Griner Stacey B, Kline Nolan, Monroy Edward, Thompson Erika L
Department of Health Behavior and Health Systems, School of Public Health, University of North Texas Health Science Center.
Department of Anthropology, Rollins College.
J Sex Res. 2021 May;58(4):462-468. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2021.1882929. Epub 2021 Feb 17.
Sexual scripts and consent communication methods are seldom explored outside of heterosexual, cisgender relationships. To date, little research has been conducted to determine how sexual and gender minority (SGM) students conceptualize and communicate consent. This study explored SGM undergraduate students' (n = 81) sexual consent communication scripts using open-ended survey items. We conducted a thematic freelisting analysis to assess the domains of consent and non-consent scripts using Smith's Salience Score (). Salient indicators of consent were ( = .31; 38%); however, more specific forms of verbal communication were listed as a spectrum, including: (a request, = .16; 23%), (a statement, = .16; 20%), and (a command, = .10; 13%). The most salient indicators of verbal non-consent were on a similar spectrum: ( = .42; 9%), broadly ( = .23; 27%), and ( = .06; 7%). Salient physical indicators of both consent and non-consent also followed a spectrum in their descriptions. Future research among SGM college students should explore the meanings, patterns, and differences in consent communication and sexual scripts.
除异性恋、顺性别关系外,性脚本和同意沟通方式很少被探讨。迄今为止,很少有研究来确定性少数和性别少数(SGM)学生如何理解和沟通同意。本研究使用开放式调查项目探讨了SGM本科生(n = 81)的性同意沟通脚本。我们进行了主题自由列举分析,以使用史密斯显著度评分来评估同意和不同意脚本的领域。同意的显著指标是(= 0.31;38%);然而,更具体的言语沟通形式被列为一个范围,包括:(请求,= 0.16;23%)、(陈述,= 0.16;20%)和(命令,= 0.10;13%)。言语不同意的最显著指标也在类似范围内:(= 0.42;9%)、广义上的(= 0.23;27%)和(= 0.06;7%)。同意和不同意的显著身体指标在描述中也遵循一个范围。未来对SGM大学生的研究应探讨同意沟通和性脚本中的意义、模式和差异。