their interviews.
Sexual consent is a sensitive research topic. Not only does the research explore private
sexual opinions, but sexual consent is intimately tied to sexual assault and sexual violence. Due
to the sensitive nature of this research, I developed several special research considerations and
implemented these measures to ensure the emotional safety of all participants.
I asked participants to choose their own pseudonym for this research, if they felt
comfortable doing so. The use of pseudonyms was done to keep students’ identities
confidential. Pseudonyms were used in the results portion of this thesis paper and in all written
interview transcripts. The only place where participants’ true identities are stated is on the
informed consent forms, which were kept in a secure and confidential location during the study
and will be destroyed after the completion of this thesis paper.
11
All email correspondences were kept in a private folder in my email inbox. Students
emailed me using the email address I had provided on the flyers and Inside Page message. Once
they expressed their interest, I began scheduling interviews. From list of available times I was
able conduct an interview, I asked participants to choose three times they were available. I then
emailed students a final time to interview, and provided my contact information if they had to
cancel or reschedule the interview.
Throughout email correspondences, I expressed my gratitude to the students for
participating in this research, and let them know that they could discontinue their participation
at any time, without consequence to them. I asked that participants select their interview
location in order to maintain their comfort and emotional safety. Interviews were conducted
individually in a private space, or a secluded section of a public space. Examples of interview
locations include a dorm room, or a study room in the library.
Participants were required to read and sign the written consent form (see Appendix D)
at the time of the interview. On the informed consent form, I asked participants to provide their
contact information (an email address or phone number) if they felt comfortable doing so. I
requested this information in the event that a participant’s response needed clarification after
the interview, or a follow-up question was necessary. When I asked for this information, I
reiterated to participants that this was optional, and they could also choose to end their
participation after the interview without consequence.
Throughout the interview process, I informed participants that they did not have to
answer any question that they felt uncomfortable answering. Participants could stop the
interview at any time, and were able to remove themselves from the research at any time, all
without consequence to themselves (see Appendix E). I informed each participant that should
they choose to discontinue their participation, any information gathered from them would be
12
left out of my research. Participants were also made aware that all physical evidence such as
interview recordings, transcripts, and field notes would be destroyed after I finish writing my
thesis paper.
I asked participants’ permission before using an audio recording device during
interviews. I audio recorded interviews in order to more accurately code and analyze
participants’ responses. I informed participants that they could ask me to stop the recording
device at any time without consequence. In addition to using an audio recording device during
interviews, I took detailed field notes to document themes that arose within the participants’
responses, and to note any nonverbal messages from participants. I took these notes only with
consent from participants. All audio recordings, interview transcripts, and I kept interview notes
in a secure and confidential location. After I conducted interviews, I transcribed all audio
recordings and coded the subsequent transcriptions. Kept digital copies of transcripts and
recordings on a password-locked computer, with only the pseudonyms attached to the files;
hard copies were kept in a locked dorm room, with pseudonyms as the only identifier.
Again, I conducted semi-structured interviews in order to allow participants to guide the
conversation. I designed my interview questions with a focus on the definitions and perceptions
of consent held by the student, rather than students’ experiences with nonconsensual events
(see Appendix F). Again, I recognize the intimate connections of consent to issues of sexual
assault and sexual violence. Students were informed that should they share an experience they
did not want to be included in this research, those stories would be kept confidential in
accordance with state and federal laws (mandated reporting is implemented in cases of eminent
physical danger or when someone is in danger of hurting themselves or others).
Although I carefully constructed the survey questions to focus on descriptions of
consent, in the event that the interview questions trigger memory of personal experiences with
13
sexual assault or sexual violence for the participant, I notified participants that we could stop
the interview at any time. I included resources through which the participant could find support
should an event like this occur. These resources were listed on the informed consent form (see
Appendix D).
I am a R.I.S.E. advocate at Warren Wilson College. The R.I.S.E. Project provides
resources and information to students regarding issues of sexual assault, stalking,
dating/relationship violence and healthy relationships on campus. The R.I.S.E. project provides
resources and support for survivors of these experiences. Because of my connection to the
R.I.S.E. project, I considered the possibility that students might alter their responses according
to what they believed would be my perceptions of an appropriate answer. I counteracted any
anticipated biases participants might have had by emphasizing my position as a researcher and
reiterated that there is no “right” or “wrong” answer to the interview questions(see Appendix
E). My role as researcher was made separate from my role as R.I.S.E. advocate and educator in
order to create a more open interview environment.
All participants in this research were between the ages of 18 and 24. Of the nineteen
participants, twelve students identified themselves as female, five self-identified as male, and
two participants identified as gender-fluid. The following range of sexual orientations were
represented: heterosexual (11 total: 8 identified themselves as straight, 3 as straight-so-far), and
non-heterosexual (9 total: 3 identified themselves as lesbian/gay, 3 as queer, 1 as pan-sexual,
and 1 as bisexual). Sixteen of the nineteen participants identified themselves racially as white,
two participants identified as black, and one identified as mixed race.
As was mentioned earlier, the operational definition of sexual consent is derived from
the SMP found in the Warren Wilson Student Handbook. Although I will highlight many parts of
14
the SMP’s extensive definition throughout this portion of my thesis, consent in its simplest form
is described in the SMP as, “an agreement reached by two (or more) people who plan to engage
in sexual activity” (2011:82). I chose non-probability sampling methods for this research; this
means that the results of this cannot be generalized for all WWC students, but are only an
analysis of participants’ responses.
I recognize that during their interviews, students continually modified and negotiated
their descriptions of consent. Therefore, each interview could holistically be viewed as a
participant’s definition of consent. For this analysis, however, I am viewing students’ responses
in two parts: (1) the (usually concise) definition given in response to the question: “How do you
define sexual consent?” or “What is sexual consent?” and (2) students’ descriptions of elements
and influences on their understandings of consent.
Consent is a complex, multi-layered event. Therefore, students’ descriptions of consent
were mulit-layered and varied greatly. In order to simplify analysis of student responses, I
highlighted major patterns of student responses in my results and analysis section. I analyzed
participant responses in the following order:
Firstly, I highlighted intersections of congruency with student scripts and scripts in the
SMP, and discussed these intersections according to levels of Simon and Gagnon’s (1988) SST: I
examined student scripts’ relationship to the scripts of consent found in the SMP. I also
analyzed students’ common language within their collective descriptions of consent through the
theoretical framework of Scott’s (2000) Institutional Theory. I drew attention to WWC students’
navigations of institutional and interpersonal navigations through common language and the
descriptions of types of communication students use to initiate and reciprocate consent.
Secondly, I considered students’ divergent scripts. I examined where students rely on
institutional influence to navigate consent and where they rely on interpersonal navigations.
15
Students’ interpretations of how length of relationship affects types of communication are
included in this section, as is discussion of the inclusion of drugs and alcohol in sexual
interactions.
Lastly, I explored major patterns in other cultural influences on students’ descriptions of
consent. I discussed institutions of family, media, and religion, and how students felt these
institutions have contributed to the development of their sexual scripts. I also examined other
cultural structures of gender and sexual orientation, and highlighted the major emergent
patterns within students’ discussions of these cultural influences.
Results and Analysis
Congruent Scripts: Institutional Navigations
When new students arrive at Warren Wilson College, they are required to participate in
new student orientation. One of the events of orientation is Let’s Talk about Sex (LTAS), an
inclusive educational program which openly and frankly discusses healthy sex practices
resources available on campus. The program centers on consent; the definition of consent
outlined in the SMP is introduced to students, and acted out in several different scenarios.
Examples of both consensual and nonconsensual activities are shown to the new students, and
the program presents different options and asks students to determine the level of consent for
each scenario.
Seventeen participants said that they first heard the word consent and thorough
discussion of the concept at Let’s Talk about Sex. Fifteen participants interviewed had heard of
the concept of sexual consent before they came to WWC, but had not heard of the word or a
discussion surrounding what it was until their introduction at WWC. The prevalence of students’
inclusion of LTAS, a program specifically developed for WWC, reveals this educational institution
to have a great influence on WWC students’ scripts of consent.
16
These findings are in support Scott’s (2011) Institutional Theory, which posits that
institutions give people guidelines for social behavior. The WWC SMP reflects this theory with
the following statement: “The following policy on sexual misconduct should be used as a
guideline to understand these community values at Warren Wilson College…This policy states
the boundaries of acceptable behavior in our community…” (2011: 81-82). Here, the SPM
outlines guidelines for behavior, explicitly stating what Scott had theorized (2000).
It is clear from student responses that participants have adopted the language of the
descriptions of consent used in the Sexual Misconduct Policy. One of the ways in which Warren
Wilson, and Let’s Talk about Sex specifically, creates a script of sexual consent for students is
through a unifying language, which many students adopted, often times verbatim, from the
definition given in the SMP. Students have adopted common language within their descriptions
of sexual consent.
Common Language
“I think there’s a language component of consent, too. Or maybe you know something’s
fucked up or feel that something isn’t right, but you don’t really have the language for that.”
(February 29, 2012). In this thought, Ava highlights a unifying element to Warren Wilson
student’s sexual scripts of consent: common language. It is in the common language of
students’ descriptions of sexual consent that the institutional influence of Warren Wilson can be
found.
Across all participant responses, descriptions of sexual consent used common language.
Of the 19 students interviewed, twelve used the word agreement (or some form of the word) in
their descriptions of sexual consent. Some described the agreement as clear (2) or absolute (3)
with no ambiguity (1), and no grey areas (1). Five students explained that people should be on
the same page about the happenings of a sexual interaction. This language is adopted directly
17
from the SMP, which states that: “Consent is an agreement reached by two (or more) people
who plan to engage in sexual activity.” (2011: 82)and “…there must be clear consent of those
involved “ (2011:82).
Another common word found in participants’ descriptions of consent was boundaries.
Six students mentioned this word in their interviews. Consent was described as a way to
establish boundaries. Consent was also viewed by students as a navigation of boundaries. The
SMP addresses the importance of boundaries in the following statement, “Discussing sexual
activity with a person you want to have sex with will ensure that boundaries and desires are
known.” (2011: 82). Boundaries, then, are a way to give consent to certain activities by outlining
what is ok and what is beyond a boundary.
A concept commonly adopted from the SMP is the concept of wanting in a consensual
interaction. Fourteen participants believed wanting to be an important element of consent. As
The Jolly Rogers says in his initial definition: “everyone involved in basically any kind of activity,
or sexual activity, being not only ok with, but wanting the things that are happening. And
moreover, I think it’s important that people know that the other people want it to be
happening” (January 27, 2012). The SPM uses the word want in the following passage:
“Discussing sexual activity with a person you want to have sex with will ensure that boundaries
and desires are known” (2011:82).
Students often described sexual consent as a connection between wants and
communication of those wants to a sexual partner. As Scooby Doo states, “I feel like consent is
being true to yourself: knowing what you want and verbalizing or…communicating that to the
other person and being confident in what you’re communicating to the other person.”(interview
February 9, 2012). Her sexual script follows Hickman and Muhelenhard’s understanding of
consent is “as both a mental act (the feeling of willingness) and a physical act (the
18
communication of this willingness).” (1999:259). Scooby Doo exemplifies what she and all other
participants have done: adopted language and concepts directly from SMP.
Although students agreed that wanting was involved in consent, the main variant in this
pattern was the time one’s wanting had to be established. Four students felt that one did not
have to know what they wanted before an interaction took place in order for it to be considered
consensual. These sexual scripts highlight students’ navigations between intrapsychic desires
and their interpersonal communications of those desires.
The hesitation of students to describe consent as the communication of an established
want might have a few explanations. Participants felt that wants could change throughout the
course of a sexual interaction. Hatman says that wants can change; he discussed, as all eighteen
other participants did, the importance of being aware of body language in order to determine if
this change has taken place. Hatman said he would stop and reaffirm consent before continuing
with an interaction, should a physical cue from his partner indicate a hesitation, or change of
some sort (interview February 22, 2012).
As interviews progressed, a discrepancy arose between the words wanting and willing.
The word willing was brought up in two participants’ definitions of sexual consent, although one
of these participants decided that the word wanting was the word they would rather use. Han
Solo described sexual consent as an indication of what people might “want, or are willing to do”
(interview February 9, 2012).
Scooby Doo ultimately changed her opinion throughout the interview. She stated that
consent is “two people agreeing on some sort of action that they do together that they both
enjo—or, don’t dislike.” When I asked her to clarify this answer, she definitively responded it
was behavior that “both enjoy” (interview February 9, 2012). The SMP uses the word willing in
19
its descriptions of consent; according to the SMP, everyone involved in a sexual act must be
“able to clearly communicate their willingness and permission” (2011:82).
The difference between the two words is substantial. Wanting implies an established
desire, whereas a willingness to do something implies almost an indifference to the proceedings.
Students interpreted the concept of being willing to interact with someone as an established
desire, or want. So although the language used in the SMP is willing, many students adapted
the concept, but changed the word they use to wanting.
Within students’ descriptions of wanting in a sexual interaction, I found their
navigations of institutional and intrapsychic influence. Students did not adopt the word willing;
this might be because of their intrapsychic distinction between the word willing and wanting.
Students, then, have adopted the concept of wanting from the SMP, but modified their
language in order to reflect their interpersonal and intrapsychic scripts.
Communication
Communication marked the beginning of students’ navigations away from WWC cultural
influence and into interpersonal and instapsychic navigations. The word communication was
used in by eleven participants as an element of sexual consent. All participants agreed that the
concept of communication was a necessary element to sexual consent. The SMP states that, “In
order for consent to be given, the people involved need to be…able to clearly communicate
their willingness and permission…” (2011:82). While students’ language is similar to both other
students and the SMP, specific practices students use within this communication varied greatly
under the following categories: (1) Verbal, and (2) Nonverbal.
(1) Verbal
Thirteen students felt that the best way to gain consent from someone was to ask them
if they wanted to participate in a particular sexual act. While many students felt that asking for
20
consent could occur in the moment of a sexual interaction, many also described consent taking
the form of a conversation before reaching a sexual interaction. According to Marylin, having a
conversation is a way to know on a deeper level your partner’s sexual wants, expectations, and
boundaries are without the confusion or pressure that is sometimes present during sexual
interactions (interview, January 29, 2012). Students often expressed that the only way to know
what someone is thinking or wanting out of a sexual situation is to ask.
Although most participants suggested that verbal communication is best way to initiate
consent, participants’ initiating verbal scripts varied greatly. Some scripts include questions like
Wanna have sex?, or Wanna fuck? to initiate consent within in an interaction. Students’
examples of consensual responses to these initiating questions were as follows: I want this, I like
this, that feels good, I liked when you did this, telling someone you want to do something,
saying yes, or saying a specific place one would like to be touched.
Other students used indirect questions as a way to indicate consent. Three male
participants stated that they use the verbal introduction of condoms as a way to ask for consent.
Hatman asks his partners, “Should I get a condom?” in order to initiate consent; he then gauges
how his partner is feeling based on their verbal and nonverbal responses to the question
(interview February 22, 2012). Only one example existed of a female participant introducing
condoms or other forms of sexual protection as a way to initiate consent (interview February 20,
2012).
Five students described the process of checking in to indicate consent with their partner
throughout the course of a sexual interaction. While these students specifically used those
words, nine students in total explained the concept of constant communication. Students
checked in to make sure their partner(s) still wanted the events in a sexual interaction to take
place. When asked to explain why one would check in with their partner, students responded
21
that wants can change. Jasper noted, “…it’s important to keep in mind that at any point,
someone could be like: ‘I don’t want to do this,’ so keeping up with checking in with each other”
(interview February 17, 2012).
Student scripts which included checking in with their sexual partner were found to be
congruent to the SMP, which states: “Consent to some sexual activity does not mean consent to
all sexual activity and therefore, it is important to check in with your sexual partner(s) (2011:82).
Some students preferred their partner to verbally reply to initiations of consent. The
Jolly Roger initiates verbal consent in order to get a verbal response from his partner. He felt
most comfortable when he received a clear yes within his sexual interactions (interview January
27, 2012). Hatman echoed this sentiment. He said that a hesitation or a maybe is not a yes; he
does not proceed with an advancement of a sexual interaction unless he hears a verbal yes from
his partners, or a verbal indication that they would like a sexual event to advance to a more
intimate level (interview February 22, 2012). Here, Hatman and The Jolly Roger’s intrapsychic
desire to hear their partner’s explicit agreement affects their interpersonal scripts.
(2)Nonverbal
Although most students agreed with the SMP that, “The best way to obtain consent is
verbally” (2011:82), the vast majority of students actually practiced a combination of verbal and
nonverbal communication scripts within sexual interactions. Students mentioned body
language as important in both the initiation of and the responding reaction to initiations of
consent.
Students described the following behaviors as ways to initiate consent with a sexual
partner: laying down with a partner, being physically close, or putting their own hand, or their
partner’s hand somewhere to indicate what sexual act they would like to take place. Students
also described the following range of indications that a partner is consenting to the events of a
22
sexual interaction: smiling, laughing, not turning away, mirroring the initiating behavior, kissing,
or groaning. I found these behaviors congruent to past measurements of behaviors used to
reciprocate consent (Hall, 1988, and Herold & Humphreys’, 2007).
Students frequently mentioned that consent was dependent on the happenings of a
specific interaction with a specific person or persons; they negotiated interpersonal navigations
even within their own sexual scripts. Scooby Doo initially said she more frequently uses
nonverbal cues to give consent to activities throughout a sexual event. She stated, “I mean, if
I’m not turning away, then I’m consenting, personally” (interview February 9, 2012).
Scooby Doo’s silent signals might be confusing for a partner following the SMP, which
addresses the nonverbal communication of consent in this manner: “Silence should not be
assumed to be permission or consent to engage in sexual activity. Under this policy, ‘no’ always
means ‘no’ and ‘yes’ might not always mean ‘yes’ (for instance, when someone uses coercion to
obtain a ‘yes’ it is considered non-consensual)” (2011:). As her interview continued, I asked
Scooby Doo “how do you know if someone is consenting?” She responded:
I used to think of it, and this was a long time ago, but if they’re not saying no then they
mean yes. But I don’t completely agree with that anymore…I feel like being pressured
into having sex happens when you’re younger…and they’re not actually
consenting…They’re not saying no to the person, but they’re saying no inside (interview
February 9, 2012).
Throughout her discussion of the complexities of consent, I found that Scooby Doo constantly
negotiated her definitions of consent. The same was true for almost all participants. Students,
then, not only constantly create their sexual scripts across levels of cultural, interpersonal, and
intrapsychic influences found in SST, but also negotiate within those levels.
As interviews progressed, I discovered an emergent pattern when students initially
described physical cues of sexual consent. Frequently, students initially described physical cues
that might take place when a person is not giving their consent. Often, students gave examples
23
of the other person pulling away, or turning away as an indication that they did not want to
participate in an act. Jasper said that this kind of behavior would then prompt a verbal reaction.
She felt body language should be noted throughout an interaction and if some physically
retreats from a sexual advance, the appropriate response would then be to ask your partner if
they are ok (interview February 17, 2012).
Jolly Good Times responded with the following insights into her reasons for initially
giving negative descriptions of consent: “I think because that because my past history of not
having consent, my big thing is saying no, but I guess there’s a lot more to consent than just
saying no” (interview, February, 2012). This emergent pattern of initially defining consent as
what it is not might indicate a perception that nonconsensual interactions are easier to identify
or describe than consensual interactions.
Some participants assumed they “know” what their partner(s) are thinking, feeling, or
wanting depending on their body language. Han Solo believes that people are good at
expressing themselves through body language (interview January 9, 2012). Magnolia expressed
that she was able to read body language well (interview February 21 2012). Students’
understanding that they will be able to interpret nonverbal communications of consent indicate
that the rely less on the scripts offered to them through their educational institution (cultural
level), and more on their ability to navigate situations interpersonally.
Divergent Scripts: Interpersonal Navigations
Length of Relationship
Some students feel that nonverbal communications are more easily and accurately
interpreted the longer someone knows another person. Many students held the understanding
that length of relationship would affect the kind of communication used to initiate and
24
reciprocate consent. Eighteen participants agreed that the length of the relationship affects
sexual consent. These students said that as sexual relationships progress, the types of
communication used to communicate consent became increasingly nonverbal. Students
believed that as people get to know each other, they are better able to recognize comfort level,
mood, and desires through physical cues. Students would know a person better the longer they
interacted with them, and be able to tell if they are consenting to an act.
WWC students developed patterns of consensual body language and sexual behaviors
for which consent is most frequently given, and pattern their future interactions according to
those constructed guidelines. Cristina described consent with her partner:
When you’re with someone longer, you get to know them better…I think consent is
always important. I don’t ask my partner every time I kiss her, though. And generally it’s
because there are different levels of communication and we’ve been very clear about
boundaries and it’s something that’s really important to us. We talked a lot about
consent and being clear with each other (interview February 15, 2012).
Humphrey’s study supports this finding, he suggested, “it seems that, by 3 months, assumptions
about consensual sexual activity have formed.” (2007:311).
Some students said that nonverbal communications became established as a
relationship continued because it can become tiresome to continue asking a partner every time
a sexual activity is desired. Developing patterns, as Humphreys suggests, creates less of a need
to verbalize consent because the pattern is then applied (2007). Jasper felt that “people get
more complacent about consent the longer you’re in a relationship, and you’re used to doing
things” (interview February 17, 2012).
As was mentioned earlier, some students felt that communications of consent could
take place outside of a specific sexual interaction. Among students of this mindset was Julia.
She felt that a space is created for conversations of consent to happen more easily in longer
relationships. As Julia states, “It’s easier for me to talk about consent with someone who I’ve
25
been dating for a long time, as opposed to a hook-up situation…because it can be an emotional
thing to talk about and I’m not looking to have an emotional depth with a hook-up” (interview
February 15, 2012).
Overall, students began to diverge from scripts found in the WWC SMP on their
understandings of consensual communications within sexual interactions. When determining
what kind of communication to use in a sexual interaction, students rely more on their
interpersonal ability to judge a situation or a specific interaction. Another area where students
rely more on their interpersonal navigations of consent is within discussion of drugs and alcohol
in a sexual interaction. It is also within this section of scripts that students diverge most from
the SMP’s guidelines.
Drugs and Alcohol
One of the most conflicting topics that came up was alcohol. It was mentioned fourteen
interviews within several different contexts. Han Solo believed, “all parties had to be in a sound
body and mind” to participate in a consensual sexual interaction (i.e. free of substances like
drugs and alcohol). The reasoning behind this, as Han Solo continues, is that “some people
won’t be able to make a decision” (interview February 9, 2012).
Most students viewed alcohol as a grey territory, saying that consent was harder to
determine when alcohol was involved in a situation. Some students mentioned that nonverbal
physical cues of consent were harder to interpret, and, on the initiating side of consent, once
substances are involved, it becomes harder to communicate desires, whether nonverbally or
verbally. Jane shared an experience of sexual assault involving alcohol and sexual consent, she
described: “I knew that it wasn’t consensual, but I wasn’t able to communicate that because I
was so drunk” (interview February 16, 2012). As Jane points out, and other stated, some
26
students understood that that sexual assault was more likely to occur in sexual situations where
alcohol was involved.
The SMP has an entire section devoted to outlining sexual behaviors when drugs and
alcohol are involved. It states: “a person is legally unable to give consent when intoxicated,
whether by alcohol or drugs…Consent, even clear verbal consent, is not valid at these times…For
sex to be truly consensual, you and your sexual partner(s) should be sober (2011:83). Only two
students felt that consent could not take place if any people involved in the situation are under
the influence of alcohol or other substances, which is congruent to what the SMP states. The
twelve other students who discussed substance use believed that a consensual interaction could
take place with drugs and alcohol.
Here, then, existed a discrepancy between what is stated in the SMP and students’
scripts. Of those students who felt that consent could take place when alcohol was involved,
their understanding was that every interaction is different; you just have to feel it out. Students
choose to use their best judgment of situations when alcohol was involved. Magnolia felt
confident that she could tell when someone was too drunk to consent to an interaction. Others
expressed similar sentiments, but to varying degrees of confidence levels.
Some students, like Blanche, altered the kind of communication she used when drugs
and alcohol were present in order to ensure a consensual interaction. She said, “I think [verbal
communication] is more fundamentally necessary if there’s drinking involved” (interview
February 29, 2012). It is clear that with the inclusion of drugs and alcohol in a sexual
interaction, students’ scripts diverge from the institutional script outlined in the SMP.
27
Other Cultural Influences
Family
Eleven participants believe that a person’s family had a large influence on the
development of their concept and definition of sexual consent. While the word consent was not
introduced, Gertrude had been initially introduced to the concept of consent through her
mother; she stated, “I mean, I’m sure my mom had told me about what was appropriate and
what to expect, but not saying that exact word” (interview February 16, 2012). Hatman echoed
Gertrude’s experience, saying that his father was the first to talk to him about the concept of
consent; again, the word was never mentioned, only the concept (interview February 22, 2012).
Of the participants who mentioned family as an influential social institution in the
formation of ideas surrounding sexual consent, four said that the absence of discussions
surrounding consent, within their own families led to their previous lack of knowledge
surrounding consent. Cristina said of her family “My mom told me not to have sex until I was
married…“I know my parents aren’t saying to my younger brother, ask first, make sure she
wants it, or he, or whatever” (interview February 15, 2012). The Jolly Roger contributed the
absence of discussion of consent to his parents; he said, “[consent] was taught in a sort of
abstract way…by my parents as: don’t have sex until you’re married…My earlier experiences
with a religious community gave this picture of ‘if you’re having sex and you’re not married, it’s
wrong anyway, and that’s what’s wrong, and anything about it is neutral because it’s wrong no
matter what’” (interview January 27, 2012).
Religious Institutions
Not only was The Jolly Roger pointing to the cultural structure of the family as a main
source for his scripts surrounding sexual consent, but he also made the connection to his
religious community as influential on his sexual scripts. Five participants mentioned their
28
religious views, or the religious background of the families they grew up in as an influential
factor in their sexual scripts. In all but one of these interviews, participants felt their consensual
sexual scripts, indeed, sexual scripts in general were absent.
One participant discussed her religious introduction to consent as a positive
introduction. The messages she received came from a program offered by the Unitarian church
called Our Whole Lives. The program was an introduction to sex, including an explanation of
what consensual sexual experiences looked like, and an emphasis on consent in all relationships,
regardless of sexual orientation. This program had a profound and positive impact on her own
sexual scripts (interview February 15, 2012).
Both family and religious influence on students’ sexual scripts supports Kimmel’s (2007)
larger theory that these structures have a great affect on the development of our sexual
concepts and sexual scripts.
Media
Fourteen students mentioned the influence of media on scripts of sexual consent.
Some talked about forms of media being the first introduction to sexual consent. Marylin points
out, “I’ve seen it on Law and Order, when you’re talking about legal consent, but never
applicable to your own personal life” (interview January 29, 2012). Two other participants
mentioned this television show specifically as a source where they heard the word consent, but
only in terms of its absence in sexual assault. Jane pointed out that she had initially heard the
word consent in cases of sexual assault, where it was stated that the victim in the case had not
consented to the interaction (interview February 16, 2012).
Several students expressed that verbal consent was not used in media images, like
television and movies. In their discussion of television and movies, the image of a woman being
pushed up against a wall and passionately kissed was repeated by four students. Students also
29
said that some people might be less inclined to use verbal sexual consent because media images
perpetuate the idea that stopping or asking for consent breaks the mood, or it is considered
unsexy. These students said that sexual interactions in media frequently rely on nonverbal
methods of communication to indicate consent.
Blanche critically discussed this nonverbal interactions; she said, “a lot of things in
movies just, without meaning to, I guess, make it seem romantic to just go for things, like, ‘I’m
gonna go for it,’ and it’s like ‘oh I secretly had a crush on you but I was afraid to kiss you but I
just did it’, not realizing like, that could be assault” (interview February 29, 2012). Scooter
echoed this sentiment, saying, “I think in this culture we learn a lot of fucked-up things, like in
the movies, you’re taught to—like, you wanna kiss somebody, you just go for it and take that
risk. But what if they really don’t want you to? Unless you ask, you don’t know” (interview
February 29, 2012).
The infamous scene from the film Gone with the Wind was brought up as another media
example by Blanche. She felt the following image exists as a dominant nonconsensual sexual
script: “I think I’ll always think about the media message of consent from Gone with the Wind
where he’s carrying her up the stairs and she’s fighting him and the next morning she’s like, that
was the best night of my life, it’s that sex that I said no to.’ It’s bad, and I think that’s such a
popular movie” (interview February 29, 2012). Of the fourteen students who mentioned media
influence on scripts of sexual consent, six of them mentioned similar scenes in television or
movies.
This media example brought up by Blanche and other students’ explorations was the
idea of token resistance, which posits that when women say no to sex when they really mean
yes. Hall’s study discussed that token resistance, the idea that a woman says no to sex or a
sexual interaction when she really means yes, is the most influential view of consent in media.
30
He discovered, however, that of the female students he studied, very few who said no to a
sexual encounter actually meant yes. Token resistance is rejected in the SMP, which states that
“no always means no and yes might not always mean yes” (2011:82).
Based on their negative reactions to media portrayals of token resistance in mainstream
media, WWC students follow the SMP’s definition of sexual consent and recognize this concept
as a myth, and they have adopted the SMP’s definition of “no means no and yes does not always
mean yes”. As was mentioned before, many students were critical of the cultural influences on
their definitions of consent, particularly media’s influence. WWC students rely more on the
institutional influences within their sexual scripts than on media influence.
When discussing where people get their ideas about consent, Scooter said:
Movies I think is a big one, music can be really objectifying, especially towards females.
Most people I know never talk about sex with their parents…and I think in that absence
of a conversation about sex, you’re teaching, I don’t even know what you’re teaching…if
we constantly see human beings on T.V. or in movies, we’re gonna be like, oh this is
what other people do, this is what we’re supposed to do (interview February 29, 2012).
Here, Scooter demonstrated one of the principals of Simon and Gagnon’s SST, that people
reenact culturally designated sexual scripts found in media (1986). Scooter feels that the scripts
enacted in media are harmful to people’s individual sexual scripts, because they are not
promoting consent as a part of those scripts.
It was brought up by seven students that some people might be less inclined to use
verbal sexual consent because media images perpetuate the idea that stopping or asking for
consent breaks the mood, or is considered unsexy. Michael Ellis believes that “The media is
highly sexualized, obviously, and so there’s this image that people thing they should live up to”
(interview March 1, 2012). The mention of media by several participants signifies media images
of and messages about consent to be influential on the sexual scripts of students.
31
Non-WWC Educational Institutions: Middle and High School
Many students associated their introduction to consent as a concept with middle and
high school sex education classes In all but one of these cases, however, the concept was not
fully explored, and the word “consent” was not stated in those lessons. Many participants felt
that consent was not brought up in these sex education classes, but that it should be. Ava
believed that the focus of sex education in middle and high school was more on STDs and safe
sex; she said, “…it’s like, sex-ed: put the condom on the penis, let’s talk about SDTs, but I’ve
never encountered a discussion where it’s like, get permission first, or if there is, it’s like in an
extreme of like rape, and I don’t even think I’ve ever talked about rape [in middle or high school]
(interview February 29, 2012).
Not all students had this experience with sex education classes in middle school and
high school. Jack believed his understanding of consent came from his middle school education.
Although he did not hear the word discussed, he recalls being introduced to the concept of
consent in sex education classes at his public middle school (interview February 21, 2012).
Regardless if students had heard the word consent before coming to WWC, all
participants said that once they came to WWC, the importance of consent was hard to ignore.
Gertrude said consent was something that people seemed to think was important; everyone
was talking about it (interview January 16, 2012). Again, seventeen students expressed that the
first time they had heard the word consent was during Let’s Talk about Sex at new student
orientation. All participants who mentioned Let’s Talk about Sex discussed it as a place where
consent was contextualized in a positive way and emphasized as important.
One of the challenges in the analysis of this research was that in students’ discussions
surrounding consent, there existed intersecting currents of social landscape. Factors of
communication, gender, and sexual orientation overlapped significantly within participant
32
responses, and I often discovered layers of arguments within each participant’s responses.
Many of these cross-sections, like influences of family, media, and educational institutions, have
been mentioned above. Another huge intersection happened at the crossroads of gender and
communication.
Gendered Socialization
When asked “does gender affect ideas of sexual consent?”, students had varied
responses. When asked if gender affects ideas of sexual consent, many students replied that it
did (Julia, Scooter, Han Solo, Michael Ellis, Jolly Good Times, ) Others initially responded to this
question in the negative, but later brought up how rigid gender roles affects our views of sex,
which would in turn affect ideas of sexual consent.
Reasons given for why gender does not affect consent were as follows: Marylin
remarked, “From my own experience, it we’re talking about lack of consent, having experience
with both male and female-bodied folks, or just talking about it and hearing similar answers, it’s
hard to say that there’s a distinct difference” (interview January 29, 2012). Jasper addressed
gender stereotypes presented in media, but she ultimately felt, similar to Marylin, that gender
does not affect consent; she said that consent should be the same for everyone, regardless of
gender (interview February 17, 2012).
An emergent pattern in student discussions of gender was the rigid gender roles within
sexual interactions, and how they can negatively affect ideas about sexual consent. When I
initially asked for participants in my study (see Appendices A-C), overwhelmingly, responses
came from female-identified students who expressed their interest in participating. Out of the
first twelve participants who responded, two of those were male-identified. I found it
challenging to male-identified to interview, even when I initiated snowball sampling, and
specifically asked participants if they knew male-identified people who might be interested in
33
participating. Two out of the five male participants initiated contact with me to participate in
the research; the remaining male participants were gained through snowball sampling. The idea
that women are more concerned with consent than men was expressed in several interviews.
During her interview, Jane said,
…it seems like female-associated people seem to care a little more about it, to me, and
maybe that’s just because I’m friends with a lot more women or female-identified
people…a lot of guys I’ve talked to, and maybe it’s because I’m a woman, they don’t
wanna talk about that stuff with me, but have been like, oh, it’s not a big deal, I don’t
really care…it’s just interesting I guess. That guys seem to think about it differently, or
not at all (interview February 16, 2012).
Jack later confirmed Jane’s belief by saying that sex is less of a big deal for guys, so
consent would be less of a big deal for them, too (interview February 21, 2012). Humphreys
suggests that “differences in socialization…suggest that the issue of sexual consent may be more
important to women than to men…men are less guarded about sexual consent and also less
worried about sexual assault” (2007:311).
Gertrude said,
“I think women are much more conscious of [sexual consent] because they, this is such a
generalization, but generally women tend to care more about the emotional well-being
of the people that they surround themselves with, from my experience, and I think that
men are less concerned with, or less inclined to deal with emotions, and less likely to
communicate well” (interview January 16, 2012).
This sentiment is in agreement with Humphrey’s theory that “Socialized to be the limit-setters
of relationships, women have a traditional sexual script that includes giving permission for
sexual activity, while men’s sexual script includes initiating sexual involvement” (2007:311).
Jolly Good Times believes that because of their perceived role as the more sexually
aggressive gender, people do not think one needs to ask a male for consent in an interaction. It
is assumed he will always want to have sex (interview February 13, 2012). Michael Ellis
elaborated on this idea; he said, “I feel like there’s probably more pressure on females to give in
34
to consent, but at the same time, there’s also that pressure as a young male with all of your
peers to lose your virginity” (interview March 1, 2012).
Within student responses, I discovered a pattern of expectations from a sexual
interaction that falls along lines of gender. Jack expressed an assumption that partner would tell
him if she was feeling uncomfortable with the events of an interaction (interview February 21,
2012). Three other male participants held very similar sentiments. The exception to this
gendered pattern was The Jolly Roger, who felt:
I think the way that most people know [that someone is ok with the happenings of a
sexual interaction] is that they trust the other person’s gonna let them know if they’re
not, which is a dangerous way of doing it with no room for air (interview January 27,
2012).
Based on Humphrey’s aforementioned gender roles of men as dominant initiators of
sexual activity and females as submissive or passive, the expectation exists for women to go a
long with sexual activity initiated by men. If women are waiting to be asked by their partner for
their consent, and men are expecting that a woman will voice her opinion, she might never get
that opportunity. Gertrude stated this idea: “[strict gender roles] puts pressure on the woman
to, well if you’re implying or assuming that the man isn’t going to have these verbal exchanges,
it puts pressure on the woman to be very vocal and say exactly what she wants…and potentially
puts women in a position that they don’t want to be in and don’t know how to get out of”
(interview February 16, 2012).
The aforementioned scripts concerning gender would take place between a woman and
a man. Perceptions of consent within non-heterosexual interactions were different. As Cristina
believes, “I think being gay can change things because you’re working with someone of the
same gender, and that means they have the same set of wires…and that can make consent
easier because you don’t have to understand it from another gender, you just have to
understand it from your own gender’s perspective” (interview February 15, 2012).
35
Sexual Orientation
Very little research has previously measured consent in non-heterosexual relationships
(Beres et al., 2004). By interviewing WWC students who identify as non-heterosexual, my
research addressed this existing gap. Overall, no patterns existed between participants
responses and their personal sexual orientation; results varied across lines of both gender and
sexual orientations.
When I asked students whether they felt sexual orientation affected ideas or actions of
sexual consent, six students, of varying sexual orientations, answered that consent looks the
same for all relationships, often expressing, as Marilyn did: “sexual consent looks the same for
all couples” (interview January 29, 2012). Jasper felt the same way, stating, “It doesn’t change
the underlying concept” (February 17, 2012).
The remaining thirteen participants expressed that the sexual orientation of an
individual affected their ideas surrounding sexual consent, but nine participants expressed
uncertainty in the specific manifestations of these effects. In these cases, students usually
related back to their personal experience, often expressing, as Gertrude did, “Yeah, I feel like I
can’t comment on sexual orientation because I don’t have personal experience with here-say”
(interview February 16, 2012).
This sentiment presents an interesting social construction of sexual orientation. At the
beginning of her interview, Gertrude identified her sexual orientation as straight. Here, feels she
has no experience with sexual orientation. However, she possesses ideas of sexual consent as a
heterosexually-identified person. Gertrude was not the only person who seemed to see
heterosexuality as an invisible sexual identity, or as an orientation that would not affect ideas of
sexual consent.
36
Four students felt that sexual orientation did affect peoples’ ideas of sexual consent, or
how consent was practiced. Julia, a student who identified herself as gay, said:
There was a lot of homophobia in straight relationships I was in. Certain acts were seen
as gay. In straight relationships, there’s the idea that you should get pleasure from this,
this, and this. So it’s kind of around the acts: you should be liking this. And in my
experience in queer relationships, the center of the interaction is what feels good, what
is wanted, which would be more consent based, because it is what is wanted….once you
get into a queer relationship, you can really set your own rules (interview February15,
2012).
The Jolly Roger echoed this sentiment; he said:
I think that sexual orientation within very gendered societies…[is]going to have an affect
on sexual consent…there could be even more unique ways of finding consent, or of
bridging that dynamic between two heterosexual people as well. But I think that often
times, people of varying sexual identities aren’t taught how to approach that sort of
relationship, so often times, I would imagine that you’re sort of starting somewhere
new…and I’m sure that would be a really different experience (interview January 27,
2012).
Cristina, who identified as a lesbian, agreed with The Jolly Rogers and Julia; she said, “I
think people who are not identified as straight, and basically not the gender norm, can
sometimes have a better understanding of a different frame of mind” (interview February 15,
2012). Cristina also expressed the feeling that: “I think it’s just as easy to be nonconsensual
when you’re one orientation or the other” (interview February 15, 2012).
All three of these students support Beres et al’s hypothesis that men and women who
engage in same-sex relationships, “because they transgress gender norms of behavior by
engaging in same-sex sexual activity, they may have a heightened awareness of gender
stereotypes and therefore may act against them” (2004:). Beres et al.’s study ultimately found
this hypothesis to be unsupported by their findings.
I had anticipated, based on Beres et al.’s results, that many students would have the
same methods of indicating sexual consent across all lines of sexual orientation, but found that
some students felt that verbal sexual consent was more easily able to take place in non-
37
heterosexual interactions because it was outside of gender and sexuality norms, and therefore,
more easily allowed verbal communications.
Conclusions
Through this research, I determined that WWC students’ sexual scripts are a negotiation
of (1) cultural influences including the institutional influence of Warren Wilson College, and
structures of gender and sexual orientation, and (2) interpersonal and intrapsychic navigations
of length of relationship and the use of drugs and alcohol in a sexual interaction.
My research discovered students’ critical opinions of the sexual scripts offered to them
through cultural influences of family, media, and religious institutions. They more frequently
borrowed language and concepts from WWC’s institutional influence. Not only, then, are
students’ scripts vertical negotiations of Simon and Gagnon’s cultural, interpersonal, and
intrapsychic scripts, but students negotiate scripts even within these categories.
Cultural scripts were navigated through students’ institutional adaptations of consent
and their criticisms of other cultural influence, such as media, family, and religions institutions.
Warren Wilson College’s institutional influence was found in students’ adaptations of language
found in the Sexual Misconduct Policy. Students’ definitions of consent as an agreement made
by two or more people who want to engage in a sexual activity together is an example of this
direct adaptation.
In addition to negotiating scripts within levels of cultural scripts, students rely on
interpersonal verbal and nonverbal interpretations of communication signals in order to initiate
and receive consent from a sexual partner.
38
Limitations of Study
There were several limitations to this study. Due to the sensitive nature of this
research, I chose to employ non-probability and snowball sampling methods, to ensure that
students were willingly participating in this research. Because of these sampling methods, my
analysis cannot be generalized to all WWC students, but is a representation of only those
interviewed. The sampling methods also might have produced participants who were already
interested in discussing consent. Although I tried to counteract this limitation in the way I
advertised my research (see Appendix C), I was unable to get responses from students who
might not usually discuss issues of sexual consent.
Additionally, my participants were from a fairly homogenized demographic. Most of my
participants were white, middle-class females. Fourteen participants were female, and five were
male. This might have affected the patterns that emerged in students’ sexual scripts.
I structured individual interviews in order to ensure confidentiality of my participants,
but these interviews have inherent limitations. Although I implemented several measures to
ensure that participants felt comfortable and emotionally safe, and reiterated to participants
that there was no right or wrong answer in this research, one-on-one interactions might have
led students to alter their responses in some way, according to what they believed I wanted to
hear. As I mentioned a
A limitation to all sociological research is the inherent biases of the researcher, however
vigorously we may try to act against them. While my role as researcher took primary focus
throughout this study, my perspectives are influenced by the cultural, interpersonal, and
intrapsychic understandings of the world around me.
Time also served as a limitation in this research. I had limited time to conduct the
research, and limited time to analyze my results. More time with both interview participants
39
and the data analysis could have led to a deeper understanding and explanation of students’
sexual scripts.
Further Research
In 2010, Let’s Talk About Sex (LTAS) became an optional orientation event. Because
students have so closely adopted the script of consent introduced in LTAS, further research
might examine how the change of the program’s status from mandatory to optional has
affected incoming students’ sexual scripts of consent.
The results of this study were analyzed through the Sexual Misconduct Policy found in
the 2011-2012 Student Handbook. This policy, however, is currently being revised. The results
of this study, therefore, would be most accurately interpreted through within the context of the
most current policy. Further research could be done using the rewritten policy.
Many students were able to use similar sexual scripts to define consent because of the
shared language presented at the new student orientation. WWC is one of a small number of
colleges that describes sexual consent within their new student orientation. Further research
might include a comparative study of WWC students’ sexual scripts and sexual scripts of
students at another college, particularly an institution that does not explicitly outline sexual
consent.
Many students expressed, either during interviews or after interviews, that they are
curious about what other students think about consent, and if others struggle with the same
questions about consent that they have. Further research could utilize a focus-group setting, to
give students a chance to openly discuss issues surrounding sexual consent on campus.
40
Appendices
Appendix A: Flyer
41
Appendix B: Inside Page Message
Hello Warren Wilson Community,
My name is Jillian Metcalfe; I am a senior Sociology/Anthropology major here at
Wilson. For my senior research, I am studying Warren Wilson students’ definitions and
perceptions of sexual consent. I will be conducting interviews with students who are
interested in participating in this research.
What do you think about consent? What exactly is it? What does it mean to you? For this
research, there is no “right” or “wrong” answer. I am looking for students’ perspectives,
and am interested in talking to folks from a range of different backgrounds (all genders,
ethnicities, and sexual orientations). All participants’ identities will be kept completely
confidential. If you are interested, in participating in this research, and are at least 18
years of age, please email me at: jillianmetcalfe@gmail.com . This research is part of the
Directed Research course facilitated by Siti Kusujiarti (skusujiarti@warren-wilson.edu).
Thank you,
Jillian Metcalfe
42
Appendix C: Campus Mailbox Mini-flyers
Do you like consent? Do you not like consent?
Wanna talk about it?
I am looking for participants in a study of sexual consent among Warren Wilson students.
All participants’ identities will be kept confidential.
Interested? Please contact Jillian Metcalfe at jillianmetcalfe@gmail.com
43
Appendix D: Informed Consent Form
INFORMED CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Warren Wilson College
Swannanoa, North Carolina
1.
TITLE OF RESEARCH STUDY
What is Sexual Consent? A Study of Warren Wilson College Students
2.
PROJECT DIRECTOR/INVESTIGATOR
Name: Jillian Metcalfe
Telephone Number: 412-335-1449
3.
Faculty Supervisor: Siti Kusujiarti
Telephone Number: 828-771-3703
THE PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH
The purpose of this study is to explore Warren Wilson Students’ understandings and
perceptions of sexual consent.
4.
PROCEDURES FOR THIS RESEARCH
I have been briefed about the research, and am aware of my ability to discontinue my
participation in this research at any time, without consequence. Formal interviews
will take approximately 45 minutes to one hour, and will take place in a in a location
and time agreed upon by myself and the researcher. To insure confidentiality, I will
use a pseudonym of my choice for my interview. Only the researcher will know my
identity. I understand that interviews will be taped using an audio recording device; I
was also informed that I can stop recording this interview at any time with no
consequence. I have been made aware that I may be contacted by the researcher for a
follow-up interview or questions, but I am able to decline further participation, if I so
choose, with no consequence. I am also aware that any interview analysis may be
included in a senior research paper, and in a Warren Wilson capstone presentation,
but the presentation and paper will not include my real name.
5.
POTENTIAL RISKS OR DISCOMFORTS
I understand that the nature of this research is sensitive, and all information shared
throughout the course of the interview will be kept confidential, in accordance with
federal and state confidentiality laws. If I am unclear on these laws, the researcher
will be able to describe these laws to me, upon request. All transcribed interviews
44
will be kept on a password locked computer and hard copies will be kept in a locked
dorm room with pseudonyms. I have also been made aware that if at any time
something in this interview brings up an uncomfortable sexual experience I wish to
talk about, whether that is something I have experienced first-hand, or through a
secondary source, I am able to stop the interview at any time and will be referred to
the appropriate resources to talk through those experiences. Should anything
uncomfortable come up for me during an interview regarding sexual consent, I
understand that these resources are available to me to provide support:
The Campus Counseling Center:
Art Shuster, phone: (828) 771-3773
Anne Riddle Lundblad, phone: (828) 771-3700
Jil Meadows, phone: (828) 771-3905
The R.I.S.E. Project: (Office in Dodge House)
Phone: (828) 771-3799
Crisis Hotline: (828) 337 3264
OurVoice:
Office Phone: (828) 252-0562
24-hour crisis line: (828) 255- 7576
As a R.I.S.E. advocate and an OurVoice Advocate trained in crisis intervention response
and advocacy related to sexual violence, the researcher is available to refer me to these
and other resources. If I wish to discuss these or any other discomforts I may experience,
I may call the Project Director listed in #2 of this form.
6.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO YOU OR OTHERS
Although Warren Wilson College creates awareness of sexual consent through
various programs on campus, no research has previously been done on Warren
Wilson Student’s definitions of sexual consent. By studying Warren Wilson students’
definitions of sexual consent, a more accurate understanding of the community’s
perceptions of sexual consent can be gathered. This information can then be used to
enhance educational programming and outreach surrounding sexual consent on
campus.
7.



GENERAL CONDITIONS
I understand that I will not receive compensation for my participation in this study.
I understand that I will not be charged additional expenses for my participation in this
study.
I understand that I am free to decline to participate or withdraw my consent and
discontinue participation in this research project at any time without adverse
consequences.
45



8.
All information collected will remain confidential except as may be required by
federal, state, or local law.
I am 18 years of age or older.
My pseudonym will be ________________.
SIGNATURES
I, as a researcher, have fully explained to
_______________________________________ the nature and purpose of the abovedescribed procedure and the benefits and risks that are involved in participating in this
study. I have answered and will answer all questions to the best of my ability. I may be
contacted at: jillianmetcalfe@gmail.com, or on my cell phone at: 412-335-1449
____________________________________
Signature of Principal Investigator
____________
Date
I have been fully informed of the above-described procedure and the benefits and risks
that are involved in participating in this study. I have received a copy of this entire
document. I have voluntarily given permission for my participation in this study.
_____________________________________
Signature of Participant
____________
46
Appendix E: Interview Script
My name is Jill Metcalfe. I am a senior Sociology and Anthropology major here
at Wilson. I am looking to understand Warren Wilson student’s definitions of sexual
consent. For this research, there is no “right” or “wrong” answer to any of these
questions; I just want to know what you think about sexual consent. You are free to
choose not to answer any questions you feel uncomfortable answering, and are also free
to end your participation in this research at any time. If you choose to end your
participation, any information you have shared will be removed from the final thesis
analysis without consequence to you. I will be using an audio recording device for this
interview; however, you are able to stop the recording at any point during of this
interview. All of your answers will be kept confidential, unless required by state and
federal laws. I will use pseudonyms for all interview participants. Pseudonyms will also
be used for any persons mentioned during this interview. All transcribed and recorded
interviews as well as field notes collected for this research will be destroyed after I finish
revising my thesis.
Given the sensitive nature of this research, I want to reiterate that you do not have
to answer any question you feel uncomfortable with. I am not looking for specific
answers to any of these questions. I would also like to make you aware that even though
I am a trained as both a R.I.S.E. advocate and an OurVoice advocate, my main role here
is as a researcher. I am able to direct you toward appropriate resources if you would like
to talk about something you’ve experienced related to sexual assault, dating and
relationship violence, stalking, and healthy relationships. The R.I.S.E. project is also an
available resource for this, as is the Counseling Center here on campus, should this
interview bring up any uncomfortable experiences. Telephone numbers for both of these
on-campus resources, as well as OurVoice, an off-campus resource, are available to you
on the informed consent form, and on the card given to you at the beginning of this
interview. Do you have any questions regarding this interview for me at this time?
Could you please read the informed consent and sign it if you agree with what is stated
there.
Are you ready to begin the interview?
47
Appendix F: Research Instrument
Interview Questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
What pseudonym would you like to use for this research?
What gender do you indentify as?
What do you identify as, racially?
What is your sexual orientation?
When did you first hear about sexual consent?
a. What did you hear about it?
b. Have your ideas changed since the first time you heard about consent?
6. How would you define sexual consent?
a. What are the main elements that indicate sexual consent?
7. What behaviors indicate sexual consent?
a. Why do you think these behaviors define sexual consent?
8. What words indicate sexual consent?
9. How do you know if someone is consenting?
10. How do you think gender affects ideas of sexual consent?
11. How do you think sexual orientation affects ideas of sexual consent?
12. How do you think race affects ideas surrounding sexual consent?
13. Is there anything else you would like to revisit, or add to your previous
answers?
48
References:
Beres, Melanie A., Edward Herold, and Scott B. Maitland. 2004. “Sexual Consent Behaviors in
Same-Sex Relationships.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 33:475-486. Retrieved September
6, 2011.
Berkowitz, Alan D. 2002. “Guidelines for Consent in Intimate Relationships” Campus Safety &
Student Development 3(4):49-50. Retrieved October 27, 2011
(http://www.alanberkowitz.com/articles/consent.pdf).
Burrow, Jason J, Hannon, Roseann, and Hall, David. 1998. “College Student’ Perceptions of
Women’s Verbal and Nonverbal Consent for Sexual Intercourse”. The Electric Journal of
Human Sexuality Vol. 1. Retrieved 9/14/2011
(http://www.ejhs.org/volume1/burrow/burrow.htm)
Bussel, Rachel Kramer. 2008. “Beyond Yes or No: Consent as Sexual Process” Pp. 43-52 in Yes
Means Yes! Visions of Female Sexual Power & a World Without Rape, edited by J.
Friedman & J. Valenti. Berkley, CA: Seal Press.
Creswell, John W. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. Third Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dune, Tinashe M., and Russell P. Shuttleworth. 2009. “‘It’s Just Supposed to Happen’: The Myth
of Sexual Spontaneity and the Sexually Marginalized.” Sexuality and Disability 27:97108. Retrieved September 11, 2011.
Hall, David S. 1988. “Consent for Sexual Behaviors in a College Student Population.” Electronic
Journal of Human Sexuality Volume 1. Retrieved 9/14/2011
(http://www.ejhs.org/volume1/consent1.htm ).
49
Hickman, Susan E., and Charlene L. Muehlenhard. 1999. “‘By the Semi-Mystical Appearance of a
Condom’: How Young Women and Men Communicate Sexual Consent in Heterosexual
Situations.” Journal of Sex Research 36(3):258.
Humphreys, Terry. 2007. “Perceptions of Sexual Consent: The Impact of Relationship History and
Gender.” Journal of Sex Research 44(4):307
Humphreys, T., & Herold, E. (2007). Sexual consent in heterosexual relationships: Development
of a new measure. Sex Roles , 57(3/4), 305-315.
Interviews, individual interviews conducted from January 27 to March 5, 2012.
Kimmel, Michael S. 2007. The Sexual Self: The Construction of Sexual Scripts. Vanderbilt
University Press.
Koestner, Katie, and Solokow, Brett. 2000. “Eliminating Force Form Campus Sexual Misconduct
Policies: The Rise of the Consent Construct” Campus Safety and Student Development
2(2) Retrieved October 25, 2011 (http://www.ncherm.org/articles.html#CSM).
Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Simon, William, and John H. Gagnon. 1986. “Sexual scripts: Permanence and change.” Archives
of Sexual Behavior 15:97-120. Retrieved November 16, 2011
Warren Wilson College Office of Student Life. 2011. “Warren Wilson College Sexual Misconduct
Policy” Swannanoa, NC: Warren Wilson College Handbook. Retrieved October 14, 2011
(http://www.warren-wilson.edu/internal/handbook/studenthandbook.pdf)
Warren Wilson College. 2010. “Annual Crime and Security Report.” Swannanoa, NC: Warren
Wilson College Clery Report. Retrieved October 14, 2011 (http://www.warrenwilson.edu/~rise//Clery_Report.php).
50