A Phenomenological Study of how College Students Communicate about Anal Sex and
its Implications for Health
A dissertation presented to
the faculty of
the Scripps College of Communication of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Mumba Mumba
November 2010
© 2010 Mumba Mumba. All Rights Reserved.
This dissertation titled
A Phenomenological Study of how College Students Communicate about Anal Sex and
its Implications for Health
by
MUMBA MUMBA
has been approved for
the School of Communication Studies
and the Scripps College of Communication by
Benjamin R. Bates
Associate Professsor of Communication Studies
Gregory J. Shepherd
Dean, Scripps College of Communication
ii ABSTRACT
MUMBA, MUMBA, Ph.D., November 2010, Communication Studies
A Phenomenological Study of how College Students Communicate about Anal Sex and its Implications for Health (386 pp.)
Director of Dissertation: Benjamin R. Bates
This study explored how heterosexual anal sex (HAS) was discussed among college students. A qualitative method which utilized Moustakas‟ (1994) transcendental phenomenology was employed. The study followed four steps: epoche, phenomenological reduction, imaginative variation and synthesis. Semi-structured in- depth interviews and diary methods were used for data collection. Thirty self-identified heterosexual college students participated.
Theoretically, Foucault‟s (1990, 1977) notions of sexuality and power and
Sandra Petronio‟s (2002) Communication Privacy Management Theory (CPM) concepts of disclosure and privacy were used to examine talk about sexuality. At a macro level, participants‟ sexual choices were influenced by institutional socio-cultural values (sex education, religion and some family values) which were in tension with participants‟ personal values of sex. Participants resisted institutional socio-cultural values because they promoted an abstinence-only approach to sexuality.
At the micro level, findings related to participant communication indicated that their communication was shaped by discomfort for anal sex. Participants used the
Unmentionable IT to refer to anal sex in their descriptions of anal sex. They also acknowledged how sex and anal sex was concealed in euphemisms.
iii Participants‟ ways of communicating about anal sex indicated that disclosures of anal sex occurred among participants who engaged in anal sex and those who did not.
There seemed to be tensions of disclosure and concealment related to anal sex information in peer relationships. Stigma served as a disciplinary mechanism of control that enhanced this tension. In intimate sexual situations this tension was absent because participants engaged in open communication.
Additionally, participants‟ meanings of anal sex signified that it enhanced male pleasure compared to females‟. Some participants resisted anal sex for mutual sexual practices. Participants recognized infectious and non-infectious (tears, bleeding and dysfunctional anal area) risks of anal sex. However, some claimed that anal sex could be pleasurable. Participants suggested open communication, consent and information as ways of reducing risks.
This study demonstrated that participants encountered sexuality in dialectical ways. The study underscored the need to include sexual health promotion activities that address risks of anal sexuality. Open communication should encourage sensitive and non- judgmental programs in supportive peer groups. Additionally, anonymous peer programs may foster communication to avoid stigma.
Approved: ______
Benjamin R. Bates
Associate Professsor of Communication Studies
iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The completion of a dissertation is never an individual process. Several special people made this journey possible.
My sincere gratitude is extended to Dr Benjamin R. Bates my advisor whose constant feedback edged me to continue working on this dissertation. His unwavering commitment and open door made quick consultations possible. Thank you very much for your attention to detail and candid perspective on presenting a balanced view of the participants. Your support throughout my academic career was truly appreciated. A mere thank you, fails to capture how much I appreciated your support.
I offer my heartfelt gratitude to my dissertation committee for their service. Dr.
Lynn Harter, thank you for helping me make the connection between the participant‟s macro socio-cultural influences and their micro interpersonal aspects of communicating about sexuality. I am honored to have been your student, you made learning engaging and stimulating. Your passion and enthusiasm for teaching made me curious and broadened my horizons in ways I never imagined possible. Dr Christina Beck, thank you for your methodological questions. Your emphasis for supporting one‟s claims never left my mind. I truly appreciated your asking about the progress of the dissertation, your thoughtfulness was truly appreciated. It was also a real honor to be your student. A special thank you is extended to Dr Diane Ciekawy; I want to thank you for your insightful suggestions throughout the evolution of this dissertation. I appreciated your engaging and thought provoking suggestions and ideas. Taking your class exposed me to deeper and different ways of knowing.
v I wish to thank the school of communication for the academic and financial support towards this dissertation. Your support eased my work tremendously. I will forever remember Lasher as my academic home.
A special appreciation is warranted for the participants who committed their time to this study. Thank you for your openness to speak about a difficult sexual topic and for your courage and frankness.
My sincerest appreciation goes to several of my family members who have been instrumental in making this dissertation journey easier. My deepest gratitude goes to my husband Musonda Kapatamoyo who has remained a steadfast supporter for my academic endeavors. For this, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. To our children for their warm presence, your questions about the office reminded me to remain focused. My mother‟s physical and emotional support was an immensely welcome help that made my life bearable. My dad has been a special and positive influence in shaping the person I have become, to him I say thank you. My twin sister‟s energy and confidence for life reminds of what aspiring for bigger dreams means.
To my special friend, Mauvette Gregory your constant support and ear showed me the true meaning of honest friendship.
Lastly, to all my friends inside and outside of COMS studies, I appreciated the academic encounters I had with you, these experiences made graduate school enjoyable and memorable.
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
Abstract ...... iii Acknowledgments...... v List of Tables ...... xii List of Figures ...... xiii Chapter One: Introduction ...... 1 Statement of the Problem ...... 1 Major Assumptions of the Study ...... 9 Rationale and Significance of the Study ...... 9 Definition and Explanation of Terms ...... 12 Chapter Two: Literature Review ...... 14 Historical Representations of Anal Sex ...... 14 Early Exploration of Anal Sex ...... 17 Contemporary Research of Anal Sex ...... 19 Understanding Risk ...... 24 The Counter Culture of Risk ...... 26 Meta and Micro-Theoretical Perspectives ...... 28 Privacy and Disclosure ...... 32 Chapter Two Summary ...... 35 Chapter Three: Methodology ...... 36 Qualitative Research Paradigm ...... 36 The Researcher‟s Role ...... 38 Phenomenological Methods ...... 40 Transcendental Phenomenological Data Analysis ...... 43 Phenomenological Epoche ...... 43 Phenomenological Reduction ...... 48 Imaginative Variation ...... 49 Synthesis of Meanings and Essences ...... 50 Phenomenological Evaluation Criteria ...... 51 Site and Population Selection Criteria ...... 52 Piloting the Study ...... 53 vii Recruitment of Participants ...... 54 Requirements for Informed Consent ...... 56 Data Gathering Methods ...... 57 Semi-structured In- Depth Interviews ...... 57 The Use of Diaries ...... 60 Summary of Chapter Three ...... 61 Chapter Four: Analysis of Findings Using Phenomenological Reduction ...... 63 Phenomenological Reduction of Institutional Socio-cultural Influences on Sexuality ...... 63 Sex Education Influences ...... 65 The Predominance of Abstinence Only ...... 65 Benefits of Sex Education ...... 70 Summary of Sex Education ...... 70 Religious Influences on Sex ...... 71 Religious Prohibition on Sex ...... 72 Prescribing Opposing Perspectives on Sex ...... 74 Summary of Religious Influences on Sex ...... 76 Family Influences on Sexual Choices ...... 76 Countering Conservative Family Values ...... 76 Non-Conservative Parental Views of Sex ...... 82 Fear of Disappointing or Shaming Family ...... 85 Personal Influences on sexuality ...... 88 Asserting the Self through Personal Morals ...... 89 Relational Sexual Standards ...... 89 Safety as Key to Engaging in Sex ...... 94 Flexible Views on sex ...... 95 Summary of Personal Influences on Sex ...... 97 Conclusion of Institutional and Personal Influences of sex ...... 98 Phenomenological Reduction of Participant Communication ...... 98 Communicating Anal Sex by Concealment ...... 99 Summary of Communicating Anal Sex by Concealment ...... 110
viii Communicating Sexual Experimentation, Pushing Boundaries and Stretching Limits ...... 110 Summary of Experimentation, Pushing Boundaries and Stretching Limits ... 118 Communicating Problematic Sexual Contexts ...... 118 Summary of Communicating Problem Contexts ...... 126 Communicating the Unmentionable “IT” ...... 126 Summary of Communicating the Unmentionable IT ...... 137 Communicating Anal Sex with Jokes ...... 138 Summary of Communicating Anal Sex with Jokes ...... 144 Summary on Phenomenological Reduction of Participant Communication ...... 144 Phenomenological Reduction on Privacy and Disclosure ...... 146 Disclosure of Anal Sex for Social Support ...... 147 Summary of Disclosure of Anal Sex for Social Support ...... 153 Disclosure of Interest in Anal Sex, Gauging Interest and Setting Boundaries ...... 154 Summary of Disclosing Interest for Anal sex through Open Communication, Gauging Interest and Setting Boundaries ...... 162 Disclosing Peer Reviews of Anal Sex ...... 162 Summary of Disclosing Peer Reviews of Anal Sex ...... 170 Unsurprising Disclosures of Anal Sex in Intimate Situations ...... 170 Summary of Unsurprising Disclosure of Anal Sex in Intimate Situations ..... 175 Tensions of Disclosure and Concealment ...... 175 Summary of Tensions of Disclosure and Concealment ...... 186 Disclosure of Sexual Pressure ...... 187 Summary Disclosure of Sexual Pressure ...... 197 Disclosing Sexual Negotiation ...... 197 Summary of Disclosing Sexual Negotiation ...... 214 Summary of Privacy and Disclosure ...... 214 Phenomenological Reduction of Meanings of Anal Sex ...... 215 Letting the Guy have what he wants, Asserting Men‟s Domination and Female Submission ...... 216 Summary of Letting the Guy have what he wants, Asserting Men‟s Domination and Female Submission ...... 234 Meanings of Discomfort from Anal Sex ...... 234
ix Summary of Meanings of Discomfort from Anal Sex ...... 239 Summary of Letting the Guy have what he wants, Asserting Men‟s Domination and Female Submission and Meanings of Discomfort from Anal Sex ...... 239 Phenomenological Reduction of Risk ...... 240 Infectious and Non-Infectious Risks of Anal Sex ...... 240 Summary of Infectious and Non-Infectious Risk of Anal Sex ...... 250 Participants‟ Suggested Methods of Minimizing Risks Associated with Anal Sex 250 Summary of Participants‟ Suggested Methods of Minimizing Risks Associated with Anal Sex ...... 259 Participant‟s Identified Benefits of Anal Sex ...... 259 Summary of Participants‟ Identified Benefits of Anal Sex ...... 269 Summary of Phenomenological Reduction of Risk ...... 269 Chapter Five: Discussion Of Imaginative Variation Institutional Socio-Cultural Influences As Disciplinary Codes Of Sexuality And Power ...... 271 Disciplinary Role of Power ...... 271 Power‟s Relation on the Sexual Body ...... 273 Relationship between Power and Sex ...... 275 U.S. Sex Education Implicated in Power Relations ...... 277 Family and Religious Influences on Sexuality ...... 283 Conclusion ...... 285 Stigma as Imaginative Variation ...... 286 Anal Sex as a Deeply Discredited Sexual Practice ...... 287 Socially Constructed Stigma ...... 288 Managing Stigma through Euphemisms ...... 289 Embarrassment, Shame and Stigma ...... 290 Conclusion ...... 291 Privacy and Disclosure as Imaginative Variation ...... 292 Selective Disclosure, Reciprocal Disclosure as Motivational Criteria ...... 293 Open Communication, Sexual Negotiation, Liking and Attraction as Motivational Criteria for Disclosure in Intimate Relationships ...... 295 Disclosure-Privacy Benefits ...... 298 Risk-Benefit Ratio Criteria ...... 299 Conclusion ...... 300
x Gender and Power as Imaginative Variation ...... 301 Gendered Heterosexuality ...... 301 Power in Gendered Heterosexual Relationships ...... 303 Sexual Scripts as Social Construction of Sexuality ...... 305 Connection to Feminist Gendered Discourses ...... 307 Risk as Imaginative Variation ...... 310 A Critique of Risk Discourse ...... 311 Understanding Risk ...... 312 College as a High Risk Context for Anal Sex ...... 315 Sexual Pleasure as a Possible Benefit of Anal Sex ...... 317 Summary of Risk as Imaginative Variation ...... 319 Chapter Six: Synthesis ...... 320 Theoretical Contributions of the Study ...... 320 Chapter Seven: Recommendations, Limitations and Future Research ...... 326 Recommendations for Sex Education Policy ...... 326 Recommendations for Health Promotion Policy/Interventions ...... 329 Targeting Peer Groups ...... 329 Targeting Sexual Partners ...... 330 Targeting Parents ...... 332 Limitations of the study ...... 332 Future Research ...... 334 References ...... 337 Appendix A: Consent Form ...... 360 Appendix B: E-mail Solicitation for Research Participants ...... 362 Appendix C: IRB Approval Letter ...... 363 Appendix D: Recruitment Flier ...... 364 Appendix E: Interview Guide ...... 365 Appendix F: Journal Questions ...... 369 Appendix G: Demographic Profiles...... 372
xi LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Demographic Profiles ...... 372
xii LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: Tori‟s diary describing concealment of anal sex and its association to homosexuality ...... 101
Figure 2: Shania‟s diary portraying concealment of anal sex and oral sex in euphemisms ...... 105
Figure 3: Leah‟s diary depicting another example of concealment of anal sex in euphemism in musical lyrics ...... 106
Figure 4: Katrina‟s diary depicting concealment of anal sex in musical lyrics ...... 107
Figure 5: Tami‟s diary illustrating concealment of anal sex in euphemisms as observed in conversations…………………………………………………………………………..108
Figure 6: Barb‟s diary relating high-risk anal sex with alcohol ...... 122
Figure 7: Peggy‟s diary indicating high risk unprotected anal sex and anal sex during menstruation...... 124
Figure 8: Hadley‟s diary entry portraying high risk anal sex ...... 125
Figure 9: Lacey‟s diary revealing how Joking was used in an interpersonal context ...141
Figure 10: Ella‟s diary portraying an offensive joke ...... 143
Figure 11: Grace‟s diary exemplifying the use of a joke among peers ...... 144
Figure 12: Aileen‟s diary, disclosure of anal sex in a social context ...... 150
Figure 13: Phoebe‟s diary highlighting concealment which occurred among close acquaintances ...... 183
Figure 14: Ella‟s diary typifies reading between the lines of a peer‟s verbal response ...... 184
Figure 15: Eden‟s diary disclosing sexual pressure in intimate settings ...... 192
Figure 16: Eden‟s second diary showing sexual pressure ...... 193
xiii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
Heterosexual anal sex (HAS) in a time of HIV/AIDS has received minimal research attention, although extensive research has been conducted among gay and bisexual populations (Baldwin & Baldwin, 2000). In the United States, HAS is increasingly becoming part of the sexual repertoire of heterosexual adolescents, young adults and adults (Mosher, Chandra & Jones, 2002). Previous sexual behavior research was directed to vaginal and oral sex; however, anal sex is also becoming part of sexual behavior investigations (Ompad et al., 2006; Linberg, Jones, & Santelli, 2008). Aral,
Patel, Holmes and Foxman (2005) found that, between 1995 and 2004, the prevalence of
HAS had doubled among adults in the U.S. Similarly, a 2002 National Survey of Family
Growth reported that 40% of males and 35% of females had anal sex with an opposite sex partner (Moher et al., 2002).
Research on HAS has mostly focused on adolescent and young adult sexual behaviors. Cornell and Halpern (2006) found that adolescents are starting to substitute oral sex and anal sex for vaginal sex. In fact, some clinic and community-based studies found that young people did not consider oral and anal sex as “sex” (Sanders & Reinisch,
1999). People who engage in anal sex also are more likely to engage in other high risk behaviors. These include inconsistent use of condoms (Civic, 2000), early sexual début
(Flannery & Ellingson, 2003), lack of condom use (Hollander, 2009), the use of amphetamines among women (Reynold, Latimore, & Fisher, 2008), and having multiple partners (Gorbach et al., 2009). Coupled with these high risk behaviors are the social and cultural risks that are perpetuated by the silence about anal sex that exists in most sexual
education materials and high schools‟ and colleges‟ human sexuality curricula (Flannery
& Ellingson, 2003).
As we move into the future, sex education professionals, public health professionals and medical health professionals will have to confront anal sexuality among adolescents and young adults more openly. Hollander (2009) recommended continuous monitoring of anal sex prevalence among high-risk groups as well as in the general population. In addition, Lescano et al. (2009) advocated for more open communication between providers and their young clients. Lescano et al. asserted that when patients were being assessed for vaginal sex, health providers also needed to assess their patients for anal sex. Tackling this sensitive issue between providers and patients will require health providers to engage in reflective assessments of personal and professional biases
(Surgeon General, 2001).
Emerging HAS research has focused on the prevalence and the associated high risk behaviors of heterosexuals who engage in anal sex. Studies conducted by Halperin
(1999) Baldwin and Baldwin (2000) Flannery and Ellingson (2003), and Lescano et al.
(2009) have not provided us with information on the ways in which adolescents and young adults are talking about anal sex with peers in sexual relationships and possibly with health professionals. This study explored how college students communicated about
HAS in order to fill this gap.
According to Halperin (1999), cultural taboos prevent individuals from acknowledging that they engage in anal intercourse. These taboos emanate from associating anal sex with men who have sex with men (MSM) and rarely with heterosexual individuals. Green (2005) explained that cultures that honor biological and
2 reproductive functions involving penile-vaginal intercourse devalue other sexual expressions such as anal sex. For instance, Green noted that among males in Rome, passive receptive anal sex was considered an act against human nature. This was mostly because sex acts were closely linked to procreation. We may cautiously assume that heterosexual individuals who engage in anal sex might encounter similar negative attitudes that is directed towards homosexual because such views emanate from societal cultural views on sex ((Hallows, 2007).
In addition, considerable stigma is associated with discussions of anal sex
(Flannery, Ellingson, Votaw, & Schaefer, 2003). It is not uncommon for heterosexual individuals to ignore or be silent about anal sex because of the stigma. Anorectaphobia, a concept coined by Voeller (1991), captured the discomfort and unwillingness people exhibit towards discussions of anal sex. The idea of anal sex makes many people queasy because it is perceived as “dirty, unnatural, immoral and physically dangerous” (Hallows,
2007, p. 430). Also, people guided by Judeo-Christian values often do not talk about anal sex because religion has proscribed anal sex as an unacceptable sexual practice (Baldwin
& Baldwin, 2000). Regardless of the values that are embraced, heterosexual anal sex is infrequently addressed as a risk factor for potential HIV and STI infection among heterosexuals (Misegades, Page-Shafer, Halperin, McFarland, & the YWS Study
Investigators Group, 2001).
As anal sex gains popularity, it becomes increasingly important to identify high risk populations. Adolescents and young adults often enact high-risk behaviors such as having multiple partners, and engaging in drugs and alcohol before participating in sexual activities (Flannery & Ellingson, 2003). Furthermore, young adults in college are also
3 susceptible to STIs (Sexually Transmitted Infections) than non-students of the same age
(Flannery, Ellingson, Votaw, & Schaefer, 2003).
College students fall within an especially high risk group for contracting HIV because of their experimental sexual practices (Doljanac & Zimmerman, 1998; Eaton,
Flisher, & Aaro, 2003). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2007) defined experimental behavior as comprised of multiple sexual partners, alcohol and substance use before sexual activity, and unprotected sex. These behaviors all reinforce risk.
Recently, a US nationally representative study among 15-19 year old adolescents indicated that 55% of adolescents had engaged in oral sex while 11% had engaged in anal sex (Lindberg, Jones, and Santelli, 2008). Although the percentage of adolescents who engaged in anal sex was small, Lindberg et al. indicated that the odds of engaging in anal sex increased with sexual experience and with time. It seems that adolescents opted for oral and anal sex as these were viewed to be less risky even when they have been observed to cause viral and non-viral STIs (Halperin, 1999; Cornell & Halperin-Fisher,
2006). This literature reinforces the notion that HAS starts early. By the time an adolescent comes to college he/she will likely have heard about anal sex from his/her peers or other popular culture medium, and actually have experienced it.
Baldwin and Baldwin (2000), in a survey among 893 undergraduate college students, found that 23% non-virgins had engaged in anal sex. In this study strong indications to engage in anal sex were found amongst individuals who initiated sex early, used unreliable contraceptive methods, and had not used condoms at last vaginal intercourse. The study also highlighted that there was a lack of concern for HIV infection among some participants because of the high risk behaviors they engaged it. Specifically,
4 only 20.9 % of the participants who engaged in anal sex used condoms, compared to
42.9% who had used condoms during vaginal sex. It seems that some participants in this study did not see the need for condom protection as the sexual risks (e.g, STIs) associated with vaginal sex may not have been linked to HAS. Although Baldwin and Baldwin found that college students were aware that anal sex transmitted HIV, they also found that college students opted to behave in ignorance. Thomson, Anderson, Freedman, and
Swan (1996) explained that college students tended to create illusions of safety when they engage in high risk behavior. Experimental populations underestimate their risk perhaps because the context of college encourages risk taking.
Of all sexual practices, anal sex has the greatest risk for HIV transmission
(Halperin, 1999). Varghese, Maher, Peterman, Branson, and Steketee (2002) illustrated that receptive anal sex increased the risk for HIV transmission more than oral and vaginal sex. For women, receptive anal sex poses even more risks because of their anatomical make up. Gross et al. (2000) noted that the estimated probability for HIV infection was as much as 10 times higher with receptive anal intercourse than with penile-vaginal sex.
Anal sexual intercourse has also been associated with anal cancer, human papillomavirus and hepatitis B (Halperin, 1999; Holly et al., 2001). The potential health concerns that can arise from unprotected anal sex call on health communicators to explore meanings of this phenomenon and to examine how they also review privacy and disclosure management and how risk become attended to by college students.
For instance, a study by Civic (2000) showed that college students who engaged in anal sex rarely used condoms for protection. Participants in this convenience sample indicated several reasons. Participants claimed that they just knew their partner was safe,
5 that pregnancy was not an issue, that sex was unplanned and spontaneous, or that a partner tested negative for HIV/STDs. Given that some college students can estimate risks, it seems that, in some instances, students trust that their sexual partners will fully disclose their sexual histories (Cochran & Mays, 1990).
There is a large gap in understanding how college students communicate about anal sex in terms of the language they use and when and how they talk about or do not talk about anal sex. This study contributes to the sparse literature on anal sex research within the broader sexual health and health communication fields. The study also made some theoretical contributions that connect the broader meta-theoretical perspectives of sexuality and power from Foucault (1980,1990) with the micro-theoretical perspectives from Petronio‟s (2002) Communication Privacy Management. This theoretical joining will help us understand how interpersonal dynamics are shaped when anal sex is discussed. With this in mind, communication about anal sex in this study was explored in three main ways. First, meanings associated with anal sex as portrayed by the participant‟s perspective. Second, disclosure and privacy management as participants talked about HAS with their peers and sexual partners. Last, how participants understood the sexual risks related with HAS. Having stated the three areas of inquiry, this study pursued the following main research questions.R.Q1. What broader socio-cultural features influence participant sexual choices? R.Q.2. How, if at all, do participants communicate about anal sex? R.Q.3. What are the ways in which participants give meanings to anal sex? R.Q. 4. How do participants manage privacy and disclosure of anal sex with their peers? R.Q. 5. How do participants talk about the sexual risks associated with anal sex?
6 Investigating meanings is typically at the core of illuminating how one understands phenomena. It seemed ideal to investigate the meanings college students attach to anal sex. Kurznan (2008) indicated that humans seek to understand their environments and therefore try to impose meanings on their world. Kurzman also recognized that these meanings influence human action and are often contested sites. In essence, these meanings include moral understandings of what is good or bad and what is considered distasteful or not (Kurznan, 2008). Similarly, I anticipate that moral considerations influence the meanings college students ascribe to anal sex.
In relation to examining privacy and disclosure management, anal sex is a stigmatized sexual practice that is associated with homosexuality. It follows that, because people are fearful of being stigmatized, they are likely to conceal than to disclose, since sexual matters are normally kept concealed (St. Lawrence, Husfeldt, Kelly, Hood, &
Smith, 1990). Petronio (2002) noted that individuals gauge their privacy access rule before they disclose any private information to recipients. Petronio elaborated that in a case of sexually abused children, certain characteristics needed to be present before they disclosed. These included credibility, supportiveness, presence of an advocate, protectiveness and the strength of the recipient. Although these characteristics may not all be present during privacy and disclosure management in discussions of anal sex, these traits provide us with some hints at the possible characteristics of the recipients that students might use.
Lastly, examining sexual risks is key in this type of study because of the inherent sexual risks associated with anal sex. Conclusive evidence suggests that penile-anal intercourse is a more effective pathway for HIV transmission (Boily et al., 2009) and STI
7 infection (Halperin, 1999) than penile vaginal intercourse. Additionally, it is important to be aware that anal sex poses different risks for women than for men. For instance, (HAS) has been associated with coercion among women (Halperin, 1999). Friedman et al.
(2001) found that women who were in sexual relationships where men took the lead sexually were more likely to engage in anal sex. Similarly, a study by Lescano et al.
(2009) also found that female adolescents and young adults who experienced sexual trauma had an increased chance of engaging in anal sex. In fact, a study of intimate partner violence found that many women considered anal sex as a form of sexual abuse
(El-Bassel, Gilbert, Elwin, Hyun, & Hill, 2005).
Furthermore, certain sexual risks affect women differently. Anatomical differences enhance STI infections in women even when condoms are used. Based on candid experiences of anal sex reported in a women‟s health blog on about.com (2003), women complained of “hole switching” as a cause of their vaginal infections. Hole switching was used to refer to the male penis switching from the anal area to the vagina without changing the condom even when a condom was used. Some women also complained of pain and anal fissures. These sexual risks are important to recognize as they are often unmentioned in discussions of sexual risks.
At the same time, it is important to be cognizant of the benefits of anal sex.
Halperin (1999) and Baldwin & Baldwin (2000) indicated that anal sex was associated with sexual pleasure for both men and women. In addition, anal sex also enabled women to remain virgins (Sanders, & Reinisch, 1999). Anal sex has also been used as a form of contraception (Civic, 2000). Given that the sexual risks related to HAS may be minimized among women, this study assumes that an understanding of how college
8 students‟ discuss anal sex is critical in determining what they talk about and how they talk about this high risk sexual practice.
Major Assumptions of the Study
This study was framed with the understanding that sexual behavior is a communicative act. Lear (1995) suggested that sexuality, like “language, is invested with a great deal of symbolic meanings” (p. 1315). Lear implied that the language of sexuality invokes cultural meanings and dictates the behaviors that individuals eventually enact.
These symbolic meanings dictate what is deemed acceptable or unacceptable. Through language we become aware of cultural expectations. By examining how college students talk about anal sex, I hope to arrive at an in-depth understanding of this sexual practice.
Exploring the language used among college students to describe how they communicate about anal sex will further deepen our understanding of the wider sexual language. Walsh (1990) pointedly noted:
Language is more than a mode of communication or a system composed of rules,
vocabulary and meanings; it is an active medium of social practice through which
people construct meanings, define and struggle over meaning in dialogue. (p. 32)
Through language we are able to make connections between individual behaviors and their contexts. Based on the language used we may infer the sexual decisions people might take, because language gives us a glimpse into the hidden cultural expectations that dictate what is permissible and what is not.
Rationale and Significance of the Study
College students are a particularly important target audience for this study because HIV incidents are on the rise among adolescents and young adults. The Centers
9 for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2008) indicated that 34% of new infections occurred in the 13-29 age group in 2006. In addition, the CDC (2008) also showed that at least 56, 500 young people aged 13-24 were living with AIDS. As these indicators show, college students represent a high risk population because of the high risk nature of their behaviors. Since college students comprise a population that is affected by HIV, it was important to examine how they talked about high risk sexual practices such as heterosexual anal sex (HAS).
This study was borne out of my general curiosity to understand how individuals talk about sensitive sexual taboo topics. Throughout the dissertation, I espouse a more popular cultural understanding of taboo. Mostly, taboo refers to a subject matter that is not openly talked about because it arouses discomfort to its listeners. Additionally, this understanding of taboo also acknowledges that secrecy surrounds most taboo topics.
The study is significant because it took a communicative angle in exploring the meanings, the way participants managed privacy and disclosure, and the participants‟ understanding of the sexual risks that are associated with anal sex. These three categories are interrelated in helping us understand the dynamics of communication that occur in relational interactions. On a broader level, the study will take an interpersonal communication perspective in examining the interactional dynamics related to how students communicate about anal sex.
This study will heed public health recommendations that call researchers to examine how individuals engage in intimate interpersonal communication related to sexual matters (Cline, Johnson, & Freeman, 1992). The Surgeon General’s Call to
Action on Sexual Health (2001) also advocated that health professionals understand the
10 diversity of sexual expression. With this mind, this study contributed an understanding of how students communicated about anal sex. The study also was significant because it added to the sparse literature on HAS and supplements the research that has been conducted among homosexual and bisexual men (Ompad, et al., 2006).
The study will also illuminate particular communicative patterns that emerge from how college students communicate about HAS. If these patterns are known, better targeted audience segmentation for college students who engage in HAS could be devised. Audience segmentation entails the systematic division of a population based on particular characteristics to determine how they will respond to an intervention (Forthofer
& Bryant, 2000). Atkin and Freimuth (1989) demonstrated that audience segmentation is a widely accepted strategy in health communication campaigns that influence health and social knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Rose, Bearden and Manning (1996) similarly noted that segmenting was useful in making messages fit particular or specific audiences.
Audience segmentation would enable more communication effectiveness and avoid wasteful exposure by targeting audiences that need the messages (Peltier, Schibrowsky,
Schultz, & Davis, 2002). The findings of this study could also be useful to sexual health education that addresses high-risk practices among specific college students.
In addition, learning the unique terminology of anal sex could lead to a better understanding of the context in which anal sex is discussed among college students. This language can be instrumental in highlighting potential student behaviors and attitudes.
Similarly, this language may also explicitly or implicitly shed more light on the communicative patterns related to how college students talk about taboo sexual practices such as anal sex.
11 Definition and Explanation of Terms
Heterosexual Anal Sex (HAS)
Refers to the penile-anal intercourse that occurs between heterosexual individuals
(Sanders & Reinisch, 1999). More explicitly, it refers to the insertion of the penis into the anus or rectum. Baldwin and Baldwin (2000) applied “heterosexual” to anal sex in order to make a distinction between homosexual anal sex and heterosexual anal sex. In this study, I mostly used the term heterosexual anal sex, however, on occasion I used receptive anal sex when discussing women‟s anal sex experiences. On occasion, I included unprotected anal sex when discussing participants who do not use protective condoms.
Privacy and Disclosure
These terms are borrowed from Petronio (2002) who uses them concurrently.
Petronio asserts that privacy and disclosure coexist dialectically. Specifically, privacy also implies closedness, whereas disclosure refers to openness. This tension is assumed to exist in this study as individuals contemplate whether to conceal or to reveal, or to tell, or not to tell, their anal sexual experiences. Equally salient, privacy and disclosure recognize the significance of the content under discussion (Petronio, 2002). This study recognized anal sex as a sensitive topic.
Meanings
I seek to understand the meaning of anal sex from a literal and abstract perspective. Kvale and Brinkmann (2009), in a circular question questioned what meaning really means. They explained that there is no real “true” meaning from our participants. Instead, Kvale and Brinkmann indicated that meanings have multiple
12 interpretations. Furthermore, they added that sometimes meanings can be contradictory; in such instances, these meanings enrich interpretation. It is from this perspective that meanings will be espoused in this study.
Social Constructionism
My epistemological position is premised on the belief that meanings originate from the social relations that humans create (Gergen & Gergen, 2000). In essence, meanings are grounded in social systems as opposed to individuals (Allen, 2005). Furthermore, knowledge is derived from larger dominant social discourses which change over time.
Social constructionism also recognizes the significance of language in the process of creating knowledge (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1995). I also use social constructionism and social constructivism interchangeably as there are no differences.
13 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
In Chapter Two, I review the literature. This chapter begins with some historical representations of anal sex as sodomy. This part is followed by anal sex research that was conducted during the early years of the HIV epidemic. Afterwards, I proceed to more contemporary research on heterosexual anal sex and how it provides a background for this study. Also included is literature on risk. Then, I present the meta and micro- theoretical perspectives by Foucault (1990) and Petronio (2002) that inform the study.
Historical Representations of Anal Sex
Anal sex has a history we cannot disregard. Once referred to as sodomy, this term regularly conjures negative connotations that continue to reverberate. Puff (2003) illustrated that sodomy was perceived as a sexual sin that was legitimate “behavior in marriage and part of illegitimate or impure sexual activities outside of marriage” (p.3).
Clearly, sodomy has negative connotations that emerged from Christian traditions. For example, Leviticus 18:22 has been read as forbidden homosexuality as sin. Sodomy is also referenced in Genesis 19 in connection to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
These biblical discourses on homosexuality reinforce practices of deterrence and punishment.
It is also been posited that, in some instances, sodomy was banned because it was believed that the devil participated in this sexual activity with witches (Evans, 1978). To depict how detestable and abominable sodomy was, a jurist coined the phrase “crimes against nature,” a phrase that took hold in most sodomy laws (Blackstone, 1769).
Originally, in the U.S, sodomy referred to two types of sexual acts: anal sexual intercourse between two men and between a man and a woman. Later on, sodomy also
14 included oral sex and bestiality (Sullivan, 2003). As generally enforced, sodomy laws have largely been applied to homosexuals and less to heterosexual couples (Sullivan,
2003). And yet, in 1838, an English court case ruling posited that, when anal sex occurred between a husband and a wife it still reflected buggery (another term for sodomy) and that both could be subjected to prosecution (Regina v. Jellyman, 1838).
This literature largely shows that negative attitudes have been directed at anal sex based on the religious and legal values of the time. To a large extent, these laws have mostly been applied to homosexual couples rather than to heterosexual couples, regardless of the sodomy laws pertaining to both.
Historically, the Anglo American legal system, with its foundation in English common law, prohibited and criminalized non-procreative eroticism and called it sodomy
(Painter, 2005). English common law recommended death to sodomites, even though it was rarely enforced (Devenport-Hines, 1990). As settlers moved to the Americas, sodomy laws became enforced in the colonies to provide social structure and order
(Painter, 2005). By 1610, the first sodomy law was instituted in the colony of Virginia and subsequently in other colonies.
In 2003, there was a dissolution of most US sodomy laws after the Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas. The Court‟s ruling stated that sexual relations that occurred in private between homosexual and heterosexual couples would no longer be subject to scrutiny and prosecution (Supreme Court of the United States, 2003). With such landmark changes in sodomy laws in the United States, negative attitudes towards anal sex perhaps are beginning to wane. Owing to these legal changes, sexual practices that once were considered taboo because of their association with homosexuals might no
15 longer have immense negative connotations among heterosexuals in the future. Exploring how heterosexual college students communicate about anal sex provides a glimpse into how anal sex is negotiated among this population.
In popular culture, anal sex has acquired various euphemisms. For example, Sue
Johansen (2005), a sex educator, noted that anal sex had a variety of names that include back door sex, bum sex (or butt sex), the Greek or Italian way, or fudge packing. In popular culture it is not uncommon to hear one of these references to anal sex in songs.
One such example are the lyrics of the song “I am a Back Door Man” (1965) by the controversial rock band The Doors. The song insinuated anal sex with women with excerpts that stated:
I am a back door man.
The men don‟t know,
But the little girls understand. (as cited in Daileader, 2002)
Daileader (2002) claimed that this song depicted the illicit and transgressive connotations of anal sex. However, music is not the only source of anal sex insinuations in popular culture.
Representations of anal sex have also been prevalent in film. For instance, the film, Brokeback Mountain (2005) portrayed complex gay sexual relations. According to
Osterweil (2007), this film explicitly displayed gay sex in ways that was different from depictions of homosexual sexual relations. In light of similar 1960s films, such as
Midnight Cowboy and Lonesome Cowboys that also alluded to same-sex relationship, these films portrayed anal sexual relations in implied ways. Homosexual relationships were subtlety introduced in these two films. Depictions of homosexual relations have not
16 always been overly negative, but film depictions of homosexual sex have not enhanced positive attitudes of this sexual practice either. Osterweil (2007) contended that close examination of homosexuality in movies has often been associated with love stories that end in tragedy. This was demonstrated by the death of the protagonist in Brokeback
Mountain.
Allusions to anal sex are present in popular culture. We can then deduce that, based on popular culture representations, portrayals of this type of sexual activity are becoming available. However, it appears that suggestions of anal sex remain largely negative. How individuals respond to such sexual information can only be left to speculation. In the meantime, engaging in conversations to explore how college students communicate about anal sex can enhance our understanding on how to better target such populations.
Below I present some early historical examinations of heterosexual anal sex
(HAS) research from a social scientific perspective. The literature below illustrates that heterosexual anal sex was a health concern during the early years of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
Early Exploration of Anal Sex
An extensive literature review of anal sex and its link to AIDS was conducted by
Voeller (1991). Voeller observed that scientists, as well as medical and health care practitioners, seemed uncomfortable with anal sex because it was not mentioned in their literature. During these early years, Melbye et al. (1985) demonstrated that women who engaged in anal sex with hemophiliacs experienced a significantly increased chance of
HIV infection than when they engaged in vaginal sex. Follow-up studies by Padian et al.
17 (1987a, 1987b) among North Californian women confirmed the risks of HIV infection as opposed to when they engaged in anal sex as opposed to vaginal sex. In these studies, women‟s risks for HIV infection doubled, and sometimes tripled, when they engaged in anal sex.
Voeller‟s (1991) review of anal sex studies also pointed to the variation in the populations that engaged in this practice. Anal sex was not only occurring among prostitutes, bisexual men, or men who have sex with men exclusively. It was occurring among married women, teens and college students as well. A study by Bell, Turner, and
Rosen (1975) featuring 2,262 written interviews with married women in the United States found that 8% had experienced anal sex. Jaffe, Seehaus, Wagner and Leadbeater‟s (1988) study of sexual behavior among 111 inner city adolescents found that 44% of the
Hispanic teens engaged in anal sex, as did 46.8% of Black teens. In this study, adolescent participation in anal sex was closely connected with increasing age. This study also concluded that there were no differences in anal sex practices between Black and
Hispanic adolescents.
Racial differences appear to have been observed among heterosexual partners that engaged in anal sex. At a New Jersey AIDS testing clinic, interviews carried out among
100 women who frequently attended the clinic showed that 21% of the women had participated in anal sex. Another AIDS clinic study by Nichlols et al. (1989), at a clinic attended by a large majority of Black and Hispanic heterosexual couples, showed that
53% of the total sample had engaged in anal sex at least once. In addition, these earlier reviews also illuminated the occurrence of anal sexually transmitted diseases.
18 Studies commissioned by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and conducted by Schmale et al. (1969), interviewed and examined 369 women at an
STD clinic. The findings indicated that out of the 206 women who presented with gonorrhea, 109 (53.1%) had rectal gonorrhea. McLone, Scotti, Mackey, and Hackney
(1968) carried out a study among 85 infected women; they also established that 50.6% of the women had rectal gonorrhea. A larger study by Berger, Keith and Moss (1975) found that among 2000 participants 191 tested positive to gonorrhea; among this group 49
(26%) had rectal gonorrhea. These studies demonstrate the serious need to examine anal sex among heterosexual couples because of the potential burden of sexually transmitted diseases.
These studies enable us to get a sense that anal sex is a growing trend and is part of the sexual repertoire among heterosexual groups. However, this historical overview does not demonstrate how heterosexual individuals communicate about anal sex. This aspect is important in order for us to understand the interpersonal dynamics that are related to the communication that occurs among college students.
Contemporary Research of Anal Sex
In recent times, research on heterosexual anal sex (HAS) has largely been quantitative and focused on experimental or clinical settings. These studies continue to focus on high risk groups or individuals. Most researchers have also examined HAS alongside other sexual behaviors such as vaginal and oral sex. In addition, these studies have also attempted to illuminate the characteristics and traits of individuals that engage in HAS. For instance, in a detailed quantitative study among 893 undergraduate college students, Baldwin and Baldwin (2000) sought to analyze the different behaviors that were
19 related to anal sex activities among college students. They hypothesized that individuals with erotophobia and erotophilia engaged in anal sex differently. Based on Fisher et al.
(1983) and Fisher‟s (1988) definitions, Baldwin and Baldwin hypothesized that erotophobes (people who were sex phobic) were less likely to engage in anal sexual intercourse than erotophiles (people who were likely to engage in sex). In support of this hypothesis, Baldwin and Baldwin found that 14.3% of erotophobes participated in anal sex in comparison to 34.4% of erotophiles. The hypothesis that individuals who were highly religious were unlikely to engage anal sex due to scriptural dictations was also unsupported in the study. Religiosity did not affect the participants‟ engagement in anal sex.
In relation to ethnicity and race, the findings showed that neither factor bore on who engaged in anal sex. Women in this study also appeared to self- disclose more easily when asked about engaging in anal sex than their male counterparts. Baldwin and
Baldwin‟s (2000) study was illuminating because they went beyond the mere identification of numbers of individuals that engaged in anal sex, but also attempted to examine what factors influenced anal sexual intercourse.
Among heterosexual adolescents, HAS has not been examined extensively.
Regardless of the sparse evidence, researchers have demonstrated that adolescent anal sex prevalence ranged from 20-30% (Gross et al., 2000; Kraner, McCoy, Evans, Evans, &
Sweeney, 2001; Edgardh, 2002). Such studies showed that anal sex is being practiced by younger populations. This occurrence might indicate that younger populations are likely to engage in anal sex more often during their life time. Among adolescents that engage in receptive anal sex, other high risk behaviors were also associated with HAS. These
20 included unprotected vaginal sex, use of illegal drugs and sexually transmitted diseases.
These same high risk behaviors were also linked to other high risk populations that engaged in anal sex.
Ompad et al. (2006) also illuminated the occurrence of HAS among 1715 adolescents and young adults in a disadvantaged community of Maryland, Baltimore.
This study documented the trajectory of high risk sexual behaviors among adolescents and young adults. Aside from demonstrating that sexual debut started early in one half of
U.S high school students (CDC, 2002), this study pointed out the variety of sexual behaviors in which adolescents and young adults engaged.
On the whole, 93.4% of Ompad et al.‟s (2006) sample for both women and men reported engaging in vaginal sex. Also 78.2% received oral sex, and 56.5% performed oral sex. Last, 9.8% reported receptive anal intercourse since the inception of sexual intercourse. Minimal differences were noted with regards to which racial group engaged in anal sex; 15.5% of female Blacks and 18.6% of female Whites engaged. This study highlighted that receptive anal sexual intercourse occurred early in both females and males. For females, the onset was 17 years for Blacks and 18 years for Whites. Men started earlier, at 15 years for Blacks and 17 years for Whites. The study by Ompad et al.
(2006) also highlighted that young adults with older partners tended to engage in sex much earlier. The age of the sexual partner determined the type of high risk sexual practice they engaged in. This study pointed out that adolescents and young adults who engaged in vaginal and oral sex subsequently had a tendency to engage in anal sex.
Lindberg, Jones and Sentalli (2008) also observed that the adolescents engaged in a wider variety of sexual practices. This study used nationally representative data from
21 the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) to investigate non-coital sexual activities among 2,271 adolescent females and males. The findings showed that 54% of females and 55% of males had engaged in oral sex and that 1 in 10 had anal sex. Lindberg et al. observed that the possibility of engaging in anal sex increased with time among sexually active adolescents. However, conflicting observations related to which race engaged in anal sex were noted in this study. For example, White adolescents with higher socioeconomic backgrounds were found to engage in anal sex. Given that 82% of the participants had engaged in oral sex, Lindberg et al. recommended that adolescents needed both coital and non-coital STI risk counseling and prevention. This study also exemplified that adolescents have the potential to engage in sexual practices that are potentially stigmatized, such as oral sex and anal sex (Lindberg et al., 2008).
On a different note, Kaestle and Halpern‟s (2007) study shed some light on the perceptions of anal sex in relationships of young adults. The study was based on a
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health among 6,421 young adults aged 18-24 year olds who were in sexual relationships that had lasted more than three months. This study examined the types of sexual activities that occurred in long term relationships and their relationship to love. The study illuminated that when individuals perceived their relationships to be loving, they engaged in a wide variety of sexual activities. Among these couples vaginal, oral and anal sex were reported. Furthermore, 23% of the young adults acknowledged having engaged in anal sex. Young adults who perceived to be in loving relationships associated oral sex with love. Furthermore, Kaestle and Halpern indicated that, while there were no differences in the prevalence of anal sex as reported by both men and women, men associated anal sex with love. Moreover the study
22 appeared to be making a connection between love and the variety of sexual practices young adults engaged in. Kaestle and Halpern (2007) concluded that individuals did not associate anal sex with any sexual risks. This study was significant in that it provided us with an insight as to why young adults might engage in high- risk sexual practices: this act could be perceived as an act of love.
Anal sex studies among college students remain scarce. Okoror, Burton, Saur, and
Coleman (2008) sought to investigate the prevalence of HAS in a needs assessment study among 606 college students at a public Midwestern university. The study showed that fewer than 10% (54) of the students indicated having engaged in anal sex in the past
30 days before the study was conducted. Fifty percent of the participants who admitted to anal sex were minorities, while less than 4% of White students reported engaging in anal sex. Based on the findings of the study, Okoror et al. recommended more culturally tailored STI and HIV prevention programs.
Similarly, Flannery and Ellingson (2003) conducted a sexual risk behavior survey among 778 freshmen during their first semester. This study demonstrated that anal sex occurred among 15% and 16% of females and males respectively. Flannery and Ellingson study showed an increase in the number of students that engaged in anal sex when compared to a similar study that was conducted by Siegal, Klein, and Roghmann, in
1999. Siegal, Klein, and Roghmann‟s study showed the occurrence of anal sex among
6% and 3% of college freshmen females and males respectively. The study also noted that women and men who participated in anal sex tended to have had an early sexual debut, were more confident with their bodies and masturbated more. The differences
23 between women and men were that males had more life time sexual partners than women. In next segment I shift to discussions of understating risk.
Understanding Risk
It has become increasingly obvious in western society that risk cannot be avoided.
People are continually preoccupied with damage, illness, and death (Caplan, 2001).
Giddens (1991) offered the same sentiment by illuminating that society had not become dangerous but was simply paying more attention to issues of risk. Other scholars, such as
Beck (1992), posited that risks in the twentieth century had become more globalized, increasing risk concerns for experts and the public. In addition, these risks have become more challenging in terms of how to manage them. Sexual risks offers similar challenges because they are often brought about by multiple causes which are subject to complex individual decision making.
The concept of risk in contemporary time has become linked with negativity.
Douglas (1992) indicated that risk was associated with danger while “high risk” was linked to a lot of danger (p. 24). Lupton (1999a) in her text entitled Risk, explained that there was more emphasis on the negative aspects than positive aspects in definitions of risk. Furedi (1997) also reinforced the idea of risk in negative terms by noting that risk
“refers to the probability of damage, injury, death or misfortune associated with a hazard”
(p. 17). Hazards are generally defined to mean “a threat to people and what they value”
(Furedi, 1997, p. 17). On the other hand, Hope (2005) disputed this largely negative association of risk with threats or hazards by countering that positive consequences could also result from risk. Short (1984) observed that risks that used this sort of analysis gave
24 minimal attention to positive aspects of risks. These scholars have investigated risks by recognizing costs and benefits which allow both negatives and positives to be weighed.
While this study recognized multiple definitions of risk, these general definitions of risk reflected the basic tenets that are common to an individual‟s assessments of personal risk. Lupton (1999b) indicated that many of the investigations of risk have assessed the causes of risk, how risk can be predicted as well and how people react to risk. Most of these examinations have used rationalistic approaches. Lupton examined how lay people, as opposed to experts, constructed risk. Lay people‟s knowledge and perceptions of risk were viewed as ignorant and unscientific because of their reliance on unsophisticated knowledge. Bradley (1989) argued that experts needed to recognize subjectiveness as an unavoidable part of human judgment in risk assessments, even by experts. Sexual risk has mostly been identified by public health experts who define what risk is (e.g, lack of condom use, having multiple sexual partners, contracting HIV and
STIs). While these are clearly material risks, Lupton suggests that we should also recognize and attempt to understand risk from a social constructionist perspective. From this perspective, knowledge about risk is assumed to exist within a socio-cultural context where meanings of risk are created through socialization and social interaction (Lupton,
1999). Proponents of this position (e.g. Fox, 1999; Hilgartner, 1992) have extended this argument by asserting that a risk comes into being when it is socially constructed and labeled as such.
Douglas (1992), a cultural theorist, extensively explored risk with the assertion that culture contributed to our perception of risk. Douglas (1985) contended that individuals often used shared conventions, expectations and cultural categories to
25 determine how these risks served social purposes and responsibilities. She argued that individuals exist in contexts where certain actions and behaviors are already labeled risky. For example, sex without condoms is an accepted risk and serves to deter and protect at the same time. This socially accepted norm or expectation, according to
Douglas, served as a mnemonic for individuals to determine their risk because they already had a socially accepted model for risk.
Another key argument that Douglas (1992) extended in understanding risk in relation to politics was related to accountability, responsibility and blame. In this argument, Douglas questioned why some risks were ignored and others downplayed while still other risks were responded to with high anxiety, fear and anger. Douglas claimed that, in a society, certain behaviors or things were selected as risks for purposes that make sense to that culture because of their shared values and concerns. Although
Douglas recognized the existence of material risks, her assertions regarding the political nature of risks could be used to explain why anal sex has not received enough attention as a high risk sexual practice among heterosexuals.
The Counter Culture of Risk
Although risk taking is mostly examined in negative ways, other scholars have contended that individuals who engage in risks rationalize their behaviors. Lupton
(1999a) also recognized that risk taking is viewed as “foolhardy, careless, irresponsible and even deviant” (p.148). Lupton elaborated, however, that a counter discourse exists that embraces risk taking in a more positive light, as it provides an escape. Additionally, courting danger while offering excitement also gives participants a sense of satisfaction.
This attraction to risk taking has been explained in various ways. Cohen and Taylor
26 (1992) demonstrated that the banal nature of everyday routine life stifles people to a point where they begin to seek out an escape from reality. This notion of risk taking is particularly important among college students who might be experimental in various facets of their lives.
On the other hand, Giddens (1990) elaborated that, even though routines provide ontological security, individuals might engage in risk taking in order to test themselves to examine how daring they might be, even when they are fully aware of the risks.
Individuals may also become bound together by engaging in the same type of risk.
Lupton (1999) noted that such individuals may form a community of sorts because they perceive each other to be tough-minded based on risks that are deemed edgy. This connection to the communal can be dangerous because such individuals lose their sense of individuality as part of “mass bodies/selves” whose purpose is the pursuit of high-risk.
Correspondingly, it is possible to assume that sexual risks, in this case engaging in anal sex, could be a break from the everyday sexual routines that people engage in.
Sibley (1995) illustrated that individuals cross boundaries from familiar spaces (routine behaviors) to novel experiences they have little control over. It seems that the anxiety and fear that such novel experience evoke, even when they can prove fatal, are in themselves exciting enough. This is “the thrill of transgression” (p. 32). Lupton (1999) also elaborated that experimental sexual intercourse derives its excitement from being associated with the “dirty and forbidden” ( Sibley, 1995, p. 164). For certain individuals, anal sex can also be perceived to fall within these boundaries of transgression, perhaps even more so than penile-vaginal sexual intercourse.
27 Cohen and Taylor (1992) extended this argument and asserted that other sexual practices, such homosexuality or other socially proscribed acts like adultery, can be exciting; yet, they also prompt guilt, fear and anxiety. It appears that the more deviant an action is deemed, the more likely it becomes attractive and appealing because it has elements of specialness that provide an escape to individuals who prefer high-risk behavior. However, when a sexual activity becomes more acceptable in the mainstream and less deviant, it looses its appeal as an escape to risk takers (Lupton, 1999). What we can infer from this perspective of risk is that individuals are attracted to certain sexual risks because of their appeal and because of their categorization. This perspective on risk extends how we view risks as it is more encompassing because it pays more attention to the motivations that drive individuals to engage in risks.
Meta and Micro-Theoretical Perspectives
In the following segment, I discuss my meta-theoretical position. It is informed by
Foucault‟s (1990) History of Sexuality as an underpinning theoretical guideline.
Foucault‟s theoretical perspectives on sexuality will allow me to recognize the historical discourse of sexuality in the West. Thereafter, I will discuss the micro-theoretical perspectives of privacy and disclosure as informed by Petronio‟s (2002) Communication
Privacy Management theory. This angle will allow me to interrogate the interpersonal aspects related to how participants communicate about HAS in their relational encounters.
A Foucauldian perspective on sex from Volume I of the History of Sexuality informs the conceptualization of HAS for this study. Foucault‟s conceptualization of sexuality took an in-depth look at the historical development of sexuality from the 17th
28 through the 18th centuries. Foucault (1990) illustrated that, during the 17th, and 18th centuries, “sexual practices had little need of secrecy; words were said without undue reticence and things were done without too much concealment, one had a tolerant familiarity with the illicit” (p. 3). Contemporary prudishness has been a recent development in Western cultures, even though sexual content is seemingly all pervasive.
When we look at the course of Western history, sexual practices have become diverse and have increased in variety. As a result, sexual practices have received varied attention from political, religious and medical institutions. The diversity of sexual practices has led to a labeling of individuals. Consequently, rhetorical stances that advance what is an acceptable or unacceptable sexual practice are determined by particular social structures such as public health institutions that define the sexual categories to serve specific purposes. For instance, in relation to this study, we are aware that anal sex has largely been associated with individuals who use drugs or are homosexual (Lewis, Watters, & Case, 1990; Friedman et al., 2001). This type of categorization signifies that anal sex has mostly been associated with marginalized individuals in society who are typically considered deviant. The result of such associations is that we might overlook sexual practices such as anal sex if individuals that do not fall within the traditionally marginalized categories that perform them.
In addition, the diversity of sexual practices has called into being control mechanisms that keep sexual practices in check. These mechanisms maybe explicit or implicit. Foucault (1990) noted that, in order to maintain control of these emerging sexualities, codes that enforced sexuality were instituted. These disciplinary codes were historically guided by religion, medicine and the law (Foucault, 1990). In terms of how
29 religion played a role, Foucault offered an 18th century example. He claimed that the
Christian pastoral played a role in determining what was “illicit and licit” (p. 37).
Specifically, sex within matrimonial relationships was regulated by stipulations on how and when it occurred and for what purpose. In contemporary society undertones of these religious regulations still exist. For example, some churches forbid contraceptive use, forbid homosexuality or advocate for chastity.
Other agencies of control and surveillance on sexual practices have emerged from medicine. Public health and health promotion agencies have set the health agenda for populations. According to Foucault (1990), these forms of power have medicalized bodies. One such instance is the “policing of sex” as a form of power. Medicine has become a tool that has instituted how sex is observed. Foucault (1990) explained:
the oddities of sex relied on the technology of health and pathology… sexuality
was a medical and medicalizable object, one had to try and detect it–as a lesion, a
dysfunction or a symptom- in the depths of the organism or on the surface of the
skin, or among all the signs of behavior. The power which thus took charge of
sexuality set about contacting bodies, caressing them with its eyes. (p. 44)
In contemporary times, the medicalization of sex and sexual practices has continued.
Sexual practices that do not follow the norm are subjected to intense scrutiny by health institutions and maybe deemed unnatural and sick. Furthermore, this labeling determines what is high-risk sexual behavior and what is not and what receives the most research attention and what does not, as well as what is spoken about and what remains silenced.
Although Foucault largely spoke of the medicalized sexual body in his defense of the homosexual body, I also advance that individuals that engage in sexual practices that are
30 not socially accepted are exposed to these pathologizing discourses similar to those applied to homosexual individuals. Because sexual practices are sanctioned implicitly or explicitly by socio-cultural factors in our society (Foucault, 1990), these positive and negative sanctions shape the sexual behaviors that individuals engage in. Based on the social construction of sexual practices that are permitted or not, individuals learn how to perform acceptable sexual actions. Since heterosexual vaginal-penile sex is socially acceptable, individuals who engage in disapproved heterosexual anal-penile intercourse might not openly expose knowledge of their sexual behaviors to their peers. Hence, individuals may engage in some kind of performance that enacts socially acceptable sexual practices. Goffman (1959) illustrated that people were influenced by the moral character that is defined by society. Thus, individuals are assumed to be pressured to project acceptable social characteristics because they would then be treated appropriately.
Foucault (1990) also acknowledged the role of power in shaping how sexuality was articulated. He posited that power generally was suppressive to bodies. Foucault argued that the kind of power that works to “incite, control, monitor, and optimize” power provides social order (136). Foucault (1990) recognized that power related to sexuality was influenced by “biopower.” Biopower replaced the repressive force that enforced sexuality; bio power was qualified to “measure, appraise and hierarchize”
(p.144). In fact, this biopower can easily be observed by the surveillance and control measures that medicine or public health institutions exert. Furthermore, this study noted that bio power was reflected in the sexual sanctions that are taken up in educational systems, or religious bodies and some families (e.g. the promotion of abstinence only and muting other sexual options).
31 Additionally, biopower serves a disciplinary role for surveillance. This surveillance allows bodies to be kept in check with prescribed social behaviors. Bio power has shifted beyond medical and public health surveillance as individuals are socialized to acceptable sexual norms. Foucault (1974) asserted that the watchers and the observed can develop an impersonal and anonymous relationship with power because there is no way of verifying who is watching. As a result, the assumption of a regular watcher makes individuals to monitor themselves (Foucault, 1974). When power becomes exerted at this individual level, we see Foucault‟s “extensions of disciplinary institutions” (p.210) in bio power playing out at the individual level. People may internalize social prescriptions of sexual behavior.
Below, I shift to Petronio‟s (2002) Communication Privacy Management (CPM)
Theory in order to elaborate on the micro-theoretical underpinnings of this study.
Privacy and Disclosure
All sexual practices give rise to concerns of privacy and disclosure in relational encounters. In this study, I took the position that anal sex enhanced the tension of disclosure and privacy as Petronio noted. Such a perspective was espoused because information about anal sex is loaded with meanings that are strongly tied to morals and stigma. Sandra Petronio‟s (2002) CPM illuminated the tensions that individuals face when they engage in a stigmatized sexual practice such as anal sex at the micro level.
Communication Privacy Management theory (CPM) has been applied to investigations that are deemed sensitive and taboo. For instance, researchers have examined CPM in situations of child sexual abuse (Petronio, Reeder, Hecht, & Mon‟t Ros-Mendoza, 1996), disclosure among individuals with HIV/AIDS (Greene & Serovich, 1996), and in medical
32 mistakes (Allman, 1995). Likewise, in this study there was an assumption that information related to anal sex was highly personal, concealed and taboo.
Petronio‟s (2002) Communication Privacy Management theory (CPM) relies on rule-based management which is guided by metaphorical boundaries that provide structure to interactions (Pearce 1976; Pearce & Cronen, 1980). A rule management process allows us to understand how disclosure and privacy comes about. These rules are responsible for “determining who receives a disclosure, when, how much or how little, where the disclosure occurs, and how a person might conceal information” (p.23). All these rules shape the management of private information. According to Petronio, interaction patterns could be determined by examining talk related to interactions. In order to understand how rules work in a communication interaction of private information, Petronio suggested five criteria determine privacy access. These include culture, gender, motivations, context and the risk-benefit ration.
In this study, it was expected that the discloser would conceal sexually related information because it is labeled sensitive and secret (Afifi and Caughlin, 2006; Afifi,
Olson, & Amstrong, 2005; Hill, Thompson, Cogar, & Denman, 1993; Kelly, 1998; Lane
& Wegner 1995; Matthews, Derlega, Morrow, 2006). Studies conducted among college students indicated that sexually related topics such as masturbation, sexual intercourse, sexual fantasies, infidelity, and sexual orientation were found to be risky and often kept secret (Afifi & Caughlin, 2006; Vrij et al. 2002; Lane & Wegner, 1995).
Petronio (1991) asserted that disclosing private information can be beneficial in interpersonal relationships. In acknowledgement, such a benefit would be determined largely by what is being disclosed and the circumstances in which disclosure is occurring.
33 However, because of the stigma associated with anal sex encounters, individuals may withhold information about past anal sex encounters. This withholding has sexual health implications for the partners involved in the relationship. In medical encounters, withholding anal sexual practices, especially if the participant has medical concerns, would deny them access to sexual health information and services that may be protective of their well-being.
It is widely accepted that individuals tend to struggle to maintain their public lives as they manage the dignity of their private lives, because, embedded between these two categories, are dialectical tensions (Westin, 1970). Petronio (2002) indicated that people are aware that sharing private information can be risky as it can make them feel
“embarrassed, uncomfortable and exposed” (p. 1). In addition, nowhere might these emotions be cultivated than when talking about anal sex in relational encounters.
According to Goffman (1963), “society establishes the means of categorizing persons and the complement of attributes felt to be ordinary and natural for members of each of these categories” (p. 2). Because anal sex has often been categorized as a sexual practice that occurs among homosexual communities, there seems to be a strongly held assumption that only penile-vaginal sex occurs among heterosexual individuals. Thus heterosexual individuals may be fearful of being categorized and associated with a sexual practice that has been associated with stigmatized groups and homosexual individuals.
Goffman (1963) explained that stigma is “an attribute that is deeply discrediting, but it should be seen that a language of relationships, not attributes, is really needed” (p.3).
Goffman‟s (1963) illumination of stigmatized practices ties in well with Petronio‟ rule based CPM theory in understanding how students may communicate about anal sex.
34 CPM is grounded in a rule management process that asserts that people make use of privacy rule foundations to manage revealing and concealing of their private information
(Petronio, 2002). This is particularly true with most sexual information and more so in cases where sexual practices are stigmatized. Furthermore, private information is often co-owned with relational partners, resulting in the need to coordinate collectively owed boundaries.
Chapter Two Summary
Chapter two discussed relevant literature. I outlined the historical representations of sodomy in U.S and British society and elaborated on depictions of anal sex in popular culture. Afterwards I outlined early accounts of anal sex research during the early years of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Afterwards I documented contemporary social scientific research on heterosexual anal sex (HAS) among adolescents and young adults. This segment was followed by literature on risk. I concluded by presenting my meta and micro-theoretical underpinnings of the study. The following chapter three outlines the dissertation methodology.
35 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Qualitative Research Paradigm
This qualitative inquiry was grounded on specific assumptions shaped by a paradigm or world view. Guba (1990) defined a paradigm as “a basic set of beliefs that guide action” (p.17). Different scholars refer to these beliefs by using different names,
Lincoln and Guba (2000) and Mertens (1998) referred to them as paradigms; Crotty
(1998) named them “philosophical assumptions” or “epistemologies.” Creswell (2003) called them alternative knowledge claims. This study undertook a social constructionism epistemology as a guiding paradigm. Below I point out some of the assumptions that I embrace as a qualitative researcher.
Creswell (2007) explained that social constructivism is premised on the notion that individuals try to understand the world they live in. Such an understanding relies on the notion that people comprehend the subjective meanings related to their experiences and interactions with others. Berger and Luckmann (1966) also claimed that researchers explore people‟s realities. Researchers glean knowledge from the realities of everyday life that are embedded in their participants‟ world so that a coherent whole is understood. This perspective allows researchers to explore and investigate specific aspects of this reality (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). In the same vein, this study assumed that sexuality and sexual expressions were part of people‟s everyday lived experiences, which consequently influenced how they communicated.
By examining the participant responses related to how they communicated about anal sex, the qualitative tools I employed enabled me to expose these communicative patterns and processes. My participants‟ language directed me to understand their
36 meaning making processes as they discussed how they communicated about anal sex. On a related point, Burrs (2003) emphasized the significance of language during social interactions by focusing on the processes of this interaction. Burr asserted that, when people talk to each other, knowledge is created. In the end, a world is also constructed through this performative process. According to Burr (2003) knowledge, is not something one has or does not have; instead, knowledge creation occurs because humans come together. Similarly, after exploring how participants communicated about anal sex, I was mindful that the meanings and, consequently, the knowledge that my participants associated with this sexual practice was shaped by their multiple interactions. At the same time, a co-construction of knowledge occurred between researcher and participant interaction.
Social constructionism also assumes that language guides human action (Burr,
2003). Even though people‟s language descriptions are important, Potter and Witherell
(1987) asserted that language is able to make things happen based on the interpretive repertoire people draw on. This repertoire serves as a resource from which people are able to construct meanings and justify the actions they take. Potter and Witherell‟s most important point is that people can engage contradictory repertoires as they explain their choices to serve different ends. In relation to this study, Potter and Witherell sensitized me to the potential contradictory nature of language with regards to how participants talked about anal sex.
According to Burr (2003), language creates knowledge and action that are bound up in power relations. Language has implications in determining what is permitted and what is not allowed. To elaborate, we all can attest certain sexual practices receive more
37 favorable reactions from the general public than anal sex. The negative connotations of anal sex reflect the power dynamic that surround how it is addressed. Another important assumption of the social constructionist paradigm was the multiple and diverse meanings that I looked for during the research process. This perspective allowed me to understand the participants varied perspectives related to how college students communicate about anal sex within their college context.
In addition, a constructivist paradigm took note of the significance of the context of the participants. In this study, I recognized the experimental nature of college and its influence on the sexual choices of participants. Specifically, the college culture includes drinking, new-found independence and feelings of invincibility. In this study, participant descriptions pointed to how college seems to foster sexual experimentation. Yet, I also recognized that the college context does not exist in a bubble; it is influenced by larger societal values and norms related to sexuality that trickle down and influence what sexual practices are deemed acceptable or unacceptable.
The Researcher‟s Role
Just like participants, researchers come to the research field with preconditioned ideas that are influenced by their social cultural beliefs and values. Creswell (2003) recommended that researchers reflexively think about how their personal biographies influence the study. Creswell further noted that this introspection allows the researcher to openly and honestly address their biases, values and interests that may influence the research endeavor.
My interest in examining how college students communicated about anal sex did not come about straight-forwardly. I was working on a study exploring the experiences of
38 men who have sex with men (MSM) in Zambia. During a review of literature related to men who have sex with men I noticed that, in an unpublished study by Zulu (2004), men alluded to women requesting anal sex. I was thrown by this finding because my initial attention was focused on MSM. I decided to change my research direction because I found that heterosexual anal sex had not been given enough research attention. I was fascinated that there was minimal research conducted to explore this subject matter despite its high- risk nature. Therefore, my study was borne out of a need to contribute to this sparse literature on anal sex by providing a communicative element.
This study allowed me to reflect on how sexual categories such as “heterosexual” or “homosexual” can, in themselves, become blinders towards how we explore high risk sexual practices. I realized that, by categorizing and associating anal sex with homosexual groups, we stand the possibility of not addressing this high risk sexual practice, among other individuals that experiment with anal sex. These individuals include college students.
Merten (2003) also noted that all research is laden with values. The sensitive and taboo nature of this topic made me to question my own values of sexuality and health.
Coming from a culture that does not openly address sexuality or acknowledge anal sex, I became driven and motivated to unpack the concerns of anal sex and its health implications. Even with this drive, I was constantly aware of the discomfort of broaching this subject. I found that the cultural values that relate to anal sex within the American culture are somewhat similar to my Zambian culture. Many people in both cultures are prudish about anal sex and the health implications it may have. Within American culture, anal sex is already being examined, although in a limited way, due to public health
39 concerns, while in the Zambian context this topic has yet to be explored among heterosexuals. This introspection led me to recognize Creswell‟s (2003) observation that the personal-self is not inseparable from the researcher-self. My personal curiosity turned into a research enterprise that sought to understand how participants communicated about anal sex.
Phenomenological Methods
Phenomenology was first articulated by Edmund Husserl who developed the analysis of conscious phenomena (1859-1938). A consensual phenomenological understanding of this methodology is hard to come by because different thinkers have divergent ideas on aspects of phenomenology (Giorgi, 2005). Major contributors to phenomenology include Heidegger, Sartre, and Merleau-Ponty (Spiegelberg, 1982).
However, across all of these scholars, major similarities stand out: the first is related to studying lived experiences; the second is the idea that people experience these lived experiences from a conscious perspective; and last, there is the reliance on descriptions that capture the essence of these experiences (Moustakas, 1994).Over the years, phenomenology has gained popularity in the social and health sciences (Creswell, 2007), particularly in sociology (Borgatta & Borgatta, 1992; Swingewood, 1991), psychology
(Giorgi, 1985) and Polkinghorne, 1989), nursing and health sciences (Nieswiadomy,
1993; Oiler, 1989), and education (Tesch, 1988; Van Maanen, 1990).
Phenomenology places human beings and their worlds at the center stage of exploration (Giorgi, 2005). Creswell (2007) illustrated that phenomenological studies describe the meanings that several individuals assign to their lived experience.
Phenomenology allows us to examine that which appears to the consciousness of
40 individuals as depicted in its multiple diverse forms. Kvale (1996) went a step further and pointed out that phenomenology allows us to expand on how this experience comes about. Cohen, Kahn and Seeves (1996) elaborated that phenomenological research is ideal when a study seeks to understand an experience from the perspective of those who experience it. Understanding how participants communicated about anal sex was grounded on the assumption that participants encountered anal sex in their everyday lives, from conversing with peers to what they are exposed to in the media or in their relationships.
Taylor and Bogdan (1984) noted that a social phenomena can only be understood from the perspective of how people describe their experience as they live in the world.
What is obvious with a phenomenological method is its focus on the conscious experience as perceived by the participants. Kvale (1996) noted that a phenomenological method focuses on the life world by being open to the experiences of the participants.
Researchers focus on describing participants‟ experience in precise ways. In addition, researchers also bracket foreknowledge of the issue under investigation as they seek essential meanings from the participant‟s experience.
In this study, what was of interest was how students communicated about anal sex. However, I was also open to new themes that I was unaware of. Van Manen (1990) also advanced the idea that phenomenology is not solely about description, but also about the researcher engaging in an interpretive process by making sense of the meanings participants associate with the phenomenon.
This study specifically relied on Moustaka‟s (1994) transcendental phenomenology methodology. Transcendental phenomenology has largely been
41 influenced by Duquesne Studies in phenomenological psychology (Giorgi, 1985) and its data analysis process (Van Kaam, 1966; Colaizz, 1978). Transcendental phenomenology was used for this study because its philosophical tenets “emphasizes subjectivity and discovery of the essences of experience and provides a systematic and disciplined methodology for the derivation of knowledge” (Husserl, 1965, p.5-6). In connection relation to this study, how participants experienced anal sexuality was perceived as a conscious and intentional process that emerged through participants‟ descriptions.
Husserl also posited that participants‟ descriptions are reflective of their “thoughts, feelings, examples, ideas, situations that portray what comprises an experience” (p. 47).
Based on participants‟ descriptions, overarching essences were explicated. These features of experience showed the complexity of how participants communicated about anal sex. Additionally in transcendental phenomenology perceptions are also viewed as a source of knowledge which provides a glimpse into the actions that individuals make
(Husserl, 1970). Phenomenology was also appealing because it asserts that a phenomenon could be examined from many angles and perspectives” (p.58).
By assuming a social constructionist epistemology I anticipated that there would be multiple perspectives to how participants communicated about anal sex. Given the sensitive nature of this topic transcendental phenomenology was appealing because of the epoche process which is the first analytical process. Because I espouse negative attitudes towards anal sex, I believed it was important to recognize my preexisting biases coming into the study through the epoche process. These biases were identified throughout the dissertation process and are explained in the epoche section below.
42 Transcendental Phenomenological Data Analysis
Moustakas‟ (1994) transcendental phenomenological methodology follows five steps. These steps follow a chronological order that starts with the epoche process, this step is followed by phenomenological reduction, then imaginative variation and lastly the synthesis stage. This dissertation followed all four steps as outlined by Moustaka (1994) transcendental phenomenological methodology. Below I outline each transcendental phenomenological methodological step.
Phenomenological Epoche
The epoche process is the first part of transcendental phenomenological analysis.
It stemmed from Husserlian phenomenology which denotes “setting aside our prejudgments, biases, and preconceived ideas about things” (p.85). In relation to this study, I attempted to bracket my prior impressions and assumptions related to anal sex and sexuality. Lanigan (1988) indicated that epoche requires the creation of “brackets around the experience to be described, not so much to isolate the experience „in‟ brackets as to keep the external presuppositions „outside‟ the brackets from influencing our descriptions” (p. 10). Schmidt (1968) similarly asserted that we “invalidate, inhibit and disqualify all commitments with reference to previous knowledge and experience” (p.59).
Epoche entails that the experience or phenomenon under study is placed in brackets so that it is assessed in new ways after excluding what is known a priori. Coming to this study with this perspective was what made transcendental phenomenology appealing. For me, anal sex conjured negative connotations well before I conducted this study. It was essential that I actively interrogate and manage these biases before, and during, the dissertation process.
43 Moustakas (1994) also explained that epoche allows the researcher to look at the phenomenon under examination in a fresh way after recognizing and bracketing off preexisting ideas related to the phenomenon. The purpose of epoche is to open the researcher‟s mind to new ways of seeing the phenomenon. According to Moustakas, epoche provides the researcher with some kind of originality of thought by assessing what “has been put in our minds by science or society, or government, or…one‟s parents, teachers, and authorities, but also one‟s friends” (p.86). The process of epoche is challenging as it requires that the researcher become transparent to themselves, by becoming “naïve and open minded” (p.86). Sallis (1992) also illustrated that epoche is a returning to the beginning of things. It is as though there is a continuous process of re- looking at the phenomenon in a new light by constantly revisiting one‟s positions and subjectivities.
Epoche encouraged me to be introspective, I assessed issues that might increase biases and interfere with the exploration of the phenomenon of how college students communicated about anal sex. Epoche reminds the researcher that he or she comes to the research field with preconditioned ideas that are influenced by their social cultural beliefs and values. Creswell (2003) recommended that researchers reflexively think about how their personal biographies influence the study. Creswell further encouraged an introspection that allowed the researcher to openly and honestly address their biases, values and interests that form part of the research endeavor.
One of the major concerns and biases I espoused before I begun the interviews was the impression that the participants would be prudish to openly speak about a highly sensitive topic to a stranger and a researcher with an international background. I am
44 originally from Zambia an African country where sex is hardly discussed, in fact any taboo sexual practices are met with silence. I was also aware of the generational differences between my participants and myself. I was in my mid thirties and my participants were late adolescents and young adults in a US college environment where experimentation of all kinds is often the norm. I grew up in a country where penile- vaginal sex is privileged and perceived as the norm. Anal sex and oral sex are rarely mentioned and are perceived as highly taboo sexual practices. Reflecting on these differences made me constantly aware of the need to be open minded to my participants‟ perspectives on anal sex and sexuality. By explaining these differences, I espoused a
“reflexive self awareness which recognizes the political/cultural consciousness” that I brought to the study (Patton, 2002, p.64). Further, such reflexivity engaged me in an
“ongoing examination of what I know and how I know it… by having an ongoing conversation about experience while simultaneously living in the moment” (Hertz, 1997, p.viii)
In order to minimize bias, I attempted to be open minded and concealed any facial expressions that depicted surprise. Participants were also informed of my non- judgmental perspective during the consent process. My prior experience as a health care professional in Zambia and South Africa helped me to empathize with individuals with health concerns. However, sometimes remaining neutral was difficult when participants divulged sexual circumstances that upset them. For instance, one participant was extremely upset that she contracted anal herpes from anal sex. Another was upset because she felt that she did not satisfy her sexual partner enough because he not only asked her to engage in vaginal and oral sex but asked her to engage in anal sex. It was during such
45 encounters that I found myself viewing my participants as victims of a sexual practice that was unsettling to me.
During the interview process, I realized the significance of rapport building and making participants comfortable by maintaining a non-judgmental demeanor. Patton
(1990) explained that “rapport means that I respect the people being interviewed, so that what they say is important because of who is saying it…Yet, I will not judge them for the content of what they say to me” (p. 317). I embraced Patton‟s notion of rapport because, even though I was uncomfortable with anal sex, I reminded myself that I was privileged to have my participants agree to be interviewed given the taboo nature of anal sex. This attitude served me well throughout the interviewing process. After conversing with various participants, I observed that participant‟s reactions to anal sex were varied. In general, participants‟ levels of discomfort were most obvious when they were asked specifically about anal sex. This rapport building was tested when one participant asked why this study was important and whether I had engaged in anal sex. It was at that moment that I noticed a reversal of roles, given that I was the one asking my participants intimate questions, this was an illuminating incidence. For the first time I experienced what it was like to be asked such an intimate question even though it was related to the research. Such a realization made me to become more respectful of my participants feelings and perspectives.
Even though I was aware that I needed to manage my biases by constantly being aware of them, it was during the data analysis that I wrestled with how to present my findings fairly. Most of my biases were skewed towards representing my participants‟ findings in a one sided manner. For instance, because of my discomfort with anal sex, I
46 tended to see my female participants as victims of this sexual practice rather than individuals who participated in the decision to engage in anal sex. It seems that I came to espouse this bias because most of the participants complained of pain and discomfort when they engaged in anal sex. Corbin and Strauss (2008) cautioned that,
sometimes researchers become so engrossed in their investigations that they don‟t
even realize that they have come to accept the assumptions or beliefs of their
respondents. The researcher must walk a fine line between getting into the hearts
and minds of respondents, while at the same time keeping enough distance to be
able to think clearly and analytically about what is being said or done. (p.80)
Coming to this realization was only made possible when my advisor recognized the bias that was projected in certain aspects of my interpretations. My bias was related to only portraying the findings in a unidimensional manner without recognizing other possible explanations for participants‟ perspectives. While the epoche process was intended to prevent such bias from occurring, I noticed that this was a challenging process yet a useful one because the reviews helped me to be more aware of the biases. Patton (2002) illustrated that expert review audit enhances the credibility of the analysis because the experts assess qualitative analysis without judgment. Other scholars have also highlighted the significance of peer reviews or expert reviews as a technique that allows ones work to be assessed by others (Ely, Anzul, Friedman, Garner, & Steinmetz, 1991;
Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Lincoln and Guba (1985) also asserted that peer critique or external reviews can serve as a devil‟s advocate because they can remind the researcher to be honest, ask hard questions about methods, and examine meanings. Not only was my analysis section read and critiqued by my advisor, an external reviewer from the
47 English department assessed my interpretations for potential biases. This review process was also important since my advisor is an American white male who offered an alternative perspective that I was unaware of. Both reviewers enabled me to view my analysis differently and to rework areas that were highlighted as biased and one sided.
Phenomenological Reduction
Phenomenological reduction is the step that follows the epoche process. Chapter four of the dissertation captures the phenomenological reduction of each of the five research questions of the dissertation. Phenomenological reduction was used to understand the in-depth interview data and diaries. This process described the lived experience of the participants as it pertained to how they communicated about anal sex.
Moustakas (1994) indicated that this stage is comprised of thick description of the phenomenon as the participants describe it. This study assumed that sexuality was a lived experience among the participants by exploring how anal sex was communicated among the participants. Phenomenological reduction involved identifying dominant statements from the 30 participant discourses in the interview transcripts and diaries. Moustakas
(1994) illustrated that attention needs to be directed at the details of the lived experience
(e.g. how they talked about sexuality and anal sex) specifically. This process required that
“I look and describe; look again and describe; look again and describe” (p. 90). The researcher is expected to continue engaging with the data in order to glean new angles on the phenomena until all perspectives are exhausted.
Furthermore, Moustakas (1994) suggested that this process of describing directs the researcher to focus on the experience (in this case on sexuality or communication about anal sex) so that the gaps in knowledge are filled while their meanings are
48 explored. With this in mind, Schmitt (1968) also noted that phenomenological reduction takes us back to the way things are, by exploring participants “beliefs, feelings and desires [that] shape the experience” (p. 67). During this stage of analysis concrete participant descriptions were privileged because they opened the researcher‟s eyes to how the participants experienced the phenomenon under study. As will be noted during phenomenological reduction, participant descriptions were categorized into meaning units or themes that allowed the researcher to make interconnections so that a unified whole was created.
Essentially, phenomenological reduction entails that the researcher identify significant statements that represent the phenomena from the transcripts (Moustakas,
1994). Each statement represents horizontalization; “when we horizontalize, each phenomenon has equal value as we seek to disclose its nature and essence” (p. 95). These horizons or statements are then categorized in themes that represent “a coherent textural description” (p. 97). In this study, participant‟s statements of horizons cohered around specific themes that answered the research questions posed. Broad themes include phenomenological reduction of the socio-cultural influences on sexuality; phenomenological reduction of participant communication; phenomenological reduction of privacy and disclosure; and, phenomenological reduction of meanings and lastly phenomenological reduction of risk.
Imaginative Variation
Imaginative variation is represented in chapter 5 of this dissertation. This section also covered each of the five main research questions of the dissertation. This process shifted beyond participants‟ descriptions that were captured in chapter 4. Imaginative
49 variation examines the underlying reasons as to why a phenomenon occurs in a particular manner. Moustakas (1994) explained that imaginative variation comprises the,
structural variation of an experience, the underlying and precipitating factors that
account for what is being experienced; in other words the “how” that speaks to the
conditions that illuminate the “what” of the experience. How did the experience
of the phenomenon come to be what it is?” (p. 98)
Imaginative variation recognizes that there are multiple perspectives that may explain the occurrence of a phenomenon. Kolkelmans (1967) elaborated that “reduction leads us from the realm of facts to that of general essences… to the sphere of ideas” (p. 30).
Imaginative variation is a higher order analysis that enhances our understanding of participant descriptions. The identified essences or universal structures are closely tied to the themes identified in chapter 4. Specifically, the essences or universal structures that were identified in this study were socio-cultural factors that influenced sexuality, stigma, gender and power, privacy and disclosure, and risk.
Synthesis of Meanings and Essences
The final step of transcendental phenomenology identified the overarching essences related to how participants communicated about anal sex. Essences for this study, emerged from the two theoretical questions related to participant‟s socio-cultural values and participant‟s privacy and disclosure. These essences appeared to capture the predominant influences of participant communication of anal sex. According to Hursserl
(1931) essence “means that which is common or universal… without which a thing [a phenomenon] would not be what it is” (p. 43). Therefore, in this dissertation the overarching essences brought together Foucault‟s (1990) notion of power and Petronio‟s
50 (2002) Communication Privacy Management (CPM) theories. These two theories advanced the understanding of how participants communicated about anal sex.
Phenomenological Evaluation Criteria
According to Flick (2002), maintaining “methodological consistency” enhances the quality of the qualitative research (p. 219). Flick highlighted that a researcher must stay true to the research method by following through the entire process of the selected methodology. According to Corbin and Strauss (2008), maintaining the methodological procedures and design enhances a study‟s credibility because methodologies have attained their credibility through the repetition of procedure. A phenomenological study also comes with specific criteria that speak to its quality.
While not all methodologies produce the expected quality of research, I attempted to maintain credibility by following through the entire process of transcendental phenomenology as laid out by Moustakas (1994). I engaged in epoche, phenomenological reduction, imaginative variation and synthesis. According to Polkinghorne (1989) the quality of a phenomenological research is judged on four criteria. Polkinghorne‟s first criteria which applied to this study was whether there was a clear phenomenon under study. In this study talking about anal sex was the phenomenon under study. The second tenet was whether the phenomenological methodology followed all the data analysis steps. Third was whether there is an overall essence(s) that is based on the description of the participants‟ experiences. Last the researcher was also reflexive throughout the research process. To the best of my knowledge, I stayed true to the methodological expectations of transcendental phenomenology in order to enhance the richness of this study.
51 Site and Population Selection Criteria
The targeted population for this study were college students from a university in the Midwestern United States. The university enrolls about 20,000 university students;
71% of the student enrollment is undergraduate students (University Fact Book, 2007).
The university is situated in a remote part of the state, but is accessible to major urban cities where more recreational amenities are readily available. The university has been labeled a party school by the Princeton Review (2010). Although this label might be subjective, it indicates that that alcohol is a big part of the social recreation of college students at this university.
Because of this label, the university‟s health promotion department has instituted activities that include sexual health education and alcohol management through peer instructors and social events that sensitize students to their sexual, emotional and physical health needs. Peer education is conducted at the university‟s main recreation center as well as in the university‟s residence halls where peer educators conduct reproductive and sexual service talks and demonstrations.
Exploring how students communicated about anal sex came with recruiting concerns because of the sensitive and sexual nature of the topic. Bogdan and Biklen
(1992) pointed to the significance of rationalizing why a site was chosen, detailing the activities that would take place, and determinining whether the study would be disruptive to the participants. Asking students about anal sex was intrusive even from my perspective; I engaged in semi-structured in-depth interviews which asked the students to divulge sexual information. Based on the participants that enrolled for this study, it seemed that my study attracted participants who were comfortable about sexual matters.
52 Inherent in this expectation was a potential bias that was hard to avoid. All participants who were solicited for this study were self identified heterosexual students.
Piloting the Study
The interview guide was piloted with four college students. Piloting allowed me to test the effectiveness of the questions posed. Siedman (1998) explained that a pilot alerts the researcher to concerns related to questions posed. Sampson (2004) claimed that a pilot affords the researcher the ability to refine questions and check which questions encourage researcher bias. Yin (2003) also recognized that data collection can be simulated to identify problem areas beforehand. The pilot study for this dissertation was carried out among one American and three Chinese students. The pilot was carried out among Chinese students because college was on recess and access to students was limited and difficult. It was conducted during the summer of 2009. After the pilot some questions were reworded for clarity and others were omitted.
At the beginning of the study some of the questions were further refined for clarity. Through this pilot, I made some minor changes to questions related to privacy and disclosure management to be asked to participants that had not engaged in anal sex.
Other corrections made were related to wording to enhance clarity. The pilot study also gave me a sense of the challenges of recruiting participants. As a result, other recruiting strategies were devised, such as soliciting for participants through e-mail, handing out fliers to students enrolled in basic courses, and posting adverts in the local University newspaper.
53 Recruitment of Participants
Recruitment was a major challenge for this study because of the sensitivity of the topic. In order to increase the participant pool, permission to solicit for undergraduate and graduate e-mails from the university‟s technology departments was sought. E-mails to solicit for participants were only e-mailed once (see Appendix B). Other participants were recruited through classroom solicitations from general communication classes and one human sexualities class. These students were given a copy of the recruitment flier
(see Appendix D). Other participants responded to the same recruitment flier that was posted around heavy traffic areas on compass.
After institutional review board approval (IRB) (see Appendix C) was granted, interviews were conducted between October, 1 and November, 9 2009. On average 5-6 interviews were carried out each week for the six week period of data collection. The length of interviews varied from 18-52 minutes (mean=30 minutes). In total thirty participants (N=30) were interviewed for the study. Seventeen of these participants had engaged in anal sex; among these seventeen one had not engaged in penetrative anal sex but engaged in anal oral sex. Thirteen participants had not engaged in anal sex. Only two males participated in this study; the rest were female.
When participants responded through e-mail, they were informed that the study was about anal sex as was required by IRB. If participants were comfortable talking about this sexual practice, interview appointments were set. Before the interview began participants were asked to read the consent form (see Appendix A). The participants were also asked if they would be comfortable being audio recorded. Interviews were conducted in my office. After the interviews, participants were encouraged to tell their peers about
54 this study through snowball sampling. Biernacki and Waldorf (1981) explained that snowball sampling “yields a study sample through referrals made among people who share or know of others who possess some characteristics that are of research interests”
(p. 141). Participants were solicited from the following ways; five through snowball referral; another five were solicited from classroom solicitation; nine responded to flier adverts; and eleven were recruited through e-mail.
Interviewing thirty participants enabled me to understand how participants communicated about anal sex in an in-depth manner because I enrolled more participants than are usually recruited in phenomenological studies. Several authors (Douglas, 1976;
Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Rubin & Rubin, 1985) highlighted that, when participants begin to report the same information, it means that a point of saturation has been reached. Furthermore, saturation is also signified when there was no new information added to the interviews.
In order to motivate participants, a $20 gift card was given to participants who completed the interview and the journal entry. A $10 gift card was given to participants who only participated in the interview. Participants who failed to complete the interview for various reasons were still given a $5 appreciation gift card for their time. Offering participants payments has received conflicting reactions. Payment can serve as a motivator for participants to consent to a study, especially if there are challenges of finding participants as encountered in this study (Russell, Moralejo, Burgess, 2000). On the other hand, ethicists and regulatory organizations have discouraged financial compensation because participants may feel pressured to participate and because compensation may create bias, and increase the cost of the research (Russell et al., 2000).
55 In this study compensation motivated some participants to participate. One participant requested for higher compensation in order to solicit his male peers to participate. His request was declined. Another participant indicated that her gift card was faulty; after checking with the store, the gift card had been used. These experiences demonstrated that compensation could potentially lead to questionable intentions of the participant‟s motives. Participants were informed at the beginning of the study that their information was highly valuable. Even though there were degrees of discomfort as the interview progressed, most of the participants seemed to answer to the best of their abilities.
Requirements for Informed Consent
Because this study involved discussions of sexual issues. This study was reviewed by a full committee of the IRB. Creswell (2007) recommended that participants not be placed at any risk during the research process. Confidentiality of the participants was protected in several ways. First, participant signatures were waived to ensure that participants were not connected to this study, an occurrence that has potential to violate their privacy. Second, I was not allowed keep any records of the participants such as names or contact information. Third, participants were informed of their right to withdraw from the study if they were uncomfortable with any questions during the process of the interview.
Although I have illuminated these ethical considerations, I am aware that the research process is one that is wrought with power imbalances. Participants are viewed as vulnerable and the researcher as the oppressor (Hatch, 2002). In order to minimize potential harm, participants that were distraught were referred to counseling services in
56 the university. Only two participants appeared upset when narrating their experiences.
They were informed of the option for counseling.
Data Gathering Methods
This study relied on two methods of gathering data. The first was semi-structured in- depth interviews and the second was the diary method.
Semi-structured In- Depth Interviews
For a qualitative study on a sensitive sexual subject, semi-structured in-depth interviews seemed ideal to investigate how students communicated about anal sex because they allowed the researcher to probe and to observe non-verbal signs. Interviews have the potential to delve more deeply into the phenomena for a better understanding.
In-depth interviews clearly have positive characteristics that are worth illuminating and important to this study.
Marshall and Rossman (1999) explained that in-depth interviews could be viewed as conversations that have predetermined questions. Lindlof and Taylor (2002) also viewed interviews as a form of controlled conversation which can be adaptable.
According to Marshall and Rossman, in-depth interviews respect the participant‟s responses. This is largely because the researcher is interested in the participant‟s perspective and viewpoints on the phenomenon under study. In general, what is significant to the interview is “the participant‟s views, not … the researcher‟s views”
(Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p.108). Patton (2002) highlighted that interviewing assumes that the interviewee‟s experiences are “meaningful, knowable and …can be made explicit” (p.341). Furthermore, Patton added that researchers should seek what is
57 in the interviewee mind. Hence, the stories of the participants invite the researcher into the participants‟ concealed world.
For this dissertation semi-structured in-depth interviews enabled me to understand how participants communicated about anal sex. Dicicco-Bloom and Crabtree (2006) claimed that “semi-structured in-depth interviews are usually organized around a set of predetermined open-ended questions, with other questions emerging from the dialogue between the interviewer and interviewees” (p. 315). In one sense, semi-structured in- depth interviews provided me with some control to address specific questions while at the same time keeping certain questions open for participants elaborate in detail.
The semi-structured in-depth interviews relied on an interview guide that was based on the broad research questions of the dissertation (socio-cultural influences, participant communication, meanings, disclosure and privacy and risks) (see Appendix
E). Lindlof and Taylor (2002) explained that an interview guide generally provides a direction to “ensure that all interviewees hear roughly the same questions in the same way although spontaneous follow up probes are usually allowed in order to clarify remarks or to ask for elaboration” (p.194). The interview guide was appropriate because this was an exploratory study; therefore having informal and flexible parts allowed for clarification and elaboration (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). The flexibility of the interview guide was appealing because, as Lindlof and Taylor (2002) stated, I could “adjust to the verbal style of the participants” … because “questions could be rephrased, broken up into smaller units or altered in other ways in order to achieve the goals set out by the researcher” (p.195). An important aspect of the interview guide is that it emphasizes the
58 goals of the interviews in terms of the topics to be explored and the criteria of a relevant and adequate response” (Gorden, 1969, p. 264-265).
There were two different types of participants, those who engaged in anal sex and those who had not. Questions related to the experience of anal sex and some questions on risk were not posed to participants who had not experienced anal sex. Because of the varied sexual experiences of the participants the depth and breadth of the participants‟ experiences responses varied tremendously. Midway through the study, I noticed that participants who had not engaged in anal sex provided less detailed responses. At this point in the data collection, I decided to only recruit participants who had engaged in anal sex because they offered more detailed responses.
The interview data was submitted for transcription to a professional transcription company. Before all the thirty interviews were transcribed, one interview was submitted to test the quality of transcription. After evaluating the transcription for quality against the audio, all the interviews were submitted for transcription. Transcription was used to save time. Poland (1995) noted that, “the nature of transcription as an interpretative quality” … is influenced by “checking transcription quality” (p. 305). The researcher has to double check the accuracy of the transcription against the audio recordings to make sure they match. Lapadat and Lindsay (1999) also indicated that transcription is a critical part of qualitative analysis and is widely used in qualitative research. Poland (1995) explained that it is imperative for researchers to be reflexive of when and how transcription is used. A major concern of transcription is that when the data is transcribed it still has to maintain its meanings to enable rich interpretations (Bloom, 1993). The transcription that was carried out for this study omitted some verbal fillers such as ums
59 and ahs. I acknowledge that the quality of interpretation may have been impacted due to this kind of transcription. However by constant comparing of the transcription to the audio files, quality was maintained.
The Use of Diaries
Diaries in research can be traced back to Zimmerman and Wieder (1977) who used both diaries and interview method in their work on counter-culture. Diaries are an accepted source of qualitative data in health research (Smith, 1999). In this study, diaries were part of the interrogative process that supplemented the interview data. Both diaries and interview data can be used when observations are not possible (Jocelon & Imperio,
2005). When diaries are used effectively they allow participants to provide daily activities related to the questions posed by the researcher. The first diary question explored the sources of anal sex information in the participant‟s environment. The second question examined socio-cultural influences on participant‟s sexuality (see Appendix F).
Solicited structured diaries were used in this study because participants were asked to answer specific questions (Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, & Schilling, 1989; Chepenik,
Have, Oslin, Datto, Zubitsky & Katz., 2006; Milligan, Bingley, & Gatrell, 2005).
Diaries offer several strengths to a study. They allow the documentation of data for a period of time (Schmitz & Wiese, 2005). Diaries present diverse recordings over a period of time (Elliot, 1997; Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003). More recently, though, users of the diary and interview methods have argued that diaries allow the participants to contextualize the everyday lives of people (Hawkes, Houghton, & Rowe, 2009).
Similarly, participant diaries in this study also contextualized their sexual practice and those of their peers. Sometimes the participants‟ diary responses went further than the
60 researcher‟s questions because participants solicited their peer‟s reactions to anal sex.
Therefore, diaries went beyond the sample recruited for this study, because participants sometimes documented the opinions and observations of their peers.
Participants were given a diary for one week and were requested to make diary entries at least once each day. Out of the 30 diaries, there was a 57% (17) response rate.
While there is no cut off for an acceptable response rate, in general a 50% response rate is perceived positively for research studies (Warwick & Lininger, 1975). Sax, Gilmartin and Bryand (2003) pointed out that, as a heavily surveyed population, college students are responding less frequently than in previous decades. Non-response was evident in this study as well, because close to half of the participants did not return the diaries.
Other challenges demonstrated that participants perhaps spent less effort in answering the questions by only providing brief or absent entries of text than expected (Sax et al, 2003).
Other participants had extensive entries which were beneficial to this study.
Unfortunately, because of IRB requirements, participants were not allowed to write their contact details on the returned diaries. Hence, there was no ability to follow up to clarify participant‟s diary entries. In this study, the diaries enhanced how I understood the participants‟ contexts especially as it related to the depictions of anal sex within their environment. The diaries also enhanced participant‟s descriptions in the phenomenological reduction.
Summary of Chapter Three
Chapter three began by laying out social constructionism as the epistemological paradigm for the study. The researcher role followed afterwards. Next, I discussed phenomenological method. I provided a rationale for this choice and discussed the
61 transcendental phenomenological analysis. All four steps of transcendental phenomenological analysis were discussed starting with epoche, then phenomenological reduction, then imaginative variation and finally the synthesis. Following this section, the phenomenological evaluation criteria were presented. The site and population selection criteria followed next. A discussion of the pilot was discussed next. Thereafter, a presentation of the recruitment of participants was illustrated. Then the requirements for informed consent were addressed. Lastly, data gathering methods were explained. The next chapter discusses the dissertation findings.
62 CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS USING PHENOMENOLOGICAL
REDUCTION
This analytical section is divided up into five parts based on the five research questions posed in this dissertation. The first research question asked, “what broader socio-cultural features influence participant‟s sexual choices?” The second research question asked,
“how if at all do participants communicate about anal sex?” The third posed, “what are the ways in which participants give meanings to anal sex?” The fourth asked, “how do participants manage privacy and disclosure of anal sex with their peers?” The last question asked, “ how do participants talk about the sexual risks associated with anal sex?” Each of these five research questions is discussed under phenomenological reduction which provides themes, participant descriptions and researcher interpretations.
The first section below presents the findings related to the phenomenological reduction of broader socio-cultural influences of sexuality.
Phenomenological Reduction of Institutional Socio-cultural Influences on Sexuality
This section is in response to the first research question: “what broader socio- cultural features influence participant sexual choices?” In anticipation of this section, I wrestled with how to present participants‟ responses in an organized manner. I anticipated a straightforward list of responses. Surprisingly and to the benefit of this study, participants not only provided answers, but also justified and sometimes asserted their positions on the socio-cultural influences of sexuality that they identified. For the ease of the reader, I deliberately separated participants‟ responses into thematic categories. For instance, a participant could identify three broader socio-cultural influences such as sex education, family and individual factors, as the main socio-cultural
63 influences they experienced. I isolated the participants‟ responses and placed them in thematic categories in order to understand the meanings behind the participants‟ answers.
This process of separation and categorizing enabled me to easily make sense of the data in a straightforward manner.
Additionally, during the analysis I found it useful to contextualize the lives of the participants by acknowledging the developmental changes of adolescence, their transition to adulthood and the independence that comes with college. Furthermore, I was aware that participants could have been familiar with the political arguments that occur within the sex education debate on abstinence versus comprehensive sex education. It was important to be cognizant of these contextual issues because participants do not exist in a bubble. Instead, these issues impacted their sexual realities, as I will demonstrate in the themes that follow.
This phenomenological reduction of broader socio-cultural influences on sexuality addresses two major themes. The first is related to the institutional socio- cultural influences on sexuality. The second major theme addresses personal influences on sexuality. The institutional influences on sexuality are presented by sub-themes related to sex education influences, religious influences and family influences on sex. Within these subthemes further sub-themes are identified. Under the subtheme on sex education influences, two themes are discussed namely, the predominance of abstinence only and benefits of sex education. Under the theme of religious influences of sexuality, two themes are presented. These comprise religious prohibitions and participants‟ prescribed opposing perspectives on sex. Lastly, under family influences, three themes are addressed; countering conservative family values, non-conservative parental views on sex
64 and fear of disappointing and shaming family. In the second major thematic category related to personal influences on sexuality, the following sub-themes will be discussed: asserting the self through personal morals; relational sexual standards; safety as key to engaging in sex; and, flexible views on sex. The following themes address participants‟ descriptions of institutional socio-cultural influences of sexuality. These sub-themes discuss sex education, religion and family influences.
Sex Education Influences
Eleven participants claimed that sex education had influence on their sexual lives.
Among these 11 participants, 10 had engaged in premarital sex and nine had engaged in anal sex, whereas one participant had engaged in neither. The theme of narrating the predominance of abstinence-only sex education captures participants‟ dissatisfaction with the type of sex education they received. Participants seemed to resist how their sex education was conducted. Since 10 of the 11 participants had engaged in premarital sex, there seemed to be an underlying need for multiple perspectives on sex education to carter to students who engaged in sex.
The Predominance of Abstinence Only
Five participant responses revealed unsatisfactory associations with the sex education they received. Participants appeared to complain about the predominance of abstinence-only education. Grace said, “in school we had sex ed, so that was always there… there was the underlying tone of keeping it [sex] for marriage, but it wasn‟t directly said.” One can sense the contention of abstinence-only argument from Grace‟s excerpt. Because Grace noted that “there was an underlying tone of keeping it [sex] for marriage,” this excerpt seemed to suggest that the message to abstain from sex was not
65 made obvious or explicit to Grace, but she understood the message behind this instruction. Lorie also noted the predominance of abstinence-only sex education she was exposed to. She said, “I feel that a lot of sex ed is abstinence only.” A closer look at
Lorie‟s use of a lot reinforced the idea that the predominance of abstinence education suggested that minimal attention was directed at comprehensive sex education. Another participant displayed similar sentiments related to the predominance of abstinence only.
Tori indicated, “I went to a private school, like a Christian school, it was just don‟t do it
[sex]… that‟s pretty much all they ever said.” While the Christian context dictates an abstinence-only sex education because of the emphasis on Christian morality, the sexual pressures of adolescence appear to affect most adolescents regardless of context.
Therefore, although participants like Tori recognized contexts that prescribed an abstinence-only sex education, they chose to counter abstinence sexual values by engaging in premarital sex.
Other participants not only pointed to the predominance of abstinence-only sex education, they also shed light on their perceptions of how sex education was taught and the parts that were emphasized. Clearly, sex education is important to adolescents‟ sexual development. The benefits of sex education cannot be underestimated in light of preventing unwanted pregnancies or STIs. Sex education also provides adolescents with information related to their changing bodies. In spite of these potential lessons of sex education, Lacey seemed to discount the sex education she received. She explained, “We don‟t really get sex ed, so I guess the educational stuff … it was very much like these are what STDs look like, don‟t have sex and that was basically it.” It is interesting to note that, although Lacey undervalued the sex education she received, she was able to also
66 highlight some lessons she learned. It seems that being exposed to the dangers of STIs and being told to abstain from sex may not have been a favorable option for participants who wanted to engage in sex. It seems that if STIs and abstinence were emphasized, participants like Lacey deemed their sex education inadequate and insufficient. When she stated, “we don’t really get sex education” it seemed that her sex education failed to meet her sexual information needs, especially if she wanted to engage in sex.
Like Lacey, Gabby also complained about the way sex education was taught.
Gabby‟s excerpt allows us to see the scare tactics that were used to deter her from engaging in sex. As Gabby recollected her previous sex education as a college student who now had engaged in vaginal and anal sex, there was a tinge of cynicism. She realized that the sex education she received may not have been accurate in its representation of what could happen if one engaged in sex. She noted,
I think education had the most part to do with it, because I remember in junior
high it was more of they scared you out of doing it [sex], like, “Oh, if you have
sex, you‟re going to get pregnant, 100 percent going to happen or you‟re going to
have an STD.”
The intentions of this kind of sex education are educational and significant to the health of the adolescents. However, a realization that one could not fall pregnant “100 percent” of the time if one engaged in sex, made sex education to lose its credibility and be subject to cynicism. Similarly, Tami remembered the general expectation to abstain from sex and the mixed messages embedded in the sex education she received. She indicated,
In high school, we had sex ed., but it was kind of everyone needed to sign their
chastity check cards in front of each other and it was kind of an abstinence-only –
67 it was abstinence-only, but here‟s the forms of contraception, but by the way,
you‟re going to get STDs and die and be pregnant if you have sex.
Tami‟s response not only depicted similar complaints to Gabby‟s, but she also appears to have observed that her sex education communicated mixed messages. It was as though the messages to abstain from sex existed alongside the ones that promoted contraception use. It seems that when preventive messages were presented by using scare tactics or strong deterrent behaviors such dying from an STI, students who engaged in sex resisted such messages.
As one can sense, sex education from the participants‟ perspectives was largely perceived as negative because of its emphasis on abstinence and how it was taught. Ella also appeared to point to the lack of choice in determining the type of sex education she received. Even though adolescence is a time of transitioning to adulthood, the choice of the type of sex education is often predetermined because adolescents are assumed to still be maturing. Yet, for some adolescents, the lack of choices might seem frustrating, as was noted from Ella‟s comment, “of course, you‟re subjected to sex education in high school classes.” Her use of the word “subjected” seemed to explicitly portray her helplessness in determining this choice in what sex education she preferred. Another participant, Kaitlin, also reinforced the negative idea of mandatory sex education. She explained,
I went to a Catholic High School. They pushed it into our heads to wait until
marriage and all that kind of stuff. And in all of our health classes we‟ve always
learned about what could happen, pregnancy, all the diseases, all that kind of
stuff. So – and I mean, a bunch of people in high school were sexually active.
68 Kaitlin depicted how power was enacted because they were forced to comply with one view of sexuality, abstinence, this was captured by her statement “they pushed it into our heads.” Alongside this type of instruction she illustrated the lessons she learned, mainly pregnancy and disease. Kaitlin‟s quote also illuminated resistance to abstinence she observed among her peers whom she knew were engaging in sex. As exemplified by
Kaitlin, while sex education was taught, participants like Kaitlin were subject to other peer influences of sexuality. This implies that within, the context of school, sex-related information also came from participants‟ observations of and interactions with their peers.
Other participants, like Nia, broadened their sex education resources.
Interestingly, even though the internet is ubiquitous, Nia was the only participant who indicated the utility of the internet as a resource she used for sex-related information. She indicated, “I had sex ed in high school and I‟ve always been kind of … if I want to know something I am a go get it type of person. So if I had questions about sexually- transmitted diseases or forms of birth control I just went out and found it.” Probed further, Nia explained that of “the internet websites, Planned Parenthood website is a really good one. And it seems to be pretty comprehensive.” Nia actively supplemented her sexual information from a website that offers comprehensive sex information. This finding was interesting because Nia did not mention the type of sex education she received. However, mentioning Planned Parenthood seemed to insinuate that perhaps information from this site was filling in the information gap left from her sex education.
69 Benefits of Sex Education
In contrast, two participants recognized the benefits of sex education, Phoebe stated, “I mean school encouraged me to be safe.” Likewise, Hadley indicated enthusiastically, “definitely, sex education makes me more cautious of who I‟m having sex with and protection-wise, what form.” While there was a general sense of negativity from several participants, Phoebe and Hadley were both participants who had engaged in vaginal and anal sex and appreciated the safety methods that they were exposed to in sex education.
Another participant, Peggy, also exhibited an appreciative tone towards sex education. She indicated that she had been exposed to an extensive sex education curriculum from her early school years all the way to high school and appeared to appreciate the extensive information she received. Peggy noted, “but going through middle – actually, starting from elementary school through middle school and high school, we‟ve had sex education throughout the… years, so I feel like we‟ve had a pretty broad study on it.”
Summary of Sex Education
While participants acknowledged the influence of sex education on their sexual choices, their responses were variable because they depicted disparate views of sex education. In addition, these views depicted some element of dissatisfaction or indifference with how sex education was provided, especially in light of the fact that only three participants responded positively towards sex education.
The participants portrayed dissatisfaction with sex education in various ways.
There appeared to be dissatisfaction with an abstinence-only sex education or an
70 insufficient sex education curricula. Sometimes sex education was presented by using scare tactics, of which one participant was critical. Other participants noted contradictory ways of how sex education was instructed by presenting both the abstinence approach and a comprehensive sex education. One participant stated that while the abstinence-only approach and disease-prevention curriculum were presented, she was aware of peers who engaged in sex. Another participant used websites such as the Planned Parenthood site for a more comprehensive sex education. On the contrary, participants who appreciated sex education noted that it helped them choose safer options when making sex-related choices. Finally, one participant indicated that she had been exposed to an extensive sex education curriculum.
Religious Influences on Sex
Religious influences also shaped eight participants‟ sexual choices. These religious influences were predominantly Christian values on sex. Participants were aware of the moralizing function of the religious values on sex that emphasize sex within marriage. Even though the participants were aware of the expectations to keep sex for marriage, it seems that, as adults in college, the participants were reevaluating these religious values. Participants seemed doubtful of keeping sex for marriage even when they were aware of religious values. Consequently, most participants made adjustments to their values on sex. Some of the participants opted for standards that countered religious values on sex. For example, participants either did not acknowledge themselves as Christian or they shunned the religious values they were raised by. In other instances, some participants identified themselves with religious values that were contrary to their original religious values.
71 By resisting religious influences of sex, participants allowed themselves the flexibility to adopt their own sexual norms. Participants justified why these norms or values on sex were preferable. By countering religious influences on sex, participants exercised some agency over their sexual decisions. Below are two sub-themes related to religious influences on sex. They are religious prohibitions and prescribing opposing views on sex.
Religious Prohibition on Sex
Similar to the previous theme of sex education, abstinence was also identified by a few participants as the main restriction of religious influences on sex. The first few participants were aware of strict religious values on sex. Sally highlighted the prohibitions of her religion and stated, “definitely my religion is very against having sex before marriage.” Likewise, Aileen also noted that, “my religion I guess, because being a
Christian, we‟re not supposed to engage in premarital sex, but … I feel like a lot of people don‟t do what that says. It‟s a struggle.” While Sally and Aileen illustrated the strict religious values against sex, Aileen acknowledged the challenge of maintaining chastity. Aileen‟s excerpt also suggested the tension between maintaining abstinence and engaging in premarital sex. It appears that this struggle was also widespread among her peers. Although Aileen knew that, according to Christian values, she was supposed to abstain from sex, when it came to actual follow through, there was a disconnect.
Nia‟s response also illuminated the opposition that participants were taking to counter religious restrictions of sex. She stated,
72 It‟s funny, because that‟s been changing. I guess I consider myself a recovering
radical Christian. .. I guess do what you want to do, these days. You gotta make
yourself happy and I think it‟s a natural thing. I don‟t see anything wrong with it.
Nia shunned her religious values in preference for less restrictive values on sex. It appears that her Christian values on sex infringed on her freedom and happiness. By stating “you gotta make yourself happy,” Nia overtly demonstrated her resistance. At this stage in her life, Nia did not perceive premarital sex to be wrong. In addition, Nia‟s comments also captured the tension that could arise when sexual desire stands in opposition with religious sexual values. Nia‟s use of the term “natural” in referring to sex, questioned who had the right to impose these sexual restrictions. It appears that if
Nia perceived sex as natural then perhaps the influence of religion on sexuality was undermined. In defining sex as „natural,‟ sexual decisions were more likely to be deemed personal as opposed to being the responsibility of institutions like religious influences.
Because of Nia‟s strong statement towards Christianity, I requested she explain how it influenced her sexuality. Nia responded by asserting that,
It [Christianity] shaped the guilt I felt when I had sex when I was younger, before
I was supposed to according to the Church. So – I mean, it made me want to wait
before I had sex. It made me want to make better decisions. But then it
ultimately just made me feel guilty. Because like I said before I think it‟s natural,
I don't think it‟s something people should shy away from because someone told
you to.
Nia‟s response portrayed the tensions that she experienced. In one sense, religion presented the safest sexual choice of abstinence, while at the same time it appeared to Nia
73 that religion was overstepping its boundaries in telling people what not to do with regards to sex. Nia‟s guilt also portrayed the power of institutional influences of sex on individuals. Even though Nia opposed these Christian values and opted to engage in sex, the guilt she felt seemed to have served as a reminder of the institutional expectations of religion on sex. The guilt reminded her of what she was supposed to be doing.
Prescribing Opposing Perspectives on Sex
Amber was also a participant who resisted Christian values and made her own decisions on sex. Amber‟s reasons of why she took an opposing religious value on sex included justifications. She stated, “well, because I am a Christian, so that‟s shaped it
(sexual choices) a lot. I do have premarital sex, but I‟ve only had sex with one guy and we‟ve been in a long...term relationship.” By stating that she only had sex with one guy and had been in a long-term relationship, Amber was perhaps offering herself some validation knowing that premarital sex was prohibited from a Christian perspective.
Amber recreated her own values on sex that were comfortable to her. It seems that
Amber‟s justification could have been influenced by non-religious influences, such as certain societal norms that esteem individuals who have sex with one person or in long term relationships.
Another participant, Ella, took an opposing perspective of Christianity by asserting religious values that espoused opposing views on sex. Ella posited that her religious values were mainly dictated by spirituality, a position that appeared to promote responsible premarital sex. Ella pointed out that,
I guess I have to look at this from kind of a religious, spiritual standpoint. I
would call myself spiritual and so, premarital sex, to me, isn‟t a huge deal as it
74 might be to other people who follow those religious beliefs. But I think that it‟s
not a light matter. It‟s not something you can just mess around with. It‟s a very
serious thing. So if you‟re prepared to have sex, then I think that‟s okay, as long
as you‟re prepared, you have information. You trust the person you‟re gonna be
having sex with, all those sort of things.
Here Ella‟s ideas on spirituality countered largely mainstream Christian values that are against premarital sex. Instead, she highlighted being prepared, having information and trusting a partner as key to her sexual choices. Ella helps us to see how participants used their agency by adopting rules that allowed them the freedom to engage in premarital sex.
While Ella focused on spirituality as her opposing religious viewpoint, Tami preferred an opposing religious view on sex that relied on agnosticism. Additionally, she identified what seemed to be a benefit of delayed sexual debut. She indicated,
I was raised Christian, I guess, but I don‟t really have strict religious beliefs. I
guess I‟m kind of agnostic… I guess it [Christianity] really as far as I probably
wouldn‟t have waited as long to have sex if it wasn‟t for that. I was 18 before I
had sex.
Ironically, while Tami did not espouse Christian religious values on sex, she perceived delayed sexual debut to be a positive consequence of religious influence. Her delayed sexual debut enabled her to engage in sex when she was more responsible. As can be observed, religious influences, while generally resisted, also did have some positive outcomes for the participants like Tami.
75 Summary of Religious Influences on Sex
Even though the participants all acknowledged religious sexual influences, about half of the participants‟ descriptions were in opposition to the religious value of not having premarital sex. Participants countered these religious values by adopting their own sexual norms. Largely these adopted sexual values enabled the participants to engage in premarital sex. By resisting religious restrictions on sex, participants used agency to determine the standards that influenced their sexual decisions. Participants who did not counter religious influences recognized the religious prohibitions related to sex.
Two of these participants even claimed that the religious prohibitions helped them to make better sexual decisions or to delay their sexual debut. Below I address the last institutional influence on sex, family influences on participant sexual choices.
Family Influences on Sexual Choices
Family influences on sex were highlighted by ten participants. In general, family influences seemed to reinforce Christian religious influences that advocated reservation of sex for marriage. In some instances, however, participants‟ families fostered responsibility and helped participants recognize the consequences that come with sex.
Some of these families were less conservative in that they did not outrightly prohibit premarital sex. Lastly, participants‟ sexual choices were also motivated by the fear of disappointing or shaming family members. Such motivations also implicitly shed some light on the sexual communication occurring between participants and their families.
Countering Conservative Family Values
Families that espoused conservative or traditional sexual family values also promoted abstinence. Such sexual values were usually guided by religious influences. In
76 such cases, participants saw a disconnect between their parents‟ sexual values and their own. When this occurred, participants opposed their family‟s sexual values in favor of the sexual values they created or values that were in alignment with their sexual needs.
For example, Victor stated,
I grew up in a pretty traditional family. My parents … grew up in the middle of
the „50s and „60s and those kinds of things. So they‟re very traditional, you
know, “Wait until marriage to have sex,” and those kinds of things.
It was obvious from Victor‟s excerpt that there were generational sexual value differences between himself and his parents. By highlighting the time period during which his parents grew up, Victor was demarcating these sexual value differences that existed between his parents and himself. Parental sexual restrictions that proposed waiting until marriage to have sex were deemed traditional and conservative. Clearly,
Victor did not agree with his parents‟ views on sex, as they left no room for him to explore sexually. Out of curiosity, I asked Victor to elaborate on what he meant by traditional and Victor explained,
Well, regarding sexual behavior, it‟s always, “Wait until you‟re married and don‟t
even do it – even if you have protection, or if she‟s on birth control, or anything.
The only way of safe sex is abstinence. These days that‟s especially hard to
follow because there‟s – we live in – you feel like we live in such a freer society
than we used to.
Victor‟s explanation further reinforced the sexual restrictions that came from his parents‟ views on sex. From Victor‟s perspective, traditional or conservative views on sex were portrayed as unrealistic because they tended to promote abstinence as the only safe
77 option. It also appears that promoting an abstinence-only approach seemed simpler for
Victor‟s parents to deal with than explain the details of sex. Yet this approach also closed off any opportunities for Victor to have open communication about sex with his parents.
While an open communication is easier said than done, generational differences appear to have contributed to the type of sexual communication that occurred between Victor and his parents. Regardless, participants like Victor opposed the abstinence-only approach as it was deemed traditional and did not suit the sexual expectations that come with living in a freer and contemporary society. We can infer from Victor‟s excerpt that a freer society represented some kind of flexibility towards different sexual needs which are part of today‟s contemporary society.
Abstinence was also reinforced by both religious and family values in Kaitlin‟s and Grace‟s case. It seems that participants had multiple sexual influences that reinforced this sexual ideal. Kaitlin explained that, “just my religion and my family always have told me, you should wait until marriage.” Even with such backgrounds, participants like
Kaitlin engaged in premarital sex, despite her strong influences from her religion and family‟s expectations to be abstinent. Similarly, Grace‟s situation also revealed that she resisted religion and family influences that promoted sex in marriage. Grace indicated, “I was reared in a church family, so I don‟t hold those beliefs, “Keep sex only for marriage, only with that one person ever for the rest of your life”… I‟ve found it different for me.”
As a college student and an adult Grace decided on a different path for herself that opposed her religious and family values of sex. The phrase, “so I don‟t hold those beliefs,” especially demonstrated her resistance. The idea of keeping sex for one person appeared to be unattractive to participants like Grace. While Grace was familiar with her
78 religious values and expectations, she clearly opted for her own values that did not espouse the religious values she was raised with thereby countering traditional values of sex.
Similarly, another participant, Leah, also suggested that her parents embraced traditional values of sex. She noted,
My parents are teachers, so they‟re very conservative in that aspect. And me
being their daughter in a small town, I was brought up to wait until marriage, to
have that view. And religion, not so much. It‟s mainly my family values and
beliefs that they have taught me and what I‟ve learned.
In Leah‟s situation these family sexual values were more instrumental than religious influences. Leah also added a unique perspective by indicating that the context of living in a small town further influenced her family‟s drive to encourage her to abstain from sexual activity. Perhaps the context of a small town may have fostered conservative values that are against premarital sex. Given the negative consequences of sex for adolescents, such as unwanted pregnancies, families in small towns might be under pressure to protect their children. It is not uncommon for families to adopt strict sexual values in hopes that their children will live up to them. However, Leah still opposed these views and had engaged in both vaginal and anal sex, clearly going against her parents‟ views to wait until marriage.
In a similar manner, Nia‟s family embraced Christian religious values that promoted conservative sexual views on sex. Even though Nia chose opposing views of sex by becoming pregnant at 16, her family was still supportive regardless of their
79 seemingly restrictive religious values. Nia‟s opposition to her family‟s values led her to make poor sexual choices. She indicated,
My family – well, they were pretty strong Christians. They weren‟t overbearing,
like, “Don‟t do this,” and they were very forgiving when, I guess, I screwed up
according to their standards. But their values were that – one man, one woman
when you‟re married type stuff.
Nia‟s family clearly promoted abstinence until marriage, even though she deviated remarkably from her family‟s Christian values. I wondered whether her pregnancy was a way of portraying resistance to these Christian values. In any case, even though she did not espouse these Christian values, her family was forgiving. Even with this attitude, Nia did not appear remorseful for the pregnancy; she simply seemed to perceive that her parents‟ sexual views were different from hers. By stating, “I screwed up according to their standards,” Nia separated herself from the sexual standards of her parents. Even in the event of a pregnancy, Nia appeared to not appreciate her parents‟ sexual values, perhaps because they were different from the sexual values she now embraced.
Another participant, Addison, also acknowledged similar traditional and conservative parental views. In Addison‟s case, these views were driven by somewhat different motivations. Like in the case of Leah‟s family, these values were not driven by religion, but by high parental expectations. Addison explained,
I didn't grow up in a religious family – but my family did raise me with these very
old-fashioned morals. And they wanted me to be a very academic achiever.
Because they had this idea that I was very smart when I was little. It was like I
80 had to be a good girl. And I wasn't allowed to think about that stuff [sex]. .. I had
a lot of guilt and fear around sex.
Addison portrayed an interesting perspective on the traditional sexual values espoused by her parents. In her case, sex was viewed as a distraction and, similar to Victor‟s situation with his parents, communication about sex was absent. Although she was able to focus on her academics, Addison developed negative attitudes towards sex because information related to sex was kept from her. What is also obvious is that being “good” was equated with not addressing her own sexuality, which was connected to the fear that her academics would be affected. Addison‟s parents sheltered her from becoming aware of her sexuality and while this served her well academically, she held resentful feelings towards not being able to talk about her sexuality during her upbringing.
As shown, it seems that parents with traditional or conservative family sexual values adopted non-communicative approaches because the participants indicate that their parents never talked about sexuality with their children. By promoting abstinent approaches, silence surrounding sexuality was encouraged. Peggy‟s statement illuminates this approach more vividly. She explained, “I was raised Catholic… my parents never talked to me about sex and never have talked to me about sex.” Peggy‟s family values on sex were clearly motivated by the religious values they held. Even though sex was never discussed by Peggy‟s family, we can assume that she found sexual information elsewhere. Furthermore, she created her own sexual values and had engaged in vaginal and anal sex. The silence she was exposed to also communicated the discomfort that was related to talking about sex. Contrary to this section, which looks at how traditional or
81 conservative family value influenced participants‟ sexual values, in the next theme, I present family influences on sex that took a nontraditional perspective.
Non-Conservative Parental Views of Sex
Not all families approached sex from a traditional perspective. Some of the participants were raised in “non-traditional” ways because their families did not necessarily place any restrictions on their sexuality. Participants with non-traditional upbringings perceived their families to have more open communication regarding sex.
Lianna narrated that her mom‟s open and accepting attitude and different sexualities influenced her sexual values. She explained,
My mom‟s really – she‟s my main parent – so she‟s just a really open person and
she‟s always been like, “Whatever makes you happy – do what you need. She‟s
always understanding of other people and other sexualities. So I always grew up
with an understanding that‟s like, you do what you do, it doesn‟t really matter
what anybody else thinks. I‟ve really had an open thought process towards sex a
lot of the time.
In contrast to traditional family values of sex, Lianna‟s mother exemplified a parent with an open line of communication that allowed her daughter to be comfortable with her sexuality. Lianna was allowed to make decisions about her own sexuality. By being open to different sexualities, Lianna was cued to embrace different sexualities. Therefore, her upbringing encouraged openness and exploration as opposed to the restrictions and silence that were evident in traditional families. In one sense this approach had its advantage in that Lianna was comfortable with her sexuality. On the contrary, this
82 freedom to do whatever she wanted sometimes positioned Lianna in risky situations where she engage in unprotected vaginal and anal sex with casual partners.
While Lianna seemed to be encouraged to do as she pleased by her family, participants like Katrina not only acknowledged the personal choices that were encouraged by her parents, but also highlighted the seriousness of engaging in sex. Of particular interest with regards to Lianna and Katrina are the different family influences that each was exposed to. There appeared to be no overt sexual restrictions from Lianna‟s mother, while Katrina‟s family emphasized the responsibility that came with sex. Katrina stated,
I would say my parents. They‟ve always – when I was younger, they gave me
that talk, whatever and they just said, it‟s your personal choice, but remember that
whatever you decide to do, it‟s going to impact and change your views about – I
guess you‟re not as innocent anymore. You‟re forced to grow up and mature.
And so I would say that, probably, the reason why I have waited is because – not
because of a lack of immaturity, it‟s just that I‟m not ready yet.
While a multiplicity of factors could have led to Katrina‟s delayed sexual debut, I posit that her family‟s open sexual communication may have provided her with a decent foundation to make more responsible sexual decisions regarding sex. Although Katrina indicated that she had not engaged in sex at the time of this study, she appeared very comfortable talking about sex. Katrina‟s case portrayed an instance where she was left to make her own sexual choices. The open communication Katrina had with her parents addressed the realities of sex. Her parents specifically pointed to how sex changes
83 adolescent lives from being a child to being able to face the adult responsibilities that come with sex.
Barb also represented a participant whose parents seemed to have an open communication with her about sex. Unlike some participants‟ parents, Barb‟s parents advocated for sex to occur in relationships. Clearly, Barb was from a non-traditional family. Even though she knew about traditional sexual values to keep sex for marriage, she decided to engage in sex when she was in a relationship. Barb pointed to her mother‟s influence in shaping the value of sex in a relationship. She stated,
When I was younger… I knew that it wasn‟t for me to wait until I got married
before I had sex, but I knew that I wanted to wait until I was in a relationship and
I really, really cared about the person before I had sex. And I got that from my
mom, mostly.
Barb‟s assertion about having made the decision to engage in sex at a younger age also pointed to how early decisions to engage in sex can be made. While the family served as an institutional influence that communicated messages of sexuality, the family‟s bearing on the participants‟ sexual decisions was evident here. In particular Barb was emulating what she had heard from her mother as opposed to what she heard from school. In this description we begin to see how participants selected what they wanted to espouse as it pertained to sex and the meanings it had on their lives.
In all of these cases participants were not overtly told to abstain; however, there seemed to be underlying message that if sex was considered, its consequences also needed to be taken into consideration. Like Barb and Katrina‟s families, Lorie‟s family also reinforced safety by reminding her of the consequences of sex. Clearly, safety was
84 identified as an important consideration in the advice Lorie was given by her family.
Interestingly, Lorie was the one participant who was cautioned explicitly on the importance of safety as it related to sex; “my family said to be careful about different things and to keep your health in mind and stuff like that.”
Shifting to a slightly different theme from the non-traditional perspective, four participants‟ sexual influences appeared to be shaped by the fear of parental disappointment and shaming. In the next segment, I discuss an emergent theme related to participant‟s fear of parental disappointment and shaming.
Fear of Disappointing or Shaming Family
In these discussions participants suggested that they were fearful of making sexually related mistakes, as these would have severe implications with regards to their family relationships. Specifically, Sally‟s narrative suggested the importance of being aware of the consequences and responsibility that come with sex. In addition, she also indicated that the consequences of sex would be perceived as a disappointment to her family. This disappointment would then threaten the parent-child relationship. She stated,
My family, I think, is even more important to me than my religion is in regards to
my sexual activity. ..the thing that I most fear is getting pregnant before getting
married, or at least before I can take care of that responsibility because I know my
mom would not support me in the decision to have an abortion or something like
that. I wouldn‟t wanna make that decision and it would just be like I‟m letting my
family down in that incident.
Sally‟s excerpt represents the significance of family support to participants. In this case, the fear of the consequences of sex motivated Sally to be more fearful of the price of
85 pregnancy. In some way, these fears acted as deterrents for Sally. Perhaps we might also infer that these fears also had some bearing on the type of communication that existed between Sally‟s mother and herself. In the end, these fears might have encouraged her to be safe.
The fear of disappointing or putting the family to shame was also illustrated by
Tami. In her situation, once she had engaged in sex, having any open communication about sex with her mother was perceived as shameful. Tami explained, “ I definitely didn‟t want to get the shame from my mom. It kinda changes the dynamic, talking about sex with my mom. It‟s kinda one of those things we both knew, but we just didn‟t talk about.” Tami‟s excerpt illuminates the complexity of communication that exists between adolescents and their parents regarding sex. Such a situation was brought about by both parties espousing different sexual expectations from each other. In particular, if Tami expected shame from her mother because of engaging in sex, she was aware that her mother‟s sexual values did not approve of her engaging in sex. As an evolving and developing young woman, Tami was contending with how to negotiate the communication with her mother after she had engaged in sex.
Aileen‟s perspective related to fear of disappointing family was visible. Aileen acknowledged that she struggled to maintain the sexual values of her parents. She was forthright in acknowledging that she regularly engaged in sex. Since she knew her parents‟ views on premarital sex, she opted to conceal engaging in sex from her mother.
In comparing these participants, it is evident that participant concealment was motivated by the disparate sexual values between themselves and their parents. Aileen captured the complexities of concealing her sexual decisions and noted,
86 Well, I have what I‟m supposed to think about sex and then what I actually
practice and what I practice isn‟t what I‟m supposed to be doing, but I do practice
it on a regular basis. I know my mom doesn‟t approve, so I try to hide it from her.
So I think my mom and my beliefs pretty much tell me what I‟m supposed to do.
Lastly, under the institutional theme related to family influences on participants‟ sexual choices and specifically under the heading of participants fear‟ of disappointing or shaming family, Tori‟s narratives illuminated how various family members‟ sexual consequences served as a warning to that would have restrained Tori from also making poor sexual choices. Undergirding such recollections was the fear of repeating the same mistakes. Tori stated,
I guess family, how I was brought up, I guess. Well, my mom, she got pregnant
before she was married in high school and she doesn‟t want that for any of her
kids, but it happened with my brother. So she‟s – and I‟m the baby, so she‟s
protective of me.
Both Tori‟s mother‟s and Tori‟s brother‟s experiences of poor sexual decisions served as constant and powerful reminders of the potential consequences of unprotected sex.
However, even with these reminders, Tori did engage in sex.
Summary of Family Influences on Participants’ Sexual Choices
Family influences on participants‟ sexual choices portrayed three major tensions.
First, participants whose families espoused conservative sexual values reinforced
Christian values that promoted abstinence. These sexual values were generally resisted in preference for sexual values that met participants‟ sexual needs. On the contrary, participants whose families adopted non-traditional values on sex appeared to encourage
87 more responsible sexual choices. Last, family influences seemed to shape participants‟ fear of the consequences of sex. The consequences of sex were connected with concerns related to disappointing or shaming the family. This last theme implicitly shed some light on the type of sexual communication that occurred between participants and their families. It seemed that participants‟ fear to disappoint or shame the family made them aware of the consequences of poor sexual choices because it seems that their families communicated these concerns to them.
In the next segment, I outline the second major thematic category of phenomenological reduction of socio-cultural influences on sex, personal influences on sexuality.
Personal Influences on sexuality
Overall, participants preferred to assert their own personal involvement in determining the influences on their sexual choices. Specifically, sixteen participants highlighted these personal influences. It seemed that although participants were aware of the institutional influences on sex (sex education, religious and family influences), they preferred to recreate their own personal influences on sex that they deemed comfortable and satisfying. As adults in college, participants were taking charge of their sexual choices by also justifying why they opted for particular sexual values. Relational values mostly shaped participants‟ drive to engage in sex and the personal need to be free to do as they pleased with their bodies. In general, participants exercised some kind of agency and resistance to the institutional influences of sex. Below I address the four main emerging themes under personal influences of sexuality: asserting the self through
88 personal morals; relational sexual standards; safety as a key to engaging in sex; and, flexible views of sex.
Asserting the Self through Personal Morals
Under this theme, there seemed to be a strong need for sexual decisions to be determined by the self. This is especially true when one observes how participants used personalized terms such “my own,” as opposed to being influenced by the institutional influences. The emphasis on the self as the decision-maker was observed in the both participants Aggie and Lorie. For instance, Aggie explained, “Well, I guess I‟m guided by just my own judgment of things and my own standards that I have for myself. It‟s hard to describe them, I guess.” Similarly, Lorie also indicated that, “So basically just going with my own personal morals and values.” Both participants illustrated how they perceived themselves as being significant actors in shaping their own guidelines for sexual choices. These two participants deemed themselves as essential to shaping and setting the standards for their own sexual choices.
Relational Sexual Standards
Other participants, while guided by their personal standards, also identified some sexual rules that they set for themselves. These sexual rules were related to the actions or behaviors that dictated participants‟ sexual choices. The participants‟ personal values countered their institutional influences on sex (such as sex education, religious values and some family sexual values) which discouraged premarital sex. To negotiate these tensions, participants opted for personal values that gave them the leeway to engage in premarital sex. This option came with some self-prescribed restrictions on what kind of sex was acceptable or not. Casual sex or “hooking up” with multiple partners or strangers
89 was perceived negatively. Instead, the participants preferred to engage in sex while in sexual relationships with people they had known. Dallia exemplified her ideas against casual sex in preference for sex that occurred in a relationship. She noted,
For the most part… I‟m not against premarital sex but I‟m against just randomly
hooking up with a lot of people or stuff like that. I always wait when I‟m in a
relationship, for a couple months. I think it‟s more just self...respect.
Even though Dallia engaged in sex, she set her own individual standards on sex that provided her with self-worth and respect. Specifically, these standards included not engaging in sex with random or multiple partners and allowing herself time to know her sexual partners for “a couple of months.” By taking these standards into consideration,
Dallia set her own sexual rules that guided her sexual choices. Likewise, Kaitlin also stated that,
I believe that you‟re supposed to have sex with a person that you love that you‟ve
you can trust, not just random people. I used to think you had to wait until
marriage. But as I‟ve gotten older I‟m not – I still think it‟s very important to wait
until marriage, but if you find that person that you love and want to experience
things with, then I don‟t see anything wrong.
Both Dallia and Kaitlin emphasize the significance of sex in relational contexts.
They also seemed to equate sex with relationships. It seems there was an expectation that, once they were in a relationship, they would engage in sex. Within these relational expectations, Dallia and Kaitlin rationalized when sex occurred. For Kaitlin, finding love with someone she could trust justified premarital sex. Even though participants were redefining their sexual rules, the institutional expectations for sex were sometimes
90 referenced, implying that these rules were not forgotten. For example, even though
Kaitlin justified premarital sex, she still indicated that waiting until marriage was important. It appears that there was some tension between following the institutional sexual values and her redefined individual values of sex. Perhaps this tension was driving participants like Kaitlin to justify and rationalize why they were engaging in sex not only to themselves but also to me, the researcher.
As young adults, these participants appeared to be learning about what sexual relationships entail. As will be demonstrated in the excerpts below, participants‟ relational descriptions comprised of relational terms such as, “love, trust and emotional connection” with someone “who mattered” or for whom they “cared for deeply.” These relational terms exemplified that these participants sought more than physical sexual connection in their sexual relationships. For example, Sally reinforced the idea that engaging in sex was a serious matter. She also depicted casual sex negatively. She stated,
I really feel like it‟s not something that you should go into – or I should not go
into lightly. I don‟t believe in personally doing the one night stands or things like
that. If I am in a relationship, I do engage in sex.
Additionally, Micah emphasized the same personal values espoused by Dallia, Kaitlin and Sally with regards to seeking secure relationships as opposed to casual ones. Micah explained, “I would say like my personal values, like I‟m not just going to have sex with anybody, so at least someone who matters to me.”
Personal values on sex also depicted the need to find someone participants cared for deeply. Dallia seemed to connect premarital sex with some kind of emotional investment with whomever she had sex. It seemed that she was cautious with who she
91 engaged in sex by stating “I‟m not just going to have sex with anybody” depicts the sexual rules that were enacted by participants like Dallia. Likewise, Victor noted this emotional connection. He explained,
I mean, it really is a personal choice. And personally, I like to feel a level of
emotional connection with the person, but I don‟t think that makes me morally
superior to anyone else who may choose to not make that particular decision.
Interestingly, Victor also appeared to be guarded in that he was careful not to expect that everyone espoused relational values that sought an “emotional connection.” Victor seemed to be cognizant of people that espoused alternative values. Victor‟s recognition illuminates that he was aware of the different needs that people look for in relationships.
Similar to Victor, Grace also highlighted the significance of engaging in sex with someone she cared for. She explained, “I think it‟s an individual thing until you have that connection with another person. And then it becomes between those two people and it should be with someone that you care about that deeply to go that far.” Noticeably, Grace was speaking to the deep connection that she sought in a sexual relationship. In general, sex was highly valued by these participants as a key factor to deepening the relationships they were in. Bessie also spoke against engaging in casual sex and emphasized the personal part of sex. She noted, “I don‟t believe in one night stands and flings because I think it‟s a little more personal than that, which is why I haven‟t done anything like that.”
Here again, Bessie illustrated that she was against unsafe sexual practices related to one- night stands and flings. Bessie‟s sexual rules showed that, even though she had engaged in premarital sex, she was cognizant of the sexual practices that needed to be avoided.
92 Instead, she esteemed the value of sex, especially when she noted, “I think it‟s a little more personal than that.”
While Leah emphasized her preference to engage in sex while in a relationship, her narrative showed that sex enhanced closeness. She indicated,
As of right now, my beliefs are that I, personally, will wait to have sex until I‟m
in a relationship with that person. I feel it‟s very important to get to know
someone, they get to know me before I open up in that aspect, so in a relationship.
I was in a relationship in high school and we had been dating for 1 ½ years and
my views kinda started to change. I wanted to experience more with him and he
did the same. I felt I couldn‟t get close enough to him, so sex was the option that
we decided on. And because I had that experience, it kind of made me realize
well, I don‟t wanna wait until marriage anymore. I feel that it‟s important that I
need to experience what I want sexually in a relationship.
Leah argued that her sexual experience fostered the value of sex in a relationship. She perceived sex as something that strengthened relationships. Engaging in sex also allowed
Leah to explore her own sexual needs. Leah‟s excerpt, while it mostly highlighted her relational sexual needs, also depicted her opposition to abstinence, a sentiment that was encouraged by most institutional values of sex.
Another participant who portrayed relational sexual standards was Judith. She who largely espoused emotions as a guiding factor in the sexual choices she made. She elucidated,
93 It‟s mostly emotion, which I don‟t know. It depends how I feel. It‟s not just like I
go out and look to have sex. It depends on how I feel, how comfortable I feel
with the person, how long I‟ve been talking to the person, that type of thing.
Judith justified her sexual choices, even though her sexual decisions were based on emotions. Judith‟s sexual rules were represented by sexual standards that were captured by her quote, “it‟s not just like I go out and look to have sex.” This statement illuminated that Judith‟s emotions were based on specific traits such as being comfortable with someone. Overall in this segment, participants mostly indicated the sexual rules that shaped their sexual choices. It seemed that the above participants recognized the premarital sex as a practice that enhanced relationships.
Safety as Key to Engaging in Sex
Although most of the participants had been exposed to sex education, only two participants explicitly recognized the significance of safety as a personal choice. In these two descriptions, participants also valued their sexual freedom. First, Amber explained,
I would say, really, as long as you‟re safe, you can do whatever you want. It‟s
your own business and that‟s how I feel with me, too. As long as I think I‟m
safe, then I think I‟m free to do as I please.
Amber recognized that the freedom to do as she pleased sexually with her body did not come without a cost. She realized that, her own sexual safety was of primary importance.
Just as the other participants indicated that they espoused some kind of sexual rules in the previous theme, Amber identified safety as one of the rules that influenced her sexual choices. Although Amber advocated for a seemingly more open sexuality by stating that
94 “you can do whatever you want,” she was cognizant of important safety considerations that come with sex.
Similar to Amber, Addison also advocated for the freedom to do as one pleased sexually. However, like Amber, safety concerns that were linked to hooking up were highlighted. In particular, Addison deemed hooking-up, a high-risk practice, as unfavorable. Addison said,
I think people should be able to do what they want with their bodies. I think that
it's a bad idea to engage in things that are risky and have less likelihood of benefit
to you. Like say hooking up, for instance.
In Amber and Addison‟s situations, safety was highlighted and casual sex was largely disapproved. Both these participants stated that they were cautious about their sexual choices by highlighting safety. Such displays of sexual rules point to how Amber and
Addison maintained control in their sexual lives.
Flexible Views on sex
Most of the participants appeared to embrace sexual influences that were oriented towards relationships or where safety was assured. However, not all participants embraced such values. Two participants depicted more flexible personal values on sex that supported hedonistic values of sex. For instance, Hadley stated,
I‟d say I‟m kinda like a go with the flow type person. I‟m definitely heterosexual.
But I allow anyone to be open, free to do whatever they wanna do. I don‟t want
anyone to restrict me. Same goes with the other people.
Even though Hadley preferred unrestrictive sexual values, sexuality comes with responsibility because of the risks associated with it. Hadley struck me as a participant
95 who seemed resistant to the controls and consequences that are tied to sex. By noting that she allowed anyone to be free to do as they pleased, Hadley expected the same sexual values that allowed her this freedom. Because the liberty to do as one pleases is entrenched in the American culture, perhaps Hadley perceived institutional values on sex to be restrictive. Thus, she resisted restrictions after becoming an adult. It seemed that adopting hedonistic views of sex, as Hadley did, defied most abstinent approaches that were promoted by sex education or religious influences and some family values.
However, most of my assumptions about Hadley are inconclusive since I did not ask her why she preferred this type of freedom. These general impressions were largely influenced by the number of participants who had negative associations with institutional influences of sex. Based on such attitudes, it was not surprising that participants like
Hadley preferred sexual attitudes that were unrestrictive because sex might have been connected to pleasure. Similarly perceptions were espoused by Lianna. She noted,
Like, am I one of those people who believe that you have to be in love with
somebody to have sex? I think sex is sex. I think it should be taken as sex and it
shouldn‟t be interpreted as anything more than that – for the most part – I think –
I mean, there‟s no way to say that someone‟s ready for it. But if you‟re ready for
it, you‟re ready for it – if you‟re not, you‟re not. There‟s no way to say – right or
wrong – for anybody. I‟m kind of open to a lot of things when it comes to sex.
Lianna argued sex needed to be considered on face value. Unlike most participants,
Lianna took a different perspective on sex that did not connect love with sex. By saying
“sex is sex,” Lianna perhaps did not believe in the sentimental values that are often attached with sex. Instead, Lianna seemed to espouse more neutral values of sexuality
96 that were non-judgmental of others especially when she stated, “there‟s no way to say – right or wrong – for anybody. I‟m kind of open to a lot of things when it comes to sex.”
Hadley and Lianna‟s excerpts add an alternative perspective to what drove participants to engage in sex. These two participants adopted more open attitudes toward sex because they did not highlight any sexual consequences, safety concerns, or sexual rules that promoted safer practices. Yet, it is important to recognize that sexual attitudes are never uniform among participants. Other participants were interested in the relational values of sex, but researchers must be cognizant of participants who embrace non- relational attitudes to sex. Inherent in these non-relational sexual values (as espoused by
Hardley and Lianna) are sexual risks that come with being “a go with the flow type person.” Believing that “sex is sex” appears not to recognize the inherent dangers associated with sex. In any case, the participants‟ sexual attitudes are influenced by other cultural and personal factors that were beyond the issues explored in this dissertation.
Some of these personal factors relate to participants‟ psychological predisposition towards sex, such as being a high sensation seeker versus a low sensation seeker.
Summary of Personal Influences on Sex
Based on the predominant responses, many participants asserted their individuality by countering restrictions on premarital sex. Participants redefined their sexual influences by setting their own sexual standards for sex. Such positions enabled the participants‟ agency over how and when sex occurred. As young adults in college, countering institutional influences on sex seemed easier. Regardless of the freedom to engage in sex, many participants felt compelled to justify and rationalize why they opted to engage in sex. For example, participants stated that relational reasons drove them to
97 engage in sex. Participants also created new sexual rules, such as the rule against hooking up. The aversion to hooking up seemed to be the participants‟ way of recognizing high- risk sexual encounters. To a large degree, participants perceived that sex was personal and individual. As a result they assumed they were free to do as they pleased with their bodies, as long as safety or pleasure was highlighted as a prerequisite to sexual freedom.
Conclusion of Institutional and Personal Influences of sex
On the whole, institutional influences on sex appeared to prescribe idealistic sexual expectations for participants. Institutional influences promoted abstinence through sex education, religious values and to a lesser extent family values. While these institutional influences were valuable in providing information on safe sexuality and the serious consequences of sex, participants generally opposed restrictive institutional influences of sex, citing the implicit inherent mixed messages or lack of multiple perspectives of sexuality. Instead, through more personal sexual influences, participants asserted agency by redefining their own sexual values, which largely also came with responsible sexual choices. These individual sexual values also fulfilled the relational and/or the sexual needs of participants. I present a phenomenological reduction of participant communication.
Phenomenological Reduction of Participant Communication
This section provides the findings to the second research question; how, if at all, do participants communicate about anal sex? This question was significant in gauging how participant communication informed us about the context in which anal sex was occurring among college students. Additionally, examining participant communication allowed me to observe any patterns that illuminated how a stigmatized sexual practice as
98 anal sex was talked about among college students. The findings are displayed by a phenomenological reduction format which is comprised of participant descriptions interspersed with the researcher‟s interpretations. After comparing participant descriptions between those who had engaged in anal sex and those who had not, there were no differences in how these groups communicated about anal sex. There was an agreement between both camps that vaginal and oral sex were more common sexual practices. Communication in this chapter refers to the patterns of talk or discourses that were depicted through participants‟ encounters with their environments (interpersonal, group interactions and their relationships with popular culture).
The findings of this research question were gleaned from semi-structured interviews and from participant diaries. Diary entries that are included in this chapter were mostly used to supplement and enhance the richness of the identified themes. This section focuses on the micro elements of the dissertation by focusing solely on how participants communicated about anal sex. In this section, both participant descriptions from those who engaged in anal sex and those who did not are included. Five themes answer research question two. They are: communicating anal sex by concealment; communicating sexual experimentation by pushing boundaries and stretching limits; communicating problematic sexual contexts; communicating the unmentionable IT and communicating anal sex as a joke.
Communicating Anal Sex by Concealment
While anal sex was not overtly discussed, viewed, or heard about in the participants‟ environment, the participants did notice anal sex, mostly as it linked with concealment. Even though participants believed their peers engaged in anal sex,
99 discussions related to anal sex were either covered up or remained unspoken.
Concealment occurred in different ways. Participants that engaged in anal sex suggested that this was not a practice they disclosed, nor one that their friends openly or regularly talked about. For some of the participants, experience informed how they talked about concealment. Additionally, the exemplars from popular culture that the participants identified in their diary excerpts also suggested that anal sex was also concealed in euphemisms. Sometimes concealment encouraged stereotypical portrayals of anal sex because it was connected to homosexual men.
While vaginal and oral sex were identified as being common in college, a few participants asserted that they rarely heard about anal sex because anal sex was concealed. Participants may have maintained this position because they were familiar with the rules regarding concealment of information related to anal sex. For instance,
Eden explained, “I think vaginal and oral sex are common mostly and some people anal sex, I suppose. Because if people do participate in anal, they don‟t tell a lot of people.”
It seemed as though Eden was aware that concealment serves as a protective mechanism for individuals that engaged in anal sex. By stating individuals “don‟t tell a lot of people,” Eden insinuated that she was aware of the guarded disposition that was connected with talking about anal sex. Perhaps concealment appeared to be encouraged because anal sex incites discomfort because it is a stigmatized and taboo sexual practice.
As a result, some students may not openly disclose this information to their peers.
The diary excerpt in figure 1 from Tori also depicted the concealment that was associated with anal sex. Concealment, or the silence, denoted that anal sex was an unmentionable subject. In Tori‟s diary she stated, “I mean people talk about it, but it‟s
100 more like one of those things we [students] know happens, but just don‟t talk about. We, especially if you do not experience it push it away.” Tori‟s excerpt indicates that certain implicit rules are associated with anal sex among heterosexuals. This rule dictated that anal sex is not openly or regularly talked about even if the practice happens among students. The participant‟s lack of experience with anal sex limited how much she talked about it because it was not part of her sexual repertoire.
.
Figure 1. Tori‟s diary describing concealment of anal sex and its association to homosexuality.
While anal sex may not be as openly discussed in college as highlighted by Tori in her diary, her mention of the movie Brokeback Mountain illustrated that anal sex was
101 implied. Even though the scene only suggested the occurrence of anal sex, the message reinforced the notion that anal sex was common only among homosexual populations.
Moreover, the movie also indirectly deemed this sexual practice more acceptable among homosexual men. Such media portrayals, as discussed in figure 1 of Tori‟s diary, further reinforce the rigid sexual practices that are associated with sexual orientation. Yet, the negative connotations that are attached with homosexual men and anal sex could make it difficult for heterosexuals to acknowledge engaging in anal sex and talking about its associated risks.
Relatedly, Dallia also recognized that vaginal and oral sex were the most common sexual practices. However, she asserted that the rule among heterosexuals was to not talk about anal sex, even if she was aware that her friends engaged in anal sex. To highlight these assertions Dallia noted,
Probably there‟s more oral or vaginal sex. But I‟m sure that there‟s also a lot of anal sex, probably. I mean, a lot of my friends have had anal sex. I never have, but I‟ve heard of it but I don‟t hear it as often.
Dallia‟s excerpt exemplifies that conversations related to anal sex existed within closed knit relational groups, such as a group of friends. Since she asserted that most of her friends had engaged in anal sex, perhaps within her network of friends anal sex was discussed. However, the fact that Dallia recognized that anal sex was not talked about as much informed her of the implicit rule that this sexual practice should be kept hidden.
Additionally, Dallia‟s uncertain assumptions about anal sex being common seemed to be inflated because her friends engaged in anal sex. Regardless of her friends‟ disclosures regarding anal sex, concealing the sexual practice appeared to be a rule that Dallia
102 learned to expect. Such an occurrence is particularly possible because students are more likely to hear about the occurrence of anal sex in relational encounters between close friends or in boyfriend and girlfriend relationships. It seems likely that these avenues often involve conversations about sex.
Other participants also acknowledged that anal sex was less talked about. For example, Leah agreed that vaginal and oral sex were common. Leah explained,
“heterosexual vaginal penile sex is common…but when you think of sex in college, it‟s a male and a female having penile vaginal. Because those two are the ones that are talked about openly more than anal sex.” Leah rationalized that penile-vaginal sex was the obvious sexual practice among college students because it is commonly talked about and expected. However, and as inferred by all participants, Leah reiterated that anal sex was commonly concealed and hidden from conversations
Additionally, concealment of anal sex was associated with its status as a taboo sexual practice. For example in Bessie‟s diary, she stated, “obviously, the normal, average sex – there‟s oral. There‟s anal that‟s the one that is pretty taboo. People don‟t like to talk about.” As can be observed in Bessie‟s quote, vaginal sex was labeled
“normal” sex, because anal sex was not an ordinary sexual practice. Therefore, conversations about this sexual practice were shrouded in discomfort. Consequently, talking about anal sex seemed unpopular because it conjures negative connotations and associations that might be linked to pathologizing individuals who engage in anal sex.
Alternative depictions of concealment were also noticeable in Shania and Leah‟s diaries in figure 2 and figure 3 respectively. Their diaries depicted how sex was concealed in sexual lyrics in music. According to figure 2 of Shania‟s diary, references to
103 anal sex are rare but references to oral sex are common. Sexual practices were concealed under the guise of euphemisms for both oral and anal sex in Shania‟s and Leah‟s diaries.
The euphemisms in Shania‟s diary, “breakfast in bed, turns to breakfast and head” implies oral sex after breakfast. In a song by Ray J, “hitting it from the front” represents vaginal sex, while “hitting it from the back” refers to anal sex. These musical lyrics as can be noted conceal sexual practices in euphemisms.
Similar concealments were noted by Leah in figure 3. Even though she initially indicated that there were no representations of anal sex in musical lyrics, she still identified examples of rap songs that connoted anal sex. For example from Leah‟s diary, lyrics from Petey Pablo‟s song “Freak-A-Leak” contain covert sexual references.
Specifically, the lyrics “would you do it from the front” and “would you do it from the back” make reference to vaginal and anal sex respectively. Students that are familiar with such euphemisms understand the implied sexual messages. As depicted, euphemisms conceal sexual messages to make the messages more palatable and perhaps more acceptable.
104
Figure 2: Shania‟s diary portraying concealment of anal sex and oral sex in euphemisms
Anal sex in musical lyrics might be uncommon to these participants. Alternatively, because this was the first time participants were asked to identify any references of anal sex within their environment, they may have had difficulty making this identification. An important observation is that these kinds of musical lyrics are widespread and popular among the student population. Messages related to anal sex might appear uncommon.
However, one can assume that the popularity of this music among the college population seems to indicate that participants are able to decipher these associated euphemisms.
105
Figure 3: Leah‟s diary depicting another example of concealment of anal sex in euphemism in musical lyrics.
Another participant, Katrina, also used her diary in figure 4 to identify several musical lyrics that used euphemisms for anal sex. These lyrics were from hip pop or rap music songs that are rated “explicit.” These diary entries showed how songs concealed anal sex in euphemisms. Katrina‟s first diary example portrayed lyrics from Ying Yang
Twin‟s song, “Wait,” where lyrics such as “all in the butt” refer to anal sex. Katrina‟s second example of concealment of anal sex in song was depicted by lyrics from
Afroman‟s song, “Crazy Rap,” where the phrase “stuck it in her ass” implied anal sex.
Similarly, Katrina‟s fourth diary entry on Nicki Minaj‟s song, “Sticks in My Buns,” referenced anal sex in its title. Other important recognitions from Katrina‟s third
106 exemplar of lyrics include Pitbull‟s song, “She’s Freaky,” which not only represented the concealment of anal sex, but also depicted the denigration of women. Specifically, part of the lyrics from this song stated, “hard rough face down, ass up yes sir! That like their hair pulled when you beat from da back that‟s what I like but mami can you really get down like that.” In this musical lyric not only is concealment of anal sex in euphemisms noted, but the lyrics also have undertones of a woman‟s body being denigrated as exemplified.
Figure 4: Katrina‟s diary depicting concealment of anal sex in musical lyrics.
Concealment of anal sex by euphemisms was not only observed in musical lyrics.
Participant conversations, such as Tami‟s diary in figure 5, also depicted how euphemisms extended into regular conversations. Tami‟s exemplar which illustrated, “„a guy friend said what? what?‟ and his friend said, „What? What? In the butt,‟” illuminated an observation of how anal sex was concealed. In addition, Tami‟s diary excerpt
107 illustrated that there were some boundaries that connected those who understood the meanings of euphemisms. Tami noted that, with regards to the above story, “some people standing around understood, but others did not.” In other words, the students who giggled in response to the euphemism understood what it meant and what it was referencing.
While euphemisms concealed the discomfort associated with anal sex, they also create metaphoric boundaries among people. One could become part of this boundary if he/she understood the meanings the YouTube video that Tami referred to in her diary.
Understanding the meanings behind the euphemism in this video could have come about through accessing similar music or videos in one‟s social circles.
Figure 5: Tami‟s diary illustrating concealment of anal sex in euphemisms as observed in conversations.
Other participants like Phoebe rationalized the concealment of anal sex and connected it to negative references. Phoebe illustrated the negative connotations associated with anal sex and why it is concealed. To illustrate Phoebe indicated,
108 Regular sex is common, and sometimes anal sex, I don‟t think they do it as often.
... I feel like it‟s, like, kind of not frowned upon but just, like, awkward to talk
about, I guess because it‟s kind of a strange concept, I guess it‟s not, like, as
talked about as much.
Phoebe attributed concealment to the awkwardness associated with anal sex.
Specifically, when Phoebe noted that “it‟s kind of a strange concept,” she characterized anal sex as an unnatural practice connected with uneasiness. And yet, even though
Phoebe associated anal sex with being awkward and strange, she had engaged in anal sex.
An additional participant who also had engaged in anal sex, Nia, assumed that all college students engaged in anal sex because she had experienced it. She stated,
I‟m sure that they probably do. I‟m a college student and I have. And I don‟t
necessarily talk about it. So I assume. And I consider myself on a more
conservative end than some people I‟ve came into contact with.
Nia also considered herself as a representation of students who concealed anal sex. What is interesting in Nia‟s example is that students who engaged in this practice came from different backgrounds. Nia‟s quote illuminated that being politically or sexually conservative did not necessarily stop her from engaging in anal sex. She illustrated this perspective when she stated, “I consider myself on a more conservative end than some people I‟ve come into contact with.” One might wonder, though, whether her concealment was fostered by her conservative views. Since Nia espouses conservative views, it seems that one may deduce that individuals who do not espouse conservative views would be more open to acknowledge that they had engaged in anal sex.
109 Summary of Communicating Anal Sex by Concealment
This section illustrated that anal sex is often concealed or hidden because it has negative associations. In some cases the negative associations of anal sex were linked with homosexuality. Other participants noted that their perceived uneasiness and the taboo nature of anal sex made it difficult for them to talk about it, even among participants who engaged in this sexual practice. Observations from popular culture and some participant conversations (from diary excerpts) revealed that anal sex was shrouded in euphemisms. Concealment seemed to lighten the negatives connotations of anal sex in terms of how it was talked about. The following theme focuses on the descriptions related to communicating sexual experimentation, pushing boundaries and stretching limits.
Communicating Sexual Experimentation, Pushing Boundaries and Stretching Limits
Vaginal sex and oral sex were the sexual practices participants recognized as being common among college students. Participants were uncertain as to how common anal sex was in college. For students who had tried anal sex, experimentation and exploration appeared to be their motivation to add anal sex to their sexual repertoire. For example, Amber stated,
There‟s vaginal intercourse, and there‟s oral sex, and anal sex. I think all of those
would be common. I don‟t know if anal sex would be as common, but definitely,
the other ones. I think people my age, or college students, that‟s something they
might consider because we‟re at a time in our lives where we‟re kind of moving
into a stage where we might settle down with someone. So maybe, before people
110 wanna settle down, they want to experiment and see what they like, see what they
don‟t like, see what they enjoy.
While Amber was uncertain about how common anal sex was, Amber assumed that anal sex occurred among individuals her age because this was a time for experimentation. As
Amber stated, “before people wanna settle down they want to experiment and see what they like, see what they don‟t like.” According to Amber, experimentation was used as a sexual learning process for this age group while in college. Amber‟s perspective as to why all three sexual practices occurred in college seemed to espouse certain cultural expectations about college. In particular, sexual exploration appeared to be an expected norm because it served to develop individual and relational sexual needs. Furthermore, it might be inferred from Amber‟s quote that the college context provides students with this opportunity for sexual experimentation.
In Victor‟s case, vaginal and oral sex were also assumed to be the most common sexual practices among college students. He also linked anal sex equally to experimentation. Victor‟s description of experimentation had more negative connotations because he believed that the college student‟s newfound privacy and freedom, coupled with alcohol, made him/her more prone to engage in sexual risk taking. Victor stated,
Well, I guess it‟s difficult to say. I mean, I‟m sure that it [anal sex] might
happen. It is kind of the time of experimenting, especially for people who have
just gotten to college and have – aren‟t living with mom and dad anymore. So it‟s
kinda like, “I‟m on my own, and there‟s no one to really…I have a lot more
privacy and a lot more freedom to just bring someone back. Plus, when you
introduce alcohol into it, it just… I guess, anything goes. But it‟s just – yeah, I
111 mean, I guess, the vaginal intercourse would be the… or at least oral, if no one is
worried about any kind of risks involved with those. So I think those may be the
most common.
In Victor‟s case, experimentation occurred under more risky circumstances, whereas
Amber‟s description of experimentation served as a sexual learning process.
Shania also espoused similar sentiments related to negative outcomes that resulted from sexual experimenting. She seemed more certain that experimentation was part of the college environment. She confidently asserted that vaginal, oral and anal sex occurred in this environment. Like Victor, Shania attributed this experimentation largely to the newfound freedom that comes with college. Shania noted,
All of them. I mean, to be quite honest with you, when they say this is the time
for experimentation, they do not lie. And, of course, we talk. Because I think
when you're not – in high school … and so you have to sneak around to do these
things and you have to hide from parents and you've got to look out for – there's a
whole air of just secrecy that happens. In college once again you're completely
free to do whatever you want. So before, where you had these people that are like
oh, I'm not going to do anything, whatever, and parents that are lock-and-key kind
of parents. These are the people that I find get loose, loose, loose when it comes
to college. Because they have this little taste of freedom and they don't know how
to handle it. And all of the sudden, whereas maybe they had a boyfriend and only
just a first kiss, they're banging people left and right in any kind of way feel that
they want. Because, I mean, they're just trying to – I don't want to say make up
for lost time.
112 Shania‟s mocking sentiments such as “lock-and-key kind or parents,” or “people that I find get loose, loose, loose,” or “have this little taste of freedom and they don‟t know how to handle it,” pointed to the multiplicity of perspectives that contribute to college students‟ desire to sexually experiment. Shania pointed to restrictive parental upbringing as cause of sexual experimentation. Shania claimed students from restrictive family backgrounds were not equipped with adequate sexual negotiation skills to manage their sexuality. Shania also suggested that the context of college played a role in shaping the risky choices that some students engaged in.
Additionally, Hadley reinforced the connection between college, experimentation, and engaging in anal sex. Hadley suggested that she too had encountered this phase of sexual experimentation. It seems that, even when certain sexual practices were deemed risky, the culture of college promoted trying new things and encouraged students like
Hadley to push their boundaries. Hadley explained that,
Yeah, definitely anal sex happens, I consider college an experimental phase, in
general, where people are dating, people are trying to make choices in their lives .
So I could only assume that they‟re experimenting sexually, too. I am, as well,
just I guess, going outside your boundaries, trying new things that you haven‟t
done before maybe, even if you‟re scared, you do them anyways. Maybe not –
scared isn‟t the best word to use. Hesitant, or I might not have considered that
before, and just opportunity arises, and you‟re like, “Okay, whatever, I guess I‟ll
do that.” I think definitely anal sex was pretty daring for me just because I would
consider myself a very sexually conservative person, just very penis, vagina,
normal.
113 Based on Hadley‟s descriptions of sexual experimentation, one could raise questions as to whether the culture of experimentation in college environments places undue pressure on students to try varied sexual practices. It seems that the culture of experimentation is a norm that college students have to negotiate. Such an observation was highlighted by Hadley, who explained, “I might not have considered that (anal sex) before, and just because opportunity arises, and you‟re like, „Okay, whatever.‟” This quote illuminates that some kind of implicit pressure exists that pushes students to explore these sexual boundaries. It may be possible that some of this pressure is self- imposed, while some is external. Additionally, it seems all types of students might be subjected to the sexual pressure. When Hadley pointed out that she considered herself sexually conservative (“just very penis, vagina normal”), her portrayal of herself showed that any type of student could practice anal sex, regardless of his/her background and the sexual pressure experienced.
Other participants drew this connection between anal sex and sexual experimentation. For instance, Lianna‟s reasons as to why anal sex was common were aligned with being older and seeking diverse sexual practices. Lianna illustrated,
Yes, well, a lot of them have just had vaginal sex and tried to mix that up as
many times as they can. Once they get to college, they‟re a little older and they
need something else. Plus, a lot of people – it‟s something that a lot of guys,
especially – they‟ve always thought about it and they always wanted to try it.
Now, a lot of people are in kind of serious relationships or they‟re more open to a
lot of different things. It‟s just a whole different ballpark here.
114 Lianna also alluded that anal sex occurred in serious relationships, perhaps because she believed that some level of trust and seriousness was linked to this sexual practice.
Lianna perceived that men expected anal sex. Lianna‟s conclusion regarding men seeking anal sex appeared to be a perception she held because she stated, “it‟s something that a lot of guys especially, they‟ve always thought about and they always wanted try it.”
Such a perception could have been shaped by experience or by the sexual expectations she projected. Lianna also inferred that anal sex could have been used as an alternative sexual practice that was different from regular vaginal intercourse because she noted that students “mix that up as many times as they can. Once in college… they need something else.” Based on this quote it seems that Lianna assumed anal sex enhanced sexual practices. In her concluding remarks Lianna asserted that the sexual expectations of college students were definitely different because the culture of college imposed particular sexual pressures on some students like Lianna.
Similar to Lianna and several of the other participants, Lorie further reiterated the connection between sexual experimentation and anal sex among college students. Lorie also explained,
I think college is a time when a lot of people are experimenting with different
things. And so I think in the college atmosphere I think it‟s a lot easier to try new
things sexually, like anal sex that you may not have before.
Lorie‟s perspectives on sexual experimentation further extended the concept that the college context encouraged more sexual exploration. According to Lianna the context of college is more permissive and enables more sexual experimentation. It seems as though
115 such a permissive culture allows students to engage in sexual practices they might not ordinarily engage in.
Furthermore, another participant illuminated that sexual experimentation extended beyond anal sex to also include sexual orientation. For example, Grace‟s perspectives of sexual experimentation denoted that students engaged in diverse sexual orientations.
Grace noted,
Probably the more common two would be oral and vaginal, but I ask my friends
and I tend to talk about sex pretty often, because we‟re open with each other, so
there have been other types explored. One of my friends is a lesbian, so she‟s
exploring that. And I mean I have gay friends too, so they‟re exploring with anal
sex, and some of my straight friends are too. I guess because it‟s different and
they might want to try something different, or their partner wants to try something
different, and there are really no boundaries when you‟re at college. It‟s kinda
whatever you want to do, so if they‟re willing to do that, then they‟re kinda
stretching their limits and seeing what is okay with them and what‟s not.
Grace‟s ideas of sexual experimentation also confirmed that sexual experimentation was not only related to engaging in anal sex. Instead, sexual experimentation from Grace‟s perspective included students who were exploring different sexual orientations. Even with these sexual explorations, Grace identified that anal sex was practiced by her
“straight friends as well.” The college environment, as Grace noted, was about
“stretching… limits.” It seems that college was an acceptable environment where different experiments could occur. Grace‟s comments seem to further illustrate that the
116 culture of college provided a comfortable environment where such sexual experimentation appeared acceptable and expected.
A different participant also emphasized what Hadley and Lianna illuminated in relation to sexual experimentation and anal sex. Tori explained,
I don‟t know how common it [anal sex] is above the high school level. But
people, I think, start experiencing it in college. I think that when you come here
[college], people want to explore more things and experience different things than
they‟re used to because they‟re pretty much free. And they might just feel more
comfortable and just want to try new things.
While Tori seemed unsure about how common anal sex was, she reiterated the predominant views that allowed students to seek different sexual experiences. In particular, Tori highlighted that the freedom that comes with college enabled students to seek sexual experiences they had not encountered. It seems that the college environment fosters behaviors of exploration.
Last, Barb, another participant who had also engaged in anal sex, did not discount the possibility of anal sex occurring in college. She asserted that experimentation in college also existed alongside other high-risk behaviors like binge drinking and drug use.
When asked about whether anal sex occurred in college, Barb responded, “Probably – it wouldn‟t surprise me at all. I just feel like college is a time for experimentation, especially if there‟s alcohol or drugs involved. You can kind of talk someone into doing things that they might not normally do.” Barb‟s excerpt demonstrated a high-risk context in which anal sex potentially occurs within the college context. Implicit in her comment
117 is the idea that anal sex might occur in situations where consensual sex is compromised because of the effects of alcohol and drugs.
Summary of Experimentation, Pushing Boundaries and Stretching Limits
As stated by participants who engaged in anal sex and those who did not, vaginal and oral sex were deemed to be most common sexual practices. Anal sex appeared to be motivated largely by sexual experimentation. Additionally, the culture of college seemed to place pressure on students to sexually experiment. In some instances, it seemed that experimentation helped to develop participants‟ sexual and relational needs. In one case, sexual experimentation was associated with risky circumstances where alcohol and drugs were present. The pressure for sexual experimentation appeared to either be self-imposed or external to the student. It is also important to recognize that sexual experimentation was not the only pressure to which students are subjected.
Communicating Problematic Sexual Contexts
Some of the participants also depicted high-risk sexual contexts in their descriptions of the sexual practices that they recognized occur among college students.
The theme of communicating high-risk sex illustrates that anal sex is not the only high- risk sexual activity that could occur. Instead, other sexual practices were also illuminated.
Some of the participants indicated that they engaged in sex with multiple partners, or that sex occurred in non-monogamous relationships. In most of the situations, participants highlighted that high-risk sexual practices occurred in connection with alcohol and drugs.
Since the university has a history of being a party school, the involvement of alcohol in most social encounters was not surprising.
118 As a participant who had engaged in anal sex, Phoebe‟s explanation of the sexual practices that are common among college students depicted an example of a high-risk sexual practice. In particular, she indicated the occurrence of alcohol-related hook-ups, and inferred that students engage in hook-ups with multiple partners in non-monogamous relationships. Phoebe illustrated,
Like, drunk hookups… well, I mean, it depends. Like, looking at all my friends,
like, sometimes it‟s like someone you don‟t know that well. Sometimes it‟s
someone you‟ve been hooking up with on a regular basis. And then in some
cases, if my friends have boyfriends, then it‟s their boyfriend. .. Just because, I
mean, I know a lot of people and I feel like I talk to a lot of people about this and
that‟s the general sense I get that people do… Yes , yeah. I‟ve never hooked up
with someone that I don‟t know. .. It depends for different people. Like, some
people I know for, like, a few years; some people I know for two weeks.
It seems the culture of college fosters a climate of experimentation that encourages alcohol-related hook-ups and high-risk sexual activity. Personality traits might predispose certain individuals like Phoebe to be drawn towards high-risk practices like hooking up. Phoebe also inferred peer pressure when she stated, “looking at all my friends, like, sometimes it‟s someone you don‟t know that well.” This excerpt pointed to the external influences that might motivate students to engage in hook ups. Additionally,
Phoebe‟s peers seemed to influence her understanding and expectations of hook-ups. It is possible that hook-ups could have been popular within Phoebe‟s social network. When
Phoebe stated, “ I know a lot of people and I feel like I talk to a lot of people about this and that‟s the general sense I get that people do,” she implicitly demonstrated that she
119 understood the expectations of the sexual practice of hooking up in college. Although hooking up is a high-risk practice, when asked if she had hooked up herself Phoebe rationalized her answer. Phoebe justified that she hooked up with people she knew either for a few years or for two weeks. Regardless, hook-ups appear risky because they often occur in non-monogamous relationships. On the other hand, since pleasurable sex might be an important sexual experience for certain college students, hook-ups might potentially enhance sexual experience. Furthermore, hook-ups might be important to students who do not seek the relational outcomes of monogamous sexual experiences.
Another participant, Sasha, also indicated that a wide variety of sexual practices occurred among college students. Anal sex seemed unsurprising as a sexual practice because its occurrence was based on the personal preferences. Sasha illuminated diverse high-risk sexual practices. One of the examples she witnessed in her dorm room was driven by alcohol and drugs dorm room. Sasha illustrated,
Anal sex, oral sex, group sex, fun sex, terrible sex. I would assume anal sex –
well I mean, I would guess all of them, really. It depends on the person but I
would guess that group sex isn‟t that common. But it happened in my building…
I mean, I suppose they all got alcohol and some drugs and it was on the fourth
floor of my building. And it was like a big party and they invited me and a few of
my friends over, and we came up, and they just all started to get naked. And we
left.
Sasha‟s example provides us with a glimpse of some of the high-risk sexual practices that some students in college may encounter. Furthermore, the mention of group sex also illuminated the existence of a broad sexual repertoire that certain students engaged in.
120 One consideration may be that this sexual practice was associated with excitement and experimentation, both of which, as already discussed, appear to be part of the college culture. Including alcohol and drugs further minimizes the chances of recognizing sexual risks. Therefore, Sasha‟s example portrayed how some college students push boundaries and limits in their college sexual experiences.
Katrina was participant who had not engaged in sex, but who noted that vaginal and oral sex were likely to occur among college students, especially with regards to athletes. Katrina‟s information referenced the media‟s depiction of male athletes. As an athlete herself, she posited that the media image of high-risk sexual practices among athletes was not any different from the reality she witnessed or the conversations she had with fellow athletes. To explain, Katrina stated,
Vaginal and oral. Probably oral. Probably because – I‟ve watched a lot of movies
and I‟ve noticed that, in terms of the athletes, there‟s a lot of girls who are very
promiscuous and they are willing to just give it up easily [referring to sex], just
because they‟re doing it with an athlete. And I‟ve also had a lot of male guys
friends, and they‟ve said that when you‟re an athlete, that‟s the easiest way to go
[referring to oral sex].
Katrina‟s example of high-risk sexual activity indicated that the contextual influences may inform the sexual norms that students adopt. In this case, perhaps athletes and college students may come to accept and expect the high-risk sexual practices that are presented in the media about athletes.
Within this section of communicating high-risk sexual practices, Micah also reinforced Phoebe‟s idea that most sexual practices could take place in college if
121 participants drunk enough alcohol. Micah explained “probably vaginal is, or oral. Well, there‟s lots of drinking on campus, so I think it‟s [anal sex] more common here” Even though Micah recognized that vaginal and oral sex were common, engaging in anal sex was associated with being under the influence of alcohol. Furthermore, Micah insinuated that this was not a sexual practice anyone engaged in when they were sober.
High-risk sexual behaviors were also communicated in participant diaries. Barb‟s diary relates a high-risk circumstance where alcohol was present and anal sex occurred.
Barb narrated the circumstance under which her friend engaged in anal sex. She wrote,
“my friend noted she used to do it [anal sex] every time she had sex with this one guy.
She said she was mostly blacked out drunk when it happened.”
Figure 6: Barb‟s diary relating high-risk anal sex with alcohol.
122
Barb‟s dairy entry in figure 6 illuminated that her peers relayed stories that depicted high- risk sexual encounters to her. Based on this diary entry, it seems that engaging in sex while intoxicated appeared to connote some kind of discomfort for the female participant.
Alcohol also functioned to loosen inhibitions, which are brought about by the apprehension associated with talking about and engaging in anal sex. The fact that the involved female was embarrassed about disclosing her experience further illuminated the stigma and the anxiety that is associated with anal sex.
Barb‟s diary also denoted how her peer was embarrassed to talk about this high- risk practice. Specifically, Barb indicated, “the part that really surprised me was when she said, „I was embarrassed and didn‟t even tell my close girlfriends.‟ Barb‟s mention of embarrassment highlights that some students might not talk to their peers about high-risk sexual encounters like anal sex. Since college students converse about sex with their peers regularly, concealing high-risk sexual information related to anal sex may delay that supportive system and helpful advice that occasionally is provided by peers.
A different diary entry further depicts the motivations that drove students to engage in high-risk anal sexual encounters. In her diary entry in figure 7, Peggy narrated a friend‟s high risk anal sex experience. She noted,
I was talking to a friend today that brought up that his ex girl friend wanted to
have sex without a condom and he wasn‟t comfortable with that idea because of
pregnancy. The female then said, “well then we can do anal; then no one gets
pregnant that way,” he gave in.
123 Peggy‟s diary entry in figure 7 clearly indicated that participants‟ friends sometimes suggested unprotected sex because of the inability to become pregnant. Peggy‟s account also seemed to suggest that the fear of pregnancy was more dreaded than any other risks such as STIs. This narration also exemplifies that the risks associated with unprotected anal sex are often undermined and that unprotected anal sex might even be used as pregnancy prevention strategy.
Another illuminating example that points to the risks that Peggy identified relates to engaging in anal sex during menstruation. In the same diary entry Peggy also wrote, “a friend of mine said that she only likes anal when she is really horny and can‟t have vaginal sex because she menstruating.” This entry illuminates that females might use anal sex as an option when they are menstruating because of their pursuit of pleasure.
Figure 7: Peggy‟s diary indicating high risk unprotected anal sex and anal sex during menstruation.
124 Finally, this diary entry in figure 8 by Hadley also showed high-risk anal sex. In this narration, Hadley stated how sexual risks were undermined and discounted. To illustrate, Hadley indicated,
a guy friend of mine is interested in a girl that I know and he was asking if I knew
anything about her. I told him that I heard that she had given a few guys an STD
and his response was “no big deal, I‟ll just stick it in her butt.”
Hadley‟s story further portrayed how some students undermined anal sexual risk. The diary entry suggested some students might not connect anal sex to STIs. A lack of awareness with regards to how STIs are transmitted was demonstrated in this entry. It appears that STI infections were only equated with vaginal sex and not anal sex. Such perceptions clearly pose risks to students that espouse such information.
Figure 8: Hadley‟s diary entry portraying high risk anal sex.
125 Summary of Communicating Problem Contexts
In this section, participants generally acknowledged that vaginal and oral sex were more common sexual practices. However, their narratives associated high-risk sexual behaviors of anal sex with alcohol and drugs in some cases. To a large degree, alcohol and drugs appeared to increase the sexual risks that the students engaged. These high-risk sexual behaviors appeared to be fostered by the culture of college (especially given the party school image), sexual experimentation and the sexual norms that students anticipate during college. In the next section, I address the theme of communicating the unmentionable “IT.”
Communicating the Unmentionable “IT”
This section seeks to understand when participants first heard about anal sex.
Such recollections were significant in providing the researcher with a sense of how early participants were introduced to information related to anal sex. In addition, how participants talked about their recollections of their first encounter with anal sex informed the communication patterns observed. Several participants acknowledged hearing about anal sex for the first time around middle and high school. There were no differences in terms of where they heard the information related to anal sex between participants who had engaged in anal sex and those who had not.
Participants noted that information related to anal sex was largely gleaned from sex education classes or from peers or close relatives. It was striking that as the participants discussed anal sex, several participants (nine out of the twelve) referred to anal sex as an “IT.” Referencing anal sex as an IT denoted some level of uneasiness which participants might not have directly verbalized. Even though participants appeared
126 comfortable during the interview, this subtle observation reinforces the idea that anal sex was an uncomfortable subject for the participants.
Gabby, one of the participants that had engaged in anal sex, reflected on when she first heard about anal sex in her middle school health class. Gabby indicated,
I first heard about it [anal sex] when I was younger and didn‟t really know what it
[anal sex] was. I‟d say in junior high, in health class and stuff. They would say it
[anal sex], and I would just be, like, “Who would do that? What‟s that?” And
just kinda be surprised that was a real thing. But the school I went to was super,
super conservative.
As Gabby was reminiscing about learning about anal sex, her discomfort in mentioning anal sex was obvious because she used “IT” three times to reference anal sex and did not mention it directly when she talked about her middle school recollections about anal sex.
Other important considerations that Gabby‟s excerpt highlighted was the sexual significance that middle school provides for adolescents. Since adolescents are just becoming aware of their sexuality, it seems that some health classes provided detailed information about the dangers or risks associated with sex. As expected, the information related to anal sex was met with surprise given Gabby‟s young age. Ironically, even though Gabby acknowledged the conservative nature of her school, it appeared that anal sex was also included in her curriculum. The fact that her sex education class included anal sex dispels some of the assumptions about the sex education content in schools that are considered conservative. Gabby‟s excerpt insinuated that perhaps her school curriculum included comprehensive sex education.
127 Barb, another participant who had engaged in anal sex, also recalled being exposed to what seemed to be age-appropriate sex education. Her descriptions inferred that most of the sex education leaned towards disease prevention by informing students about the history of HIV among the homosexual community. Barb indicated,
Probably in middle school when we were taking our sex-ed courses. Not very in
depth, but when they were talking about passing HIV from one person to another,
it [HIV] started with the gay community. That‟s what they were talking about.
That‟s a more high risk activity in terms of getting HIV, if I remember correctly.
Barb‟s explanation of the sex education she received connected anal sex with the homosexual community. From Barb‟s perspective we see how she was equipped with disease prevention information on the dangers associated with anal sex. It seems that if
HIV and anal sex were emphasized to occur among the gay community, then risks among heterosexuals who engaged in anal sex were implicitly minimized.
When Bessie recalled hearing about anal sex in middle school, she demonstrated some level of discomfort. Bessie indicated that she was exposed to age appropriate sex education. She stated, “when you‟re that young, people don‟t really want to expose you to very much.” Here Bessie insinuated that she was aware of some of the debates in the sex education, especially the discourse that was related to the appropriateness of the sex education content. Similar to Barb, Bessie explained that her sex education largely emphasized risk reduction and prevention of disease, especially in preventing HIV/AIDS.
Bessie also claimed that anal sex was not restricted to homosexual groups. Bessie‟s information appeared not to be biased, because she was exposed to a neutral position in relation to sexual health information. However, Bessie showed her discomfort in that she
128 also used “IT” several times in her explanation to refer to anal sex. It seems that “IT” demonstrated participants‟ discomfort with such a sexual practice, especially when the recollections were related to the school environment. Bessie stated,
Health class, actually, in probably 7th or 8th grade. So when I was probably 12
they were talking about it [anal sex]. And it [anal sex] always comes up when
you talk about AIDS. So we were learning about AIDS, and that‟s where we
learned about it [anal sex] because when you‟re that young, people don‟t really
want to expose you to very much. They didn‟t talk about it [anal sex] as much
along the lines of being a primarily homosexual act or anything because it‟s not.
It [anal sex] can be both, but I learned about it mostly because of the risks that are
involved with it like AIDS. They wanted you to be safe and use a condom and
everything just in case when you grew up you did that.
Other participants who recalled having sex education in high school also admitted that, when they heard about anal sex, it was taught alongside other sexual practices. In particular, sex education tended to focus on disease prevention or sexual orientation. Both
Barb and Bessie were aware that safety was the objective of their sex education. Bessie, though, seemed to have received a sex education which portrayed anal sex in a neutral manner.
Hadley illuminated a very different picture of sex education. Hadley‟s sex education instruction appeared to have some biased leanings in how anal sex was presented. Like Barb, Hadley‟s sex education seemed to connect anal sex with homosexual men, an assumption that disregards that many individuals who not identify
129 as homosexual also practice anal sex. Hadley illustrated her early awareness of anal sex in the following manner,
Well, I heard it [anal sex] in high school, anal sex was also basically part of the
general broad overview of sex and STDs and sexual orientation, things like that.
Most of the sex, vaginal as well, was – I feel like they directed it [anal sex] more
towards diseases and keeping kids from – keeping kids either abstinent or trying
to keep them protected. So it was mostly disease oriented, and not really learning
how to… probably just mostly about the disease that you can contract from –
especially in anal sex and among homosexuals mostly, too.
Additionally, a close examination of Hadley‟s descriptions of her sex education portrays some of the absences she observed. She indicated that her sex education was “mostly more disease-oriented, and not really learning how to.” Furthermore, it is also noticeable that Hadley also referred to anal sex as an “IT,” again illuminating some unease in discussing anal sex or sex.
Aileen demonstrated another perspective by supplementing the sex education she learned in high school. She highlighted that disease prevention was the main objective of the sex education. Aileen specifically emphasized the prevention of STIs. Aileen was the only participant who clearly recalled what her sex education class taught her about engaging in a high-risk sexual practice like anal sex. She explained,
Probably when I was in high school, because they always told us that if you
decide to do it [anal sex], then you should use lots of protection, and lots of
lubricant to prevent any infection or anything like that. And I guess my cousin. It
was her summer of her graduation or something, and we were having a little girl
130 chat, and we were talking to each other about what we‟ve done, what we haven‟t
done. And she talked to me about her experience [anal sex experience].
Aileen sought additional sexual information from her cousin in order to supplement her sex education information with other sources. It is possible that such information filled the gaps that were not met in sex education or from her parents. In particular, seeking out sexual information from a cousin who experienced anal sex provided Aileen with first- hand lived experience. Coming from her cousin, perhaps such information was deemed reliable and credible.
Several other participants denoted that they supplemented their sexual education information from their peers, perhaps because of some gaps in their sex education. Such a finding is not uncommon given that participants were exposed to a wide variety of sexual information resources. While narrating what they learned from their peers, participants occasionally referred to anal sex as an IT as well.
Eden‟s narrative indicated that she heard about anal sex in sex education and in her dating relationship while in high school. Eden illustrated,
I had a boyfriend a long time ago that like really wanted to do it [anal sex] and I
did just because he wanted to. We went to a public high school, but it‟s in a really,
really small town. So it‟s like my friend‟s mom is the health teacher, so she‟s
obviously going to be, like, “Don‟t do this. This is bad.” It was kinda that
scenario, so she didn‟t really go into too much detail about it [anal sex], but pretty
much just made it seem like a bad thing.
Eden‟s experience of engaging in anal sex because of her boyfriend‟s sexual needs highlighted that participants seemed to engage in anal sex to please their partners. What
131 is unfortunate in Eden‟s case is that she recognized that the sex education she received did not provide adequate detailed information. It only recognized anal sex as “a bad thing.” What was interesting to note is that even though Eden was aware of the negative connotations equated with anal sex, these associations were not enough to influence the sexual decision she made in engaging in anal sex. Instead, pressure from her boyfriend overrode and influenced the sexual decision. While the physical risk factors that are related to anal sex are important to illuminate in schools, introducing females and males to the importance of negotiating skills must be an ongoing inclusion in sexual education.
Other participants reflected on problematic narratives when they first heard about anal sex. Peggy was also informed about anal sex by her peer who had a negative experience with it. Similar to Eden‟s story, Peggy represented a young woman‟s inability to negotiate comfortable sexual choices. Peggy‟s story also depicted a potentially non- consensual circumstance that young girls may experience. In this narrative the boyfriend‟s sexual needs were esteemed, whereas the female failed to negotiate her sexual needs. Peggy stated,
I heard from my friend just that she – that her boyfriend asked her to do it [anal
sex] when he was coming to visit her in college. I was like, oh, I‟ve never really
heard of this before and never thought that someone would think to do that. But
that was when I was, myself, I was still in high school and she was telling me
about it. She just talked about how she – first, they started performing oral sex on
each other, and then they had intercourse, and then they decided – well, he
decided that he would like to have anal sex, I guess, to maybe – take it further.
And she wasn‟t so much for it, but she knew that he would like it, so she kinda
132 just did it for him. But she – I remember her telling me that she didn‟t care for it
and that she went through a lot of pain. That was what she described to me. And
then, surprisingly, we ended up learning about it [anal sex] throughout high
school through nurses that came to our school and talked to us about it [anal sex]
and stuff.
Peggy‟s friend‟s inability to negotiate her sexual needs seem to have been influenced by her inability to assert herself. Peggy‟s story illuminated that her friend esteemed the relational needs of the relationship by rationalizing, “she knew that he would like it, so she kinda just did it for him.” It seems that the circumstances of consenting to anal sex while in a sexual situation, as projected by Peggy‟s explanation, made it more difficult to resist anal sex because her friend was already in a sexually compromised situation.
Peggy‟s narrative portrays how subtle coercion might occur in relational sex, especially since the boyfriend decided to engage in anal sex during the process of sexual activity.
Leah‟s narrative also involved information about anal sex from her peers and from sex education classes. In addition, her narrative also indicated some level of discomfort, which is noted as she refers to anal sex as an “IT” in her narrative. A close observation of Leah‟s explanation highlighted the dangers associated with information from peers. Leah illustrated,
Like with friends just talking about it [anal sex] in high school. Well, there‟s the
big myth that you can‟t get pregnant if you have anal sex. It [anal sex] was not
really talked about much. It was kind of taboo, very taboo. No, in parenting
classes and that class, it was never brought up. But in college, in this human
sexualities class it definitely is. They‟re saying – well, they‟re breaking the myth
133 that you possibly can get pregnant with anal sex if you don‟t use a condom. They
talk about about it, how to do it the right way so it‟s not painful, how to do it [anal
sex] so it [anal sex] is satisfying for both male, and female.
Leah‟s explanation also denoted the negative associations that are linked with anal sex.
She illustrated that anal sex was not talked about as often in her parenting health class because it was considered taboo. These negative attitudes associated with anal sex might be an acceptable reaction to a taboo subject, given that anal sex conjures feelings of discomfort. It is important for instructors of any sex education information to recognize that, when accurate information about anal sex is not provided, students will seek this sexual information from their peers and other resources. In such instances the accuracy of their information may not be accurate, as Leah‟s narrative indicated. Leah compared the myth about anal sex with the accurate sexual information from her college‟s health and sexualities class. This may be an opportunity that most students might not have.
Another participant recalled the taboo nature of anal sex during her high school years. Similar to Leah, Amber also had observed the taboo nature of anal sex through her own education. Amber explained,
I think it would have been sometime in high school when – I mean, not heard a
lot about it [anal sex], but just knew that it [anal sex] happened and knew that
people did it. – it [anal sex] probably would have been that it‟s frowned upon, or
that it‟s – homosexual male couples do it a lot. But mainly – yeah, a big thing
would be that it was frowned upon, probably.
Amber‟s statement exemplified that the need to conceal information related to anal sex was learned early. Even when anal sex was perceived to be common, Amber was clearly
134 aware that anal sex was a socially unacceptable sexual practice which was associated with homosexual men. Assumptions that anal sex is a predominantly homosexual practice could be misleading as they presume that sexual practices are rigid and confined to particular sexual categories. While the frequency of engaging in anal sex may vary between heterosexual individuals and homosexuals, assuming that anal sex is an exclusively homosexual practice is inaccurate. Some homosexual individuals do not engage in anal sex and some heterosexuals do. Therefore a neutral approach that represents balanced views on the occurrence of anal sex in both heterosexual individuals and homosexual men would appear more accurate.
Judith, another participant who had not engaged in anal sex, heard about anal sex from her peers who had engaged in anal sex. Judith‟s narration portrayed how she used her friend‟s reviews of anal sex to gauge whether she should engage in anal sex or not.
This review contributed to the sexual choice she selected. As exemplified in Judith‟s narration, peers provided comfortable and safe conversations. Judith stated,
In high school. One of my friends did it [anal sex] and we talked about it. (What
did your friend say) She said it [anal sex] was uncomfortable. I mean, I just am
always turned off by that whole thing [anal sex]. I mean, I know I‟m talking
about it [anal sex], but I just have never done it and just don‟t ever plan on doing
it. But I‟ve had, I mean, most of my friends have done it, and they‟ve talked
about it. My friend had done it in high school, so that‟s where I heard about it.
In Judith‟s case we can observe that sexual information was provided by peers.
Experiences of pain from anal sex discouraged Judith from wanting to engage in anal sex.
Since sex education was not mentioned in Judith‟s description, we can deduce that the
135 sexual information from friends also filled in the void. In Judith‟s excerpt it is also noticeable that she referred to anal sex as an “IT,” again portraying some implicit discomfort in talking about anal sex. As indicated, Judith pointedly said that “she is turned off by the whole thing [anal sex].” As Judith stated, not only did she refer to anal sex as an “IT,” she also used vague terms like “thing” to perhaps depict revulsion towards anal sex.
Similarly, Lacey noted, “I think one of my friends in high school was thinking about trying it [anal sex] or something. In health class it [anal sex] also came up briefly when they told us that we could get STDs that way, too.” Lacey revealed that conversations between friends provided a review that enabled participants to hear about anal sex. It seems that information received from friends in some ways was also important in the decision making process concerning anal sex. While health classes or sex education classes focused on disease prevention, relational resources such as conversing with a friend were used, even when their reliability could be questionable. Perhaps conversations with friends reinforced information from sex education classes or was used as the determining factor based on the positive or negative reviews provided. Lacey also discussed anal sex in covert ways by using “IT” as she talked about anal sex, again portraying the discomfort associated with this sexual practice.
In speaking about the experiences of hearing about anal sex in high school and surfacing the negative experiences of what she heard, a different participant, Katrina, stated,
Probably would say in high school because one of the boys, he was dating a
freshman and he was a senior in high school, and he was always talking about
136 how him and this girl, they did anal all the time, and I felt like he was kinda
degrading her. I guess he just put all her business out like that. That would
probably be the first time I heard about it. Maybe not necessarily degrading her,
but just the idea of putting her business out in the public with everyone else.
Katrina‟s narrative takes us into some of the fears adolescents have as they relate to disclosing sexual information. Katrina‟s reference to the boyfriend “…degrading her [the girl he was dating]. I guess he just put her business out like that” depicts the dire consequences that some adolescents might experience. Ensuring that sexual information is kept private is always something that matters to the self-esteem of adolescents. Early experiences such as the one shown by Katrina indicated that these experiences could perhaps be degrading. Even more importantly, since anal sex is stigmatized, publicizing such information can be demeaning to the affected individuals.
Summary of Communicating the Unmentionable IT
This section highlighted how participants communicated the unmentionable IT.
Participants remembered when they first heard about anal sex. In their descriptions, participants displayed discomfort when they talked about anal sex by using a vague term such as IT. Participants reflected on their recollections of their middle or high school experiences regarding when they heard about anal sex. Participants also demonstrated that peers provided information related to anal sex. Their narratives pointed to how sex education either discussed anal sex from a disease prevention perspective or was protection-focused. Other recollections of anal sex presented in school showed that it was sometimes presented in a neutral manner as a sexual practice that was risky to both heterosexual individuals and homosexual men and sometimes it was not. In several
137 instances, participants recounted narratives that displayed sexual coercion based on conversations with peers. Other participants illuminated that while in high school, they were aware that anal sex was frowned upon. Finally, one participant narrated the depiction of the degradation of a female when information about anal sex was exposed in high school.
Communicating Anal Sex with Jokes
The early recollections of participants‟ stories about when they heard about anal sex indicated that most participants considered it a topic for joking. Joking, or the use of humor in connection to anal sex, was used for various reasons. Stories related to anal sex that were shared in high school associated anal sex with homosexual men or individuals who the participants considered promiscuous. For example, Sally‟s description represents how these jokes demarcated and further reinforced stereotypes about who engaged in anal sex and who did not. She said,
It was probably more of a conversation, not necessarily somebody engaging in it.
The only thing I can think of is two guys talking about it, like in homosexuality as
far as in prison and things like that. I don‟t remember not knowing about it. I
mean, it wasn‟t a common thing that people talked about. But when people talked
about it in high school, it was more like they joked about people who were either
gay or people who were openly very sexual and just that type of stuff.
Similar to Sally, Nia also noted that early jokes about anal sex introduced it only as a homosexual practice. Consequently, students like Nia may have been introduced to rigid associations of sexual practices with people‟s sexual identity. Nia noted,
138 Honestly, probably in junior high and high school in reference to jokes about
homosexual males. Because I guess before I just – when I was younger I just
assumed that that was a gay man practice, it wasn‟t something that other people
did. And then it was kind of a thing that people really didn't talk about much, so I
didn't hear a lot about it. Yeah, or if they did they didn't talk about it.
In Nia‟s context, jokes about homosexual individuals and anal sex were used as put downs that othered one group and demeaned a sexual orientation based on a sexual practice that was associated with them.
In other instances, hearing about anal sex for the first time was uncomfortable for participants. Based on the exchanges that occurred between herself and peers, anal sex was introduced as a joke to make light of the content. But in some cases joking about anal sex did not minimize the associated negative feelings. For example, Ella said,
Probably my friends. I would say someone kind of mentioned it, and you say,
“Oh, what‟s that?” And then, you get into a whole discussion you probably
don‟t need to have. I think it was probably a joke, like an offhand joke. Like,
“Oh, they had anal sex.” And kind of, “Oh, huh. Okay.” When I first heard
about it, it was a little just strange to me. I never really thought about sex like
that until I heard about it. So it was kind of ah, “Oh, okay.”
Ella showed that she was uncomfortable with anal sex because she stated, “you get into a whole discussion you probably don‟t need to have.” This excerpt indicated that talking about anal sex seemed to violate expected silence that is associated with anal sex. As indicated by Ella, anal sex conjured unease; “it was just strange to me. I never really thought about sex like that until I heard about it.” Ella was clearly taken aback by this
139 sexual practice, perhaps because she assumed vaginal sex was more common. Even when a joke was used to lighten the conversation, Ella still was uncomfortable.
Other indications of when jokes were used in reference to anal sex were also observed by Phoebe. She stated, “Probably as early as, like, middle school, just, like, kids, like, joking about it or something like that.” Perhaps in the minds of adolescents hearing about a sexual practice like anal sex was uncomfortable and possibly embarrassing. A seemingly normal reaction would be to laugh off uncomfortable information. Phoebe‟s excerpt seemed to depict such a scenario.
Lianna‟s depiction of a joke in her recollection noted how anal sex was not associated with anything “serious.” Perhaps she was suggesting that the risks that might be associated with this sexual practice may be pushed aside by adolescents during middle school. Lianna illustrated,
Oh, I was in middle school or something like that – I was a young teen. It was just
people making jokes about it [anal sex]– it wasn‟t anybody talking seriously.
They‟d heard this – or someone had seen some kind of porn – and they saw them
doing this – and they were like, “What are they doing?” Because no one ever
tells you that they do that stuff, too!
Similar to the observation made by Phoebe on joking about anal sex, Lianna also observed the same reaction from her peers. She stated, “it wasn‟t anybody talking seriously.” It seems possible that among adolescents discussions of a sexual nature might not be taken seriously. In such a context where humor or lightheartedness is present, it is notable that Lianna‟s excerpt discussed pornography. It seems that when humor or a lighthearted demeanor is present, as seen in Phoebe and Lianna‟s excerpts, serious
140 considerations of risk were absent. Relatedly, sexual content seemed to have had a lighthearted feel such that the serious consequences that are related to risks of anal sex are often rarely part of the conversation.
Using jokes in reference to anal sex was not only restricted to middle, and high school years with regard to when the participants first heard about anal sex. Lacey‟s diary in figure 9 revealed a different scenario of joking.
Figure 9: Lacey‟s diary revealing how Joking was used in an interpersonal context.
Lacey noted in her diary that her boyfriend joked about anal sex to suggest interest in this sexual practice. As she wrote, “he seemed to joke more about it & bring it up a bit more than normal.” It appears that Lacey‟s boyfriend joked about anal sex because it seemed easier to broach a taboo subject. Lacey‟s participation in this study also encouraged more discussions. She stated, “since he knew that I was talking about it he felt like he could bring it up more.” Even if the study seemed to encourage more conversations, it still seemed that jokes were a safe way of discussing anal sex.
141 Other depictions of jokes appeared to be offensive to a particular participant.
Ella‟s diary in figure 10 reflects how offensive she found her boyfriend‟s boss‟ joke about anal sex. She stated,
His boss was openly talking about and joking about anal sex. He was being very
graphic about it trying to be funny but it was just gross to me. He was making it
seem as if it wasn‟t a very serious subject and was making it seem like a big
joke.
Ella‟s excerpt demonstrated that anal sex might be a joke from a male gendered perspective, as was shown by the boss. However, depending on how anal sex is represented, it might conjure negative images based on one‟s experience with this sexual practice. Ella was uncomfortable with “openly” talking about anal sex and even joking about it. Perhaps the taboo nature and the stigma surrounding this sexual practice made
Ella uncomfortable. Ella might have found the joke to be demeaning and degrading from a female perspective. Regardless of how anal sex is packaged, the multiple negative associations it has (unnatural, taboo, not talked about, awkward) make this sexual practice one that requires sensitivity and an understanding of the context where it is being discussed.
142
Figure 10: Ella‟s diary portraying an offensive joke
Alternative depictions of humor that served positive functions were also represented again in relational group setting by Grace. She highlighted, “my roommates and I were talking about sex and the topic of anal sex came up once again it was in a joking context and everyone shared their experience with it and how they felt about.
Grace‟ diary in figure 11 exemplified a scenario where a joke was used as an ice breaker to share experiences and emotions related to a taboo sexual subject. It seems that the joke allowed students to openly talk about general sex information and taboo sexual topics like anal sex.
143
Figure 11: Grace‟ diary exemplifying the use of a joke among peers
Summary of Communicating Anal Sex with Jokes
Participants pointed out that when they heard or talked about anal sex, it was because someone joked about it. It seemed that jokes either demarcated or reinforced stereotypes between those who were promiscuous and those who were not. In some instances, references to jokes were used as put-downs for homosexuals. Jokes were also used to lighten up discussions related to anal sex. Sometimes a joke about anal sex was found to be demeaning and offensive.
Summary on Phenomenological Reduction of Participant Communication
This section covered five themes that addressed how participants communicated about anal sex. The first theme, communicating anal sex by concealment, indicated that anal sex is often concealed either in conversations or in participant‟s environments. Even when participants suspected that anal sex occurred, it still remained largely an unspoken sexual practice. Depictions of anal sex in participant diaries illuminated that anal sex was concealed in popular culture by euphemisms. Occasionally, participants also portrayed stereotypical portrayals of anal sex that are associated with homosexual men.
144 Second, participants stated that college students engaged in anal sex because they were motivated by sexual experimentation. It seemed the culture of college encouraged experimentation. There appeared to be self imposed and external pressure to sexually experiment. Sexual experimentation enhanced participants‟ sexual development on the one hand. In one case though, risky sexual experimentation occurred under risky circumstances where alcohol and drugs were present.
Third, the theme on communicating problematic sexual contexts illuminated that some participants engaged in high-risk sexual activity. High-risk sexual contexts included non-monogamous sex or having multiple partners. Occasionally, participants highlighted that alcohol and drugs were implicated in influencing the sexual choice to engage in anal sex.
Fourth, the section on how participants communicated the unmentionable “IT” illuminated how participants recalled when they first heard about anal sex. Participant recollections portrayed discomfort when they talked about anal sex or recorded anal sex in their diaries. This discomfort was noted by the use of the proposition “IT” to refer to anal sex. Participants discussed anal sex in connection with sex education or to what they learned from their peers. Participants described that sex education was either disease- oriented and presented anal sex in either a neutral manner, or biased manner towards homosexual men, or was not presented in a detailed manner. In one stance, a participant illuminated an instance of sexual coercion. Participants also illuminated that they learned that anal sex was frowned upon while in high school. Lastly, one participant narrated an episode in high school where a female was degraded because she engaged in anal sex.
145 Last, the theme related to communicating anal sex with jokes pointed to how participants indicated that they used jokes when they talked about anal sex. Jokes served multiple purposes. For some participants, jokes were used as put downs to demarcate and stereotype homosexual men or individuals the participants considered promiscuous. In other cases, participants used jokes to lighten discussions related to anal sex because they were not considered serious conversations. In another example, a joke was found to be humiliating and offensive. Finally, a joke was also used to initiate conversations. The following section addresses the phenomenological reduction of participants‟ disclosure and privacy management.
Phenomenological Reduction on Privacy and Disclosure
The findings of this section on privacy and disclosure answer the following research question: how do participants manage privacy and disclosure of anal sex with their peers and intimate partners? This section relied on theoretical concepts of privacy
(concealment) and disclosure from Petronio‟s communication privacy management
(CPM) theory. Communication in this section refers to participants‟ descriptions of disclosure and/or concealment encounters in their interaction(s) with relational others
(peers or intimate partners). The section is discussed in the following order. The first theme is disclosure of anal sex for social support. Following this theme is disclosure of interest in anal sex, gauging interest and setting boundaries. Afterwards, I discuss disclosing peer reviews of anal sex. Thereafter, I present the theme of unsurprising disclosures of anal sex in intimate relationships. Following this theme, I outline the tensions of disclosure and concealment. In addition, the theme of disclosure of sexual pressure follows. Finally the theme of disclosure of sexual negotiation is presented.
146 Disclosure of Anal Sex for Social Support
The understanding of disclosure and concealment that is used in the analysis of this theme is drawn from Petronio‟s (2002) communication privacy management theory
(CPM). Disclosure pertains to the process of revealing private information, whereas concealment or privacy refers to keeping certain information a secret.
Participants who engaged in anal sex disclosed their sexual experiences to peers who had similar experiences. Disclosures of anal sex seemed more appealing when participants disclosed to those with the same experiences than to peers without anal sex experience. Such admissions seemed to typify that participants were part of a collective boundary of people who maintained and guarded private information related to a taboo and stigmatized practice, in this case anal sex. Collective boundaries are imagined lines of privacy ownership that pertain to a group‟s or dyad‟s ability to maintain private information (Petronio, 2002). Disclosure of anal sex within these friendship boundaries or contexts served practical purposes that sought or provided social support. Social support seemed to be motivated by reciprocal disclosure, which is Jourard‟s (1971) concept that assumes that when individuals divulge information to others, recipients of that information respond by disclosing and sharing their own information. In some respects, disclosure enabled participants to compare experiences and use such references as a learning process.
Participants who disclosed information related to anal sex within collective boundaries provided each other with social support. These participants included Ella,
Peggy, Nia, Aileen, Gabby, Hadley and Phoebe. To begin, Ella explained how reciprocal disclosure occurred and the purpose it served. Ella noted,
147 My friends and I talk a little bit more about it. I mean, we know it‟s out there. But
they know that I‟m sexually active, and I know if they‟re sexually active or
any of that. Just kind of basic caring for each other, knowing that they‟re
okay, and so we talk about it a little bit. But we‟re all very private about it,
I would say.
As social support was sought or provided within Ella‟s social circle, it co-existed with concealment of anal sex. When Ella stated, “but we are all private about it,” she pointed to how concealment might have been an unspoken rule. As the benefits of social support were sought, Ella seemed aware of the social rules that encourage concealment of anal sex. Similarly, for social support, Peggy disclosed her anal sex experience to a few friends. She said,
I went and told a few of my friends that I‟ve talked to about having anal sex and
they‟ve had it themselves, so I felt more comfortable talking to them about
it. And the main thing that actually made me talk to them about it is because
I wanted to know did I do this right, was this – should I try it again? It was
more of a reassuring kind of thing, I guess.
Peggy‟s disclosure of anal sex to peers facilitated an opportunity to ask intimate questions related to engaging in anal sex. It seems that such disclosure appeared to occur among friends that were trusted. In addition, Peggy demonstrated that like other participants, she sought social support from others who had engaged in anal sex.
Likewise, Nia also disclosed her experience of anal sex to gain social support. In her case, disclosure of anal sex was comprised of sharing negative experiences related to anal sex. Nia explained,
148 I told people, like friends, that I had tried it [anal sex] with him. Well, my best
friend – she‟s tried it [anal sex] before too, so we kind of had it in common to talk
about – the discomfort and whatnot. And in passing we might joke, “Yeah, I tried
that but it didn't work,” or “I wouldn't want to do that.”
Nia was a participant who engaged in reciprocal disclosure with her best friend. Being aware of her best friend‟s experience with anal sex allowed Nia to discuss her sexual encounter. It appeared that a joke lightened up the conversation about anal sex when Nia talked to her friend.
Additionally, reciprocal disclosure of anal sex information occurred easily in a social circumstance where alcohol was involved. It seems that in Aileen‟s case, her peers were not impeded by alcohol to converse. She stated in her diary in figure 12,
My roommate and I went to a get together with some friends and we were
drinking and somehow the conversation turned to porn. We were all talking about
anal sex and female ejaculation and everyone was really open and humorous
about it. It wasn‟t a weird situation and the conversation was interesting. Of
course a lot of people were inebriated but not wasted, just drunk enough to kind of
open up some more.
Aileen‟s social context lightened the whole subject of sex and anal sex because of the presence of alcohol. Topics such as pornography, female ejaculation and anal sex were introduced without Aileen observing the discomfort often associated with sexual conversations. Therefore, it appeared that reciprocal disclosure of sexual information was enabled by the social context between Aileen and her peers. Such a finding was unsurprising because in situations involving alcohol, individual inhibitions are usually
149 less guarded. It appears that such social settings allowed students to divulge sexual information that they would not ordinarily reveal in a regular conversation.
Figure 12. Aileen‟s diary, disclosure of anal sex in a social context.
Other examples of reciprocal disclosure of anal sex were displayed by Gabby in her interview. Gabby‟s excerpt points to how reciprocal disclosure was fostered because there was no perceived judgment between herself and her peers. Gabby stated,
Yeah. I think I told one friend, because I asked her if she did it [anal sex], and she
was, like, “Hell no.” I was, like, “I know. I mean, she wasn‟t, like, “Oh, that‟s
bad,” or anything. She just kinda thought that it was funny, and she was, like,
“I‟ve had people try it with me,” and she was, like, “I just can‟t do it. I won‟t do
it.” So I was just, like, “Well, you know, he kinda talked his way into it. It
150 happened and it was horrible.” My roommates now, it‟ll come up. We joke about
it [anal sex] and stuff and I told them I‟ve done it one time, because a few of them
have done it. So it kinda comes up like that, if we get on the subject of sex. I
think people joke about it to ease into the subject of it [anal sex], because it‟s
kinda taboo, having anal sex. No one‟s going to come right out and be, like, “Oh,
yeah, I have anal sex all the time. That‟s completely not normal.” So I think
people joke about it and they see how other people react to it, and then they‟ll
admit to doing it. Once they see that it‟s a joking atmosphere and it‟s funny.
Gabby‟s excerpt not only exemplified exchanges of reciprocal disclosure, but also demonstrated that some kind of social support was offered in the process. Disclosure of anal sex in Gabby‟s case also indicated that elements of sexual coercion were revealed.
For example, when Gabby‟s friend stated, “well you know he kinda talked his way into it.
It happened and it was horrible,” Gabby was reporting negative sexual experience.
In Gabby‟s excerpt, disclosure of anal sex was fostered by humor or jokes. As
Gabby noted, humor or jokes lightened the conversation on anal sex. Jokes or humor seemed to be used to check other people‟s reactions when disclosing a stigmatized sexual practice like anal sex.
Within the context of disclosing anal sex for social support, sometimes participants disclosed to exhibit their growing sexual experience to their peers. In such situations, disclosure indicated their new sexual experience. Hadley illustrated this observation in her interview. She said,
Yeah, I feel like the conversation with the friends is a lot less serious. It was
kinda like, “Oh my gosh, this [referring to anal sex] happened last night. It was
151 so crazy.” That kind of a thing. I know one of my friends, she was like, “Oh,
yeah, finally.”[Friend indicating she finally engaged in anal sex] I mean, because
I guess she‟s pretty open about – sexually and experimenting with different
positions and types of sex. She‟s like, “I can‟t believe you hadn‟t done it [anal
sex] until now.”
Hadley‟s excerpt portrayed how she sought affirmation from a peer who was sexually experienced and had engaged in anal sex. Hadley‟s quote depicted how she eventually became part of the collective boundary of sexually experienced friends; when her friend stated, “Oh yeah, finally,” this seemed to indicate Hadley‟s inclusion in a group of peers who are more sexually experienced.
In other situations, when participants disclosed their anal sex experiences for social support, they subjected themselves to privacy risks with their peers. This seemed to happen because their disclosure was in tension with maintaining the privacy surrounding their anal sex experience. For example, Phoebe noted,
But, like, they all know that I‟ve tried it. Well, the ones that have tried it [anal
sex] also, were kind of, like, more accepting, and the ones that hadn‟t tried it
were, like, kinda, like, surprised and shocked and, like, weirded out. Well, since
they‟re my friends, I didn‟t really feel, like, embarrassed or bad. I felt kind of
actually more, like, experienced than them. I only told my close friends, so it‟s
not, like, they made me feel too bad about it or anything like that.
Phoebe‟s disclosure of anal sex to her peers who had not engaged in anal sex resulted in a privacy risk. If this group of friends had not been supportive, Phoebe would have perhaps felt stigmatized. Phoebe‟s excerpt portrayed the mixed responses that came with seeking
152 social support from both groups of peers who had and had not engaged in anal sex. In particular, the reactions from the participants who had experienced anal sex were supportive. Those from participants who had not engaged in anal sex seemed somewhat negative because Phoebe noted that some of them were “weirded” out.
Another important observation from Phoebe‟s quote is that, while her friends perceived engaging in anal sex as negative, she esteemed her new sexual experience.
Even though disclosure of anal sex appeared to be used for social support, sometimes a participant‟s disclosure was risky because of the potential of being stigmatized.
Summary of Disclosure of Anal Sex for Social Support
Within this theme of disclosure of anal sex for social support, participants used different strategies of disclosure. Some participants relied on reciprocal disclosure to seek or provide social support. Reciprocal disclosure seemed to encourage sharing of sexual experiences with peers. At the same time, some participants were cognizant of who they disclosed to. In two instances, participants disclosed their experience only to peers who had engaged in anal sex, illuminating a strong need for collective boundaries. Other participants recognized the need for privacy or concealment of anal sex. It seems that in one instance, a participant experienced tension of whether to disclose or to conceal information related to anal sex.
In one situation, disclosure revealed a narrative of sexual coercion. Sometimes participants disclosed to demonstrate their sexual experience. Last, one participant took a privacy risk because she disclosed to peers who had not encountered anal sex. In this section, I presented a discussion of participants‟ disclosure of anal sex for social support.
153 In the next segment, I present the theme of disclosure of interest in anal sex, gauging interest and setting boundaries.
Disclosure of Interest in Anal Sex, Gauging Interest and Setting Boundaries
Among the participants who had not engaged in anal sex, conversations related to anal sex also emerged in their intimate relationships. These disclosures served to explore safer alternatives, to gauge partner interest, and to set the sexual expectations and boundaries related to anal sex. For example, Addison illustrated that she disclosed interest to engage in non-penile anal sex with her boyfriend. She illustrated,
Yeah, I‟ve talked with my current boyfriend. I just thought it would be fun to try.
He still seems a little averse but I‟m like, "Look. We'll even use gloves." And
we'll talk about something. "What do you think of that?" "Oh, and there was
something else. What do you think about that. And then it's like, "Well, I read
about anal play on the internet," and you don't even need to have anal sex – I read
somewhere that the most common type of anal sexual activity was just anal play.
Using plugs and touching, – Anal sex itself is less common. Which I can
understand because if you don't do it right it can hurt and be very dangerous.
When Addison solicited for non-penile anal sex from her partner, she also provided him with sexual information she found on the internet: “And then it's like, "Well, I read about anal play on the internet," and you don't even need to have anal sex – I read somewhere that the most common type of anal sexual activity was just anal play.” Addison was offering a safer option to penetrative anal sex because she was aware of the dangers related with anal sex. For example she noted, “Anal sex itself is less common. Which I can understand because if you don't do it right it can hurt and be very dangerous.” By
154 highlighting anal sex as dangerous, her alternative seemed to be a safer option. She also illustrated that disclosure of anal sex in an intimate relationship was mostly driven by the pursuit of sexual pleasure. Additionally, in Addison‟s case, a safer sexual method was suggested as a way of setting some kind of sexual boundary.
A male participant, Victor, indicated that he disclosed interest to engage in anal sex with his partner during his first relationship when he was a teenager. He noted that when the conversation of anal sex was introduced, his girlfriend at the time was uncomfortable because of her fear of pain. He said,
Well, when I was a lot younger, I was almost interested in trying it with my
girlfriend. I was 18 or 19 at the time. But this was before I had seen images and
heard different things from different people about how it felt. So it almost
immediately turned me off to the idea. When I brought it up she wasn‟t ever
really interested in trying it either because she was afraid it would hurt too much.
Well, I had been with her for almost two and half years, so I hate to say I was
almost bored and looking to spice up things– and that could be a potential reason
that people do decide to engage in that eventually. It‟s just because they want to
spice things up a little bit and try something different.
Similar to Addison, Victor‟s interest in anal sex was motivated by sexual pleasure. He stated, “Well, I had been with her for almost two and half years, so I hate to say I was almost bored and looking to spice up things.” When the decision to engage in anal sex was being contemplated, Victor relied on information from the internet and from his peers. Both Addison and Victor relied on the internet for their reviews of this sexual
155 practice. In his second sexual relationship, Victor and his girlfriend discussed anal sex in order to gauge each other‟s interests. Victor noted,
I discussed it with my girlfriend in passing, and we both agreed that it‟s not
gonna happen. So I had no complaints. She had no complaints. We just left it at
that. It never came up again. That‟s how I like it. I think we were talking about
just the vaginal intercourse. But, yeah, I don‟t remember exactly how it came up.
But I do remember at that point when we got off the phone – we were talking on
the phone – at that point, I just kind of stored it away. It‟s like, “Okay, that‟s not
gonna be an issue [referring to anal sex]. So that‟s good.
Victor‟s excerpt exemplified that anal sex was discussed openly and consensually.
Victor‟s statement, “we both agreed that it‟s not gonna happen. So I had no complaints.
She had no complaints,” signified that they came to a consensual agreement not to pursue anal sex. Based on this excerpt it can be inferred that Victor communicated openly with his partner regarding their sexual expectations and boundaries. Victor seemed relieved that he had openly addressed anal sex in his relationship when he said, “It‟s like, “okay, that‟s not gonna be an issue. So that‟s good.” Such a statement illuminated some kind of relief. Introducing this conversation about anal sex seemed to clear the air regarding expectations and boundaries of anal sex within the relationship.
Similar to Victor, Tami also highlighted that anal sex was disclosed in her sexual relationship. However, while Victor indicated that he was interested in anal sex in his first relationship, Tami revealed, that while anal sex was addressed in her relationship, anal sex was not appealing to either of them. In this case, disclosure occurred between
156 Tami and her partner to understand their sexual boundaries, and, as a result, anal sex was never pursued. Tami noted,
We talked about it at some point, but it was kinda one of those things like it
wasn‟t that important to him and he never really mentioned a desire to want to try
it. I didn‟t really have a desire to want to try it, so it just – we never did. If he
had really wanted to or something, we would have talked about it a lot. Maybe if
I was comfortable enough with him maybe that could have happened, but I don‟t
think it was something that either of us desired to do or were bored enough to do.
Tami cleared the air to gauge sexual expectations in her relationship. She also suggested that, had she been “comfortable enough” with her partner, perhaps anal sex could have occurred. Such an inference seemed to insinuate that being in a relationship for a while could also change sexual expectations. Like Victor, Tami also connected anal sex with boredom. It seemed that Tami assumed that if sexual boredom was present, then she and her partner could look to anal sex as a potential sexual practice that would revitalize their sexual relationship. We can also infer further that in Tami‟s case, an open line of communication about anal sex was maintained and valued. Disclosure of interest in anal sex, albeit briefly, seemed to help set the participants‟ sexual expectations in the relationships.
Similar to Victor and Tami, another participant, Aggie, also highlighted instances of disclosure of interest in anal sex in her relationship. Aggie introduced the subject of anal sex to her partner. She attempted to gauge her partner‟s interest in anal sex. She stated,
157 But I‟ve talked about it with my boyfriend now a little bit, just casually, not
saying, oh, should we do this or should we not do it? Just kind of asking each
other what we thought about it or giving our opinions on it. I just asked him
because I think, in my mind, oh, all guys must want this. So I was just asking him
what he thought about it or if he would ever want to do that, just to get his
reaction. Well, I think he sounded a little bit interested. He was curious about it,
but he also said that he didn‟t think that it would be pleasurable for me. He
wasn‟t pushy or anything about it. I asked him out of curiosity and just to gauge
his level of interest, like if he would ever want to do that or suggest it to me. Of
course, I would be like, no.
Aggie‟s narration denoted how open communication played out to gauge sexual interest.
Aggie attended to her partner‟s responses and reactions as an indicator of interest in anal sex. She stated that she was, “Just kind of asking each other what we thought about it or giving our opinions on it. I just asked him because I think, in my mind, oh, all guys must want this.” This showed that Aggie was motivated to find out what her partner‟s position was on anal sex because she presumed that most men are interested in this sexual practice. As a result, she wanted to ask “him what he thought about it or if he would ever want to do that, just to get his reaction” and to try to “just to gauge his level of interest, like if he would ever want to do that or suggest it to me.” Even though she was interested in his opinion, Aggie‟s response was, “Of course, I would be like, no.”
Aggie seemed to be fully aware of her position against anal sex even though she was the one who introduced this subject to her partner. Aggie noted, “he also said that he didn‟t think that it would be pleasurable for me. He wasn‟t pushy or anything about it.”
158 This statement portrayals some level of thoughtfulness and a sense of reassurance that
Aggie may have been seeking. Aggie‟s excerpt demonstrated that, sometimes, disclosure of interest in anal sex was introduced by females to gauge interest and to understand the sexual expectations in the relationship.
Like the three participants discussed above, Judith also explained how her partner‟s interest in anal sex led her to discuss her sexual expectations of anal sex. In her interview, Judith disclosed her expectations about anal sex with her previous high school partner. She noted,
Well. I had one before in high school, and we dated for three-and-a-half years,
and he knew that I didn‟t want to do it [anal sex]. And he would never have
pressured me into it, that type of thing. I think they‟re the same. Like, girls – I
think for guys, if you can get that far [engaging in anal sex] with a girl – in my
mind, it just means that she‟s kinda willing to do more than – you know, she‟s
willing to do things. She‟s more promiscuous in my mind. And then sorta guys in
a relationship understand that the girl doesn‟t want to do it, they‟re not going to
pressure them, but if you just hooked up with a girl and she does it, it‟s kinda,
like, “Look what I did,” you know.
Judith assumed that, when she made her sexual expectations clear to her partner, she would not experience any pressure to engage in anal sex. She noted that her partner
“knew that I didn‟t want to do it. And he would never have pressured me into it, that type of thing.” In addition, Judith believed that if anal sex was practiced in a relationship, more sexual expectations would occur for the female partner. Judith pointed out this perspective when she stated, “I think for guys, if you can get that far [engaging in anal
159 sex] with a girl – in my mind, it just means that she‟s kinda willing to do more than – you know, she‟s willing to do things.” It seems as though engaging in anal sex signified giving too much of herself, and that Judith was trying to avoid doing this. Furthermore,
Judith appeared to associate anal sex with being promiscuous. Judith‟s perceptions related to promiscuity illuminated that girls who engage in anal sex immediately are
“more promiscuous in my mind. And then sorta guys in a relationship understand that the girl doesn‟t want to do it, they‟re not going to pressure them, but if you just hooked up with a girl and she does it, it‟s kinda, like, look what I did, you know.” Judith seemed to value her self-image in her sexual relationships. Judith‟s statements appeared to signify that women who engaged in anal sex were perceived negatively in sexual relationships.
According to Judith, when a girl engaged in anal sex, men seemed to devalue or demean her. Therefore, Judith made her sexual expectations clear through open communication.
Similar to her earlier relationship, Judith again disclosed information related to anal sex and sexual expectations in her current relationship. In this relationship she disclosed sexual information to her partner about how she felt regarding this sexual practice. She said,
This is my second serious, only serious boyfriend I mean, I‟ve told him that I‟ve
never done it [anal sex] and that I never want to do it. And he‟s done it [anal sex]
before with someone else, but he says that if I‟m not comfortable with it, we don‟t
have to do it. He‟s not pressuring. I think we were just joking around about
something and it came up. I mean, it‟s not like I‟m uncomfortable talking about it
with him, it‟s just I don‟t want to do it.
160 Judith exemplified that she had adopted a pattern of open communication with her partners where she set her sexual expectations and boundaries with regards to anal sex.
In addition, Judith‟s case is interesting because her partner had engaged in anal sex.
Therefore, it was not surprising that this conversation arose in her current relationship.
What is important is that Judith clearly informed her partner that she was uncomfortable engaging in anal sex. Furthermore, even though her partner had engaged in anal sex,
Judith seemed not to be under pressure in this relationship to engage in anal sex.
Another male participant, Drew, indicated how interest in anal sex was disclosed in his personal relationships. Drew offered that solicitations for anal sex were initiated by female partners, and on one occasion, from a random female in a bar setting. Drew explained,
Yeah. I‟ve been asked before by previous girlfriends. Well, they were, like,
“Come on. Let‟s just try it.” I was, like, “No, I don‟t want to.”And I was, like,
“I‟m not comfortable with this.” So I was, like, “I don‟t believe we should do it. I
don‟t see the benefit of it to you or anything.” Another girl talked to me about it,
and I told her I was uncomfortable with it. This was not a girlfriend. It was just
some random girl in a bar setting. I was weirded out about it. Okay. I was
drinking, and then this girl came. I was sitting with a couple of my buddies. We
were drinking beers at the bar. Some girl just whispered in my ear, “You want to
do it in my butt?” I don‟t know if she was joking or not, and I was just, like, “No.
Go away.” It was the weirdest thing ever. Yeah, because I didn‟t know the
person, and she just came up to me and whispered in my ear. And I was, like,
“Just go away. I don‟t want to talk to you.”
161 Drew clearly demonstrated that he was uncomfortable with engaging in anal sex and disclosed his feelings clearly to his partners. Drew‟s illustration of the anal sex solicitation seemed more high-risk because this was done by an individual he did not know and who perhaps was intoxicated. Drew‟s excerpt pointed to the possibility that some women have come to expect anal sex as part of a sexual repertoire that men desire.
In comparing Drew to Aggie, these examples point to how women were implicated as initiators of anal sex conversations. Drew‟s example illuminated the possibility of some women liking anal sex and requesting it. On the other hand, Aggie‟s disclosure was not out of interest but was based on seeking knowledge and gauging partner interest. Like the other participants in this section, Drew demonstrated that he set sexual boundaries and informed his partners.
Summary of Disclosing Interest for Anal sex through Open Communication, Gauging
Interest and Setting Boundaries
Half of the participants who did not engage in anal sex disclosed information for why they talked about anal sex. Participants‟ disclosures were sometimes motivated by the pursuit of pleasure. In other instances, disclosure of anal sex allowed the participants to communicate sexual expectations and boundaries. Even though these participants did not engage in anal sex, conversations related to this sexual practice occurred because they were open about their sexual needs.
Disclosing Peer Reviews of Anal Sex
Among a few of the participants who had not engaged in anal sex, discussions of anal sex extended from intimate relationships to peer relationships. Among peer relationships, discussions about anal sex information seemed to be related to sharing
162 experiences and offering reviews about anal sex. For example, Judith noted that her friends openly disclosed engaging in anal sex by offering positive reviews about it. Judith explained,
But then I also know couples that like it [anal sex]. But she‟s all about – she just
talks about it like it‟s anything, like it‟s her homework. Her and her boyfriend,
they both talk about it like it‟s the most natural thing in the world, and that‟s fine.
More power to her. She likes it. I mean, I‟m friends with her boyfriend and her.
I was friends with him before I was friends with her, and I mean, I‟ve never really
heard him talk about anything, but I‟ve heard her talk about stuff, which is weird
to me, just because it‟s mostly the guys that I hear talking about it. But, I mean,
she doesn‟t broadcast it to the bar. When we‟re all in an all girls group just
talking about random crap.
Since Judith had never engaged in anal sex, she noted that her peers insinuated that anal sex information was sometimes shared to display sexual experience. Furthermore, sharing anal sex information seemed to make anal sex appear to be an ordinary sexual practice. This is particularly demonstrated when Judith noted, “she just talks about it like it‟s anything, like it‟s her homework. Her and her boyfriend, they both talk about it like it‟s the most natural thing in the world, and that‟s fine.” Judith appeared surprised that what she perceived as a stigmatized practice was perceived by others as an ordinary sexual practice. Judith‟s narration illuminated that, even when anal sex was portrayed as a regular sexual practice, she did not feel compelled to engage in anal sex.
Judith also appeared surprised that her female friend disclosed sexual pleasure from anal sex. It seemed that her surprise was compounded by societal expectations that
163 silence women‟s sexual pleasure because sexual pleasure is typically reserved as a masculine expectation. To illustrate, Judith noted, “… I‟ve heard her talk about stuff
[related to anal sex], which is weird to me just because it‟s mostly the guys that I hear talking about it.” Such a statement captured the internalized or observed sexual roles between men and women. Perhaps Judith also imposed some kind of judgment on her friend for flaunting her sexuality within their group.
Closely related to Judith‟s idea of the expectations of male disclosure about anal sex, Kaitlin observed that male disclosures of anal sex and anything sexual were more accepted because males were proud of their sexuality. Kaitlin stated,
I think some guys can be proud of doing it whereas some guys won‟t be. And I
don't think girls are very talkative about it [anal sex] if they‟ve ever done it, and
they‟re not going to be. Because guys are proud of anything they do that‟s sexual.
I think it‟s something new to experience. And they‟re like, yeah I did this, and all
that. So I think some guys can be. Because guys are proud of anything they do
that‟s sexual.
Kaitlin perceived different sexual expectations for males and females. In part, Kaitlin illustrated these differing sexual experiences. Disclosures about anything sexual, including anal sex, among some men was more expected and perhaps even excused or acceptable. However, Kaitlin observed that females were not expected to speak about their sexuality; therefore, concealment appeared to be expected. Kaitlin explained, “And I don't think girls are very talkative about it [anal sex] if they‟ve ever done it, and they‟re not going to be.” These different sexual expectations, even in relational circumstances, may impact how females disclose sexual experiences such as those related to anal sex. It
164 appeared male sexuality was perceived positively, whereas concealment (or “not being talkative about it”) seemed to have negative connotations. Such observations are important in order to foster more positive ways of communicating sexuality among females as such a disparity would enhance the understandings of why some females refrain from disclosing information about anal sex.
Other participant disclosures related to anal sex elucidated polarized views of anal sex among peers. For instance, Drew noted that conversation with his friends pointed to contrary views that were for or against anal sex. He said,
Actually, it‟s mostly my buddies that talk about it. I never initiate it. Not all of
my friends react to it [anal sex] the same way though. They all were, like, “Oh, I
regret doing it,” and then some of them were okay with it – it‟s about fifty-fifty
reactions. Some of them were, like, “Why did I do this?” and the other ones were,
like, “Oh, man, I did this. I‟m happy about it,” or whatever.
Since Drew had not engaged in anal sex, he indicated that he never introduced conversations about anal sex. Drew‟s friends disclosed their anal sexual experiences regardless of whether these sexual experiences were positive or negative. The friends who had negative experiences indicated regret; as Drew stated, “They all were, like, “Oh,
I regret doing it.” On the other hand, those who had positive experiences bragged about their sexual experiences by noting, “„Oh, man, I did this. I‟m happy about it,‟ or whatever.” Drew‟s excerpt exemplifies that information about anal sex received mixed reviews based on the men‟s sexual experiences. Furthermore, when information about anal sex was disclosed by peers who encountered negative sexual experience, they appeared to seek social support. However, those with positive experiences were possibly
165 highlighting instances of competitive disclosure. Competitive disclosure involves a speaker who attempts to gain advantage over another speaker by increasing the intensity of what is disclosed (Petronio, 2002). Both Judith and Drew‟s friends exemplified peers who enacted competitive disclosure.
Other participants seemed to talk about anal sex in order to compare sexual experiences. Kaitlin stated,
I‟ve talked to my friends just about if we‟ve ever done it, why we‟ve never done it, if anybody we know has done it. Just kind of the basics. I think just to know if any of us have had it, for knowledge and maybe also gossip, my guy friends, I‟ve talked to them about it. And they‟re usually in the room – we‟re – all the – the girls and guys – we‟re never separate. So they‟ve been in the room when we‟ve talked about it. And none of my guy friends have experienced it. And I think – at least my guy friends feel the same way, that it‟s kind of awkward, they‟re not ready for it, they haven‟t found the right person – that kind of stuff.
What is illuminating about Kaitlin‟s conversation about anal sex with her friends who had not experienced anal sex is that, even though it was uncomfortable to talk about anal sex, they were interested in being informed about anal sex. Kaitlin‟s friends who had not engaged in anal sex seemed to suggest that some of them did not totally discount trying anal sex. When she noted that “they‟re not ready for it, they haven‟t found the right person – that kind of stuff,” Kaitlin pointed to the possibilities that some of her friends could consider anal sex if their conditions were met.
Another participant who also illustrated her experience of disclosure from peers who held negative values against anal sex was Bessie. In our interview, Bessie recalled
166 talking to both her male and female friends about their feelings and some experiences about anal sex. She said,
I talked about it [anal sex] with girlfriends and guys. It just comes up. We‟ll talk
about how do you feel about it. With the girls, it‟s pretty much been the same as
me. They don‟t think they would. They wouldn‟t do it. As far as I know, they
haven‟t done it because I have about five close girlfriends. And they think the
same thing that I do that it‟s unsanitary, and they wouldn‟t do it, and it would be
painful. And the guys – well, I haven‟t talked about it with too many guys.
Probably only three guys before – one of them was talking about how – when he
had done it. And the other two were talking about how they would never do that
to a girl. They don‟t find it – they don‟t find it arousing or pleasing to think about
doing that to someone.
An observation of Bessie‟s conversations with her girlfriends seemed to imply that, when distaste for anal sex was made clear in a social circle, friends seemed to display the same sentiments that the majority of the group espoused. This is shown by Bessie‟s comment,
“as far as I know, they haven‟t done it because I have about five close girlfriends and they think the same thing that I do that it‟s unsanitary, and they wouldn‟t do it, and it would be painful.” After making such an observation, I asked Bessie why everyone seemed to espouse similar negative values about anal sex. Bessie explained that,
Maybe because we‟ve voiced in the past that we think it‟s – I don‟t want to say
gross, but I do. I think it‟s kind of gross. I think that maybe because we‟ve voiced
in the past our strong objection towards it, they might be a little embarrassed that
they‟ve done it, and they don‟t want to see our reaction because we – they think
167 we might judge them if they have engaged in it. I think, too, it‟s still kind of
taboo. It‟s not something that‟s openly spoke about. In the media, people talk
about sex all the time, but they don‟t talk about anal sex specifically because it‟s
still kind of a touchy subject. It‟s something that people don‟t want to talk about
or don‟t want to share their feelings on. And if they do, it‟s usually negative
feelings towards it. So I think that might be part of it, too.
As articulated by Bessie, once these strong objections were made clear to friends, disclosing engaging in anal sex was deemed more risky. This is because among this peer group, the negative associations of anal sex were already made clear by declaring it an unpleasant sexual practice. In such settings personal risks associated with embarrassment could have discouraged disclosure. Therefore, speaking about anal sex in such settings could be deemed a violation of group norms. Furthermore, from Bessie‟s perspective, media depictions of anal sex reinforced the stigmatizing association linked to anal sex as a taboo topic.
Other participants noted that anal sex was rarely discussed and that it was sometimes concealed due to fear of embarrassment. For instance, Tami noted that, based on her conversations with her peers, discussions about anal sex were rare. However, in the following statement she pointed to a particular instance where conversations about anal sex emerged when participants were comfortable to talk about it. She stated,
I don‟t know that anyone else has talked to me about it at all, actually, which kind
of shows how little people do talk about it. I‟ve never heard – actually, last year, I
was together with a lot of the girls that are in the group of friends that my
roommates are in, as well, and I think we were all drinking and people started
168 talking, who‟s an ass virgin? Who‟s lost their butt virginity? And one of my
roommates had and another girl said, well, there was an illegal lane change. She
said “I was drunk and I was with my boyfriend, we were having sex, and we were
doing it doggy style, and then all of a sudden, I don‟t know, he missed or
something and it just kinda barely went in. She was like, whoa, illegal lane
change.” So I guess she brought that up and I think two other people said that
they hadn‟t and another one said that they had.
Even though Tami noted that these conversations were rare, she was able to provide an example that highlighted disclosure of anal sex with her peers. These disclosures appeared to be risky, but may have been determined by the social mood. Social settings as described by Tami offered a more comfortable atmosphere for conversations related to sex. Tami‟s narration pointed out that, when alcohol was involved, individual inhibitions loosened to a point where they became comfortable to disclose their sexual encounters. A close observation of Tami‟s story also depicted how individuals who engaged in sex while intoxicated participated in high risk sexual practices without any preparation e.g. sex without consent as noted by her peers, “illegal lane change.” Further Tami‟s narration also pointed to how anal sex was depicted as an ordinary sexual practice. This was particularly demonstrated by the questions, “who‟s an ass virgin? Who‟s lost their butt virginity?” Such questions suggested that anal sex was perhaps accepted as one of the sexual practices in students‟ sexual repertoire among some peer circles.
Additionally, other participants who had not engaged in anal sex highlighted that anal sex seemed to be introduced and talked about more by males. Micah stated, that
“Among my friends, usually guys bring up the inappropriate subjects, so like if I‟m
169 hanging out with guys and girls and they mention something like that, then I might talk to my girlfriends about that.” It seemed that males more often introduced conversations related to sexual matters. In this interaction Micah explains that some kind of reciprocal disclosure ensued when someone started talking about anal sex.
Summary of Disclosing Peer Reviews of Anal Sex
Disclosures of reviews of anal sex between participants and their peers emerged among participants who had not engaged in anal sex. In this section, I demonstrated how such disclosures were related to sharing and comparing sexual experiences. Sometimes competitive disclosures were observed, while at other times sexual information related to anal sex was shared for purposes of social support and to check if the peers espoused the same feelings towards anal sex. In the next section, I will highlight how participants displayed unsurprising disclosures of anal sex in intimate situations.
Unsurprising Disclosures of Anal Sex in Intimate Situations
In intimate situations, participants who engaged in anal sex disclosed that they were not astonished by their sexual partners‟ interest in anal sex. Such disclosures were expected in some instances because their partners were considered experimental. In some situations, male disclosures were perceived as a normal part of being a man. This finding was illuminating because anal sex is a stigmatized practice. I assumed that, participants would find any revelations of anal sexual desire uncomfortable, even in intimate contexts.
However, within intimate situations such disclosures appeared not to be stigmatized.
Information related to anal sex was not considered negative and frowned upon. In fact, it seems that disclosures of anal sex were associated with regular types of sexual practice.
170 For example, Ella revealed that, when she discussed anal sex with her boyfriend, she did not find this discussion odd. Instead, Ella appeared to expect such a request almost as though anal sex was being equated to other sexual practices. Essentially, there was no judgment associated with her partner‟s request for anal sex. Ella explained,
I don‟t know, pretty unbiased, I would think. I wasn‟t very like, “Oh my gosh, I
can‟t believe he‟s saying that.” Or, “I was waiting for this to come up.” It wasn‟t
either of those. It was just – we were both very open to each other, and so
anything that he would say to me wouldn‟t really shock me or surprise me unless
it was big news or anything. I wasn‟t surprised that he brought it up. It was just
kind of another topic.
Ella‟s lack of surprise indicated that anal sex was not stigmatized in her intimate relationship. According to Ella, information about anal sex was not shocking; she stated:
“I wasn‟t very like, „Oh my gosh, I can‟t believe he‟s saying that.‟ Or, „I was waiting for this to come up.‟ It wasn‟t either of those.” Ella‟s reaction towards anal sex portrayed anal sex as ordinary. Based on Ella‟s reaction, it can be inferred that perhaps anal sex was considered part of the sexual repertoire in her relationship. Furthermore, Ella said that she had a comfortable and open line of communication with her partner where anal sex was addressed. She explained, “we were both very open to each other, and so anything that he would say to me wouldn‟t really shock me or surprise me.” Perhaps it was this kind of openness that enabled Ella to view her partner‟s disclosure as unsurprising.
Similarly, Peggy did not find her partner‟s disclosure of anal sex strange. In fact,
Peggy seemed to expect anal sex to be part of the sexual repertoire that she would encounter. She explained,
171 When he brought it up, I guess I wasn‟t too surprised because I feel like it seems
to be a more common thing to do now, now that I‟m older, I guess. He was
already a kind of spontaneous partner that I had, so I wasn‟t too surprised, but at
the same time, it kind of upset me that – just having done sexual intercourse and
performing oral sex on each other, I guess, to me, it upset me because I felt like it
wasn‟t enough. But I think about it and I was just – after thinking about it, I just
thought, oh, it‟s just kinda like another step in a relationship, I guess, on a sexual
level, but I discussed it with him, and he told me that it‟s fine, that he doesn‟t
need to do it, it‟s just something that he kinda wanted to do and experience and
try.
Peggy‟s comments highlighted her lack of astonishment as follows, “When he brought it up, I guess I wasn‟t too surprised because I feel like it seems to be a more common thing to do now, now that I‟m older, I guess.” Peggy associated anal sex with being widespread today and that, as she grew older, other sexual requirements would be expected in her relationships. Regardless of such expectations, Peggy seemed to still be uncomfortable with anal sex and was also visibly upset when she narrated how she felt about anal sex. She stated, “it kind of upset me that – just having done sexual intercourse and performing oral sex on each other, I guess, to me, it upset me because I felt like it wasn‟t enough.” While some participants expected anal sex, there seemed to be an underlying discomfort in cases such as Peggy‟s with regards to being asked to perform anal sex. Peggy might have felt unappreciated or not exciting enough for her partner to ask her to engage in anal sex. Also, within this relationship, Peggy was caught in an uncomfortable situation because her partner was experimental and curious about anal sex
172 while she may not have been drawn to it. From Peggy‟s excerpt, insinuations of her partner‟s experimentation can be observed when she noted “that he doesn‟t need to do it, it‟s just something that he kinda wanted to do and experience and try.” Peggy exemplified the complexity of requesting for anal sex within a relationship. On the one hand, she seemed to want to please her partner, while, on the other hand, she seemed to be uncomfortable with anal sex.
Other participants further noted that disclosure of interest in anal sex in relationships was unsurprising. It seems that, in some instances, knowing someone for a lengthy time determined how comfortable one became in the relationship. In Hadley‟s relationship it seemed that when anal sex was introduced, it did not take her off guard because she seemed to beware of her partner‟s experimental nature. Hadley exemplified this finding in the following statement. She said,
Well, it was a friend that I‟ve known for a long time, and we kinda just sort of
started developing this sexual relationship. And so when he approached me about
it, I didn‟t find it – like, “Why are you asking me this?” or anything like that. I
was kinda like, “Yeah, that‟s typical of this person to be experimental.” I would
see them as a person who would want to do this or do it regularly.
In Hadley‟s case solicitations of anal sex were deemed unsurprising because of the experimental tendencies of her partner. Such tendencies seemed to indicate to Hadley that her partner engaged in sexual practices like anal sex. To illustrate such a perspective,
Hadley stated, “I didn‟t find it – like, “Why are you asking me this?” or anything like that. I was kinda like, “Yeah, that‟s typical of this person to be experimental.” Such a perspective made Hadley come to expect interest for anal sex from her partner; she
173 indicated, “I would see them as a person who would want to do this or do it regularly.”
Hadley illustrated that such solicitations to engage in anal sex in relationships were expected and are part of the sexual choices considered in sexual relationships.
Barb noted that when anal sex was introduced into her first relationship, there was some element of surprise. However, when anal sex was introduced in a second relationship, it seemed that Barb was becoming more comfortable with such requests.
She stated,
Well, I was okay with …talking about it [anal sex] at the time. I guess I‟m still
okay with it. It was just something to try out, I guess – to experiment with. The
first time I was a little surprised because I had never experienced anything like
that or had anybody ask me anything like that. The second time, I wasn‟t as
surprised, but it was still kind of – I didn‟t know the guys really thought about
that stuff that much. The first one wanted to do it more, but I put my foot down
and said no.
Just as Hadley illustrated, when Barb‟s sexual partners were perceived to be experimental, anal sex requests were not deemed unusual. Instead such requests were expected in the participant‟s relationships.
In one situation, one participant perceived her partner‟s desire to engage in anal sex as part of being “a normal guy.” In this case, being a “normal guy” was attributed to exposure to pornographic information in the media. Further observations from Gabby illustrated this perspective. She explained,
I thought he was a normal guy. I mean, it‟s not all that surprising to me, because
the media really is just full of these pornographic images. Anywhere you look,
174 there‟s – you get pop-ups on sites from Wikipedia that are anal sex, “See this girl
getting,” it‟s everywhere. You can be checking your Facebook and it‟ll pop up on
the side.
Gabby associated a “normal” man as someone who is drawn to the sexualized images that bombard males in the media. Gabby‟s excerpt inferred that the idea of a “normal guy” is equated with experimental behaviors because anal sex is normalized and is commonplace. Based on such an expectation of men, Gabby did not find solicitations about anal sex from her partner as unusual.
Summary of Unsurprising Disclosure of Anal Sex in Intimate Situations
Under this theme, I discussed how disclosures of interest in anal sex among participants were not perceived as strange or unusual. Such requests were generally received by the participants without judgment. Instead participants accepted disclosures of anal sex as part of their sexual repertoire, partly because the participants‟ partners had experimental tendencies. In one case, solicitations of anal sex were associated with being a „normal guy‟ and were based on media depictions of anal sex. The next theme addresses the tensions among disclosure, concealment and guarding privacy risks.
Tensions of Disclosure and Concealment
Not all participants who engaged in anal sex were interested in seeking social support by disclosing interest for anal sex to their peers. Eleven participants portrayed that disclosure and concealment sometimes occurred concurrently. In some instances, I noticed tension between disclosure and concealment of anal sex. When and if participants disclosed, the social contexts seemed to promote concealment. Peer reactions indicated that participants were violating privacy rules. The term privacy rule(s) refers to the
175 standards that individuals use to safeguard and negotiate revealing or concealing their private information (Petronio, 2002). Privacy risks pertain to secret information that may have a high, or moderate or low levels of risk (Petronio). These risk episodes may conjure severe embarrassment, discrimination, shame, anxiety or agitation. In this analysis some of the participants guarded against the risks of being perceived as other, different or pathologized.
When a participant did not disclose, privacy rules were crafted to help them to conceal their engagement in anal sex. Lorie typified one such participant who guarded her privacy to lessen the negative risks attached to disclosing information about anal sex.
Lorie explicitly identified her fear of being ostracized because of engaging in anal sex.
She acknowledged,
I didn‟t tell my friends because it‟s definitely taboo. People have done it [anal
sex] but they won‟t – girls, at least, won‟t admit to it because it‟s seen – I think
for a lot of girls it‟s seen as a bad thing. It‟s a derogatory thing. I think if I was
doing it with just anyone it definitely would have been but because I‟m so
comfortable and so open with this guy for me that was fine, and it was a personal
choice between the two of us.
Lorie‟s excerpt also pointed to how females are judged negatively by indicating “I think for a lot of girls it‟s seen as a bad thing. It‟s a derogatory thing.” Lorie recognized that, if she disclosed to her peers, she risked the stigma of anal sex. Lorie‟s excerpt also represents some of the societal standards that might be more judgmental towards women who participate in anal sex. As a female, Lorie risked being judged negatively by her peers or by society. Such an acknowledgement was meant to legitimize her engagement
176 in anal sex as opposed to if it had occurred with a random person. Lorie‟s excerpt exemplified some kind of tension between disclosure and concealment. In her case, the stigma associated with anal sex motivated concealment.
In other situations of concealment, participants who had engaged in anal sex were aware that their friends‟ already dictated privacy rules. The rules were set by the participants‟ close peers. For example, Lacey indicated, “I was really only friends with my best friend; she had made it kinda clear that she thought anal sex was disgusting, so I didn‟t really talk to her about it.” In Lacey‟s scenario, explicit rules regarding how her friend felt about anal sex were visibly laid out. Concealment on Lacey‟s part meant that she did not violate the privacy rules that were set by her friend. In this case disclosure of anal sex was discouraged and concealment encouraged.
Nia also expressed sentiments that depicted the tension between disclosure and concealment. She identified friends to whom she would not disclose because their privacy rules espoused negative perceptions of anal sex. Nia explained,
I have one friend who‟s completely against it [anal sex], she thinks it‟s
disgusting. And she‟s someone that I would never tell that I‟d done it because she
would probably think I was weird or disgusting for it. When we talk about it in
general, like make jokes or see something on TV about it or just hear people
talking about it, she would always be the first to go, “That‟s disgusting. I‟d never
do that. John wants to but I won‟t do it [anal sex],” type thing.
Nia‟s highlighted some of the strategies that she used to test the privacy rules. Nia clearly observed the social cues that allowed her to disclose. She was aware that she would be considered “weird or disgusting” if she disclosed to her peer. As a result, she chose to
177 conceal her engagement in anal sex based on prior reactions of her peer. In addition, Nia appeared to be careful or cautious by explaining that she discussed anal sex in a “general” way by making jokes about anal sex. It seems that Nia paid attention to her peer‟s responses to assess what could be disclosed and what could be concealed. Even when
Nia‟s friend indicated that her boyfriend indicated an interest in anal sex, Nia‟s friend‟s reaction clearly indicated her discomfort with this sexual practice. Nia‟s excerpt demonstrated that disclosure and concealment were in tension because Nia had to assess to whom and when to disclose and conceal. Nia‟s case illustrated that disclosure and concealment was determined by privacy rules that were influenced by the social context.
Tori provided another perspective that encouraged concealment. In this case, Tori noted that embarrassment affected disclosure of anal sex among her girlfriends. She stated,
They think it‟s [anal sex] gross. I feel like some of them have[engaged in anal
ses], but I think they all just feel like they need to say that they would never have
it because they‟re embarrassed or something. But I feel like some of them have
done it before. But pretty much all of them say they aren‟t comfortable with it
[anal sex] and wouldn‟t allow it.
Tori illustrated one strategy that her peers used to manage disclosure of information about anal sex. Tori assumed that even though many of her peers had engaged in anal sex, they preferred concealment. She recognized that her peers preferred to be portrayed as people who had not engaged in anal sex. It seems that such a position was positively esteemed. She stated, “I think they all just feel like they need to say that they would never have it because they‟re embarrassed.” It appears that the privacy rules that
178 evaluated anal sex negatively dictated how Tori‟s peers discussed anal sex in group dynamics. Consequently, when Tori noted that “pretty much all of them say they aren‟t comfortable with it and wouldn‟t allow it,” this statement partly signified that when disclosure occurred, peers had to portray their discomfort or position against anal sex.
Alternatively, Tori‟s peers perhaps concealed their discomfort for anal sex because of the stigma this sexual practice arouses.
Addison noted similarly strong objections that discouraged disclosure of anal sex in preference of concealment. Addison explained that the stigma associated with anal sex made it difficult for peers to openly risk embarrassment of disclosure. She elucidated,
Well, even if my friends had the idea that maybe they have tried it [anal sex] they
don‟t share it. If they have tried it, it's just, maybe it didn't go well. Or maybe just
because it is stigmatized to talk about it. Because it's "gross." Because there's
poop there, okay? Because there's feces and – the idea that maybe it's unclean,
definitely unclean... There could be a little bit of also that, "Only gay people are
into that sort of thing." Especially among men.
Addison noted that discussions of anal sex were deemed unpleasant and associated with negative depictions of being unsanitary. This representation of anal sex calls for privacy rules that encourage concealment. Addison‟s comment that, “just because it [anal sex] is stigmatized to talk about, because it is gross,” signifies why concealment is common among students. In addition, Addison highlighted that the connection of anal sex with homosexuality further made disclosure of anal sex difficult among men. Addison‟s excerpt illustrated that the privacy rules related to anal sex encourage concealment rather than disclosure.
179 While Lorie‟s, Lacey‟s, and Nia‟s excerpts mostly represented concealment of private information determined by peer privacy rules, Eden‟s concealment was influenced mostly by her personal need to maintain privacy. Disclosure was only deemed ideal if bad experiences associated with anal sex occurred. Eden illustrated this point,
I mean, if they asked me about it [anal sex] I would tell them but I just didn‟t like
go and tell them about it [anal sex]. Sometimes, if someone is telling, a story
about what they did the night before and it [anal sex] happened then they will
probably share it. If it happens, some other time and I had a bad experience with it
I would probably tell them about it. But since nothing like bad happened and it
was with guys that I was dating, like I didn‟t really think that it concerned them.
Like, as before if they wanted to know like, I would tell them but I wasn‟t just
going to go and tell them for no reason.
Eden‟s excerpt showed that the timing and the purpose of divulging information related to anal sex was important to her. When Eden‟s friends divulged their sexual information, she was careful and guarded about the purpose of her disclosure. Eden maintained privacy and concealment because she valued her relationships, “but since nothing like bad happened and it was with guys that I was dating, like I didn‟t really think that it concerned them.” It seems Eden might have been uncomfortable sharing information related to sexual pleasure and anal sex. Instead, a negative narrative like a “bad experience” with anal sex seemed a more acceptable story line that would allow disclosure.
In other situations when anal sex was disclosed to the participant‟s peers, information related to anal sex was received in a somewhat guarded manner. The
180 observed shock or guarded demeanor insinuated that people were generally both curious and uncomfortable talking about anal sex. Grace explained such a situation as follows,
When we talk about sex, it‟s usually just a group of girls, so everyone was kinda
taken aback a little bit when it [anal sex] gets mentioned, but then we have to ease
ourselves into thinking about it and talking about it. It‟s a bit of a shock talking
about it at first, because it‟s not something that everyone does. It‟s not really –
it‟s not the typical sex that you hear and talk about it, so at first it‟s, like, “Oh,
should we talk about this?” But then everyone kinda wants to know too.
Grace illustrated that because anal sex is not considered normal sex, introducing such a topic tended to make peers guarded as they adjusted to this conversation. However, while such guarded demeanor was observed, Grace also sensed some mixed reactions towards information about anal sex. In particular, even though there was a guarded demeanor, these friends seemed interested in hearing more about anal sex. There seemed to be a tension between wanting to learn about this taboo topic through disclosure and wanting to conceal any discussions about anal sex.
Furthermore, a diary entry by Phoebe indicated the discomfort that was associated with disclosure of interest in anal sex. Such discomfort also encouraged more concealment. Phoebe‟s diary entry demonstrated that when she expected her acquaintances to be open about anal sex, their reaction informed her of their need to maintain privacy. From Phoebe‟s diary, she indicated,
For the most part we‟re pretty open about everything. For some reason, they were
kind of weird about the topic [anal sex]. They didn‟t really divulge much personal
181 information, although I didn‟t either but there was a general feeling of „Oh yeah,
I‟ve done that, but I can‟t believe you talked to some one about it [anal sex].
Phoebe highlighted how she was observant of her co-workers reactions (her co-workers were the ones acting weird or not responding or opening up to discuss anal sex). These reactions informed her not to disclose to her acquaintances. Phoebe expected disclosure to come easily based on prior interactions; however, her peers did not disclose in part because there was no reciprocal disclosure. Phoebe‟s interaction points to how a privacy rule was set by the co-workers that were listening to the conversation. This privacy rule, even when unspoken, informed Phoebe of an inappropriate conversation which violated a privacy rule. Therefore, by disclosing her anal sexual encounter to the researcher, Phoebe took a risk. Phoebe‟s excerpt represents how a privacy rule was violated because she revealed information about anal sex.
182
Figure 13: Phoebe‟s diary highlighting concealment which occurred among close acquaintances.
Another instance in which a participant relied on peer reaction to gauge whether to disclose or conceal was noted in Ella‟s diary. She stated, “I talked to a group of friends about what they thought about anal sex and who they thought of. One girl said, “No” but her facial expression said something else. Not sure what I felt about that.” Ella pointed to how privacy risks to divulge in a group context seemed higher because of the negative associations of anal sex. Ella‟s diary showed that she was not only conscious of the verbal responses to her question of anal sex, but was also conscious about how they answered verbally. Ella demonstrated that her suspicions toward her friend‟s response could have been fostered by the stigma associated with anal sex.
183
Figure 14: Ella‟s diary typifies reading between the lines of a peer‟s verbal response
Another situation that points to what motivated concealment than disclosure of interest in anal sex was illustrated by a participant who reflected on her prior revulsion towards anal sex. Gabby narrated a stigmatizing encounter with her friend who disclosed engaging in anal sex. She elucidated,
Yeah, before I did it [anal sex], I know that some of my friends were talking about
it (anal sex), and one of my friends from home said that she did it. I was just,
like, “Ew, that‟s really gross. Why would you do that she was just, like, “I don‟t
know. I just did it,” but didn‟t really have an explanation for it.
Gabby described an example that reinforced the notion that judgments were imposed on individuals who disclosed engaging in anal sex. Gabby‟s example demonstrated that people who had not engaged in anal sex were perhaps more judgmental than those who had engaged in anal sex. Having been judgmental herself, she was aware that concealment of anal sex was safer in order to avoid a privacy violation. By saying, “ew, that‟s really gross,” Gabby exhibited revulsion and uneasiness towards a peer who had engaged in anal sex. Consequently, based on the exchange that occurred between Gabby and her friend, concealment would seem preferable to avoid the privacy risk of embarrassment.
184 Other participants pointed to how anal sex was concealed under general conversation about sex. Katrina indicated that conversations about anal sex never came up even in detailed conversations. Katrina stated that anal sex was concealed or guised under the general subject of sex.
But anal – I don't think we get that specific when we talk unless it's something
really, really serious – not serious, but if you're in deep conversation in a room
and you're spending the night over in someone else's dorm or something. Because
I think probably our sexual conversation here in college is pretty general, that's
why. If anything, the common thing is they don‟t really say what kind of sex; they
just say, oh, I got some from her. That‟s just the common language. It‟s not
really specific.
Katrina further insinuated that sometimes disclosures related to anal sex were disguised under a euphemism similar to “I got some from her.” These concealment references illustrated how anal sex could be concealed in conversations. Alternative assessments of
Katrina‟s excerpt exemplified that, perhaps, within Katrina‟s social circles, most participants had not experienced anal sex; therefore, there was no need to disclose. In cases where Katrina‟s peers had encountered anal sex, concealing it under the guise of sex seemed a safer choice.
A different participant, Aggie, demonstrated that disclosure of interest of anal sex was often avoided because of the negative objections against it. Aggie perceived that her peers never talked about anal sex. In Aggie‟s case, the stigmatized associations of anal sex seemed to prevent any disclosure.
185 I don‟t think I‟ve ever talked about it with any of my girlfriends. I think that is
something that is really awkward for girls to talk about, whether they have done it
or whether they haven‟t. Just an area that I – I don‟t know – I think that my
friends and I, are not comfortable talking about.
Aggie‟s excerpt illustrated her position as to why anal sex was concealed in her social circles. Aggie elucidated that stigma encouraged concealment of any disclosure related to anal sex. There seemed also to be an expectation that talking about anal sex was uncomfortable for females. This was specifically shown when Aggie noted, “I think that is something that is really awkward for girls to talk about, whether they have done it or whether they haven‟t.” Such a statement built upon the earlier observations by Gabby,
Nia, Lorie, Tori and Grace who demonstrated that females are more embarrassed, more uncomfortable or less willing to talk about anal sex than males.
Summary of Tensions of Disclosure and Concealment
In this segment, I discussed how participants engaged a tension to disclose or conceal information related to anal sex from their peers. Sometimes participants disclosed even when anal sex was depicted as a taboo, gross, or an awkward subject to talk about.
These negative views of anal sex sometimes led to concealment of anal sex because participants were aware of violating privacy rules. Sometimes verbal cues also portrayed a violation of privacy rules. These were overtly indicated by participants‟ friends and were used as markers that encouraged concealment of their anal sex experiences. In one instance, concealment was encouraged because anal sex was perceived as being uncomfortable. The following section addresses disclosure of sexual pressure and sexual negotiation.
186 Disclosure of Sexual Pressure
In this section, I present participant disclosures of sexual pressure. Sexual pressure was detected from participants‟ interview excerpts and diaries. Participants‟ descriptions highlighted how sexual pressure occurred based on their reported interactions with peers and intimate partners. Sexual pressure in this analysis is based on
Teitelman, Ratcliffe and Cederbaum (2008). They indicated that “sexual pressure must be viewed as a continuum of influence, ranging from mild to extreme, towards having sex or having sex in a particular way” (p. 51). In this analysis, I acknowledge both external pressure (from peers or intimate partners) and internal pressure (self-imposed pressure).
To begin, participant disclosures prompted sexual pressure from peers to engage in anal sex. In one relational context, disclosure of anal sex was conflicted because anal sex was depicted in two different ways. For example, Peggy‟s excerpt demonstrated that disclosure was linked to conflicting advice. She appeared to be under pressure to both engage in anal sex and not to try it again. She explained,
Some people said, “oh, yeah, you should try it again if you think that you would
really like it. You might just get used to it.” And then some other people were
like, “if you didn‟t like it the first time and you don‟t think that it should be a
natural thing, then just don‟t do it again.”
Peggy‟s disclosure of engaging in anal sex subjected her to pressure from one camp that prompted her to engage anal sex again. The rationale behind such advice appeared to be the pursuit of pleasure, since Peggy recounted that her friends said, “oh yeah, you should try it again if you think that you would like it. You might just get used to it.” Peggy was encouraged to attempt anal sex again because her peers expected that she would get used
187 to it and enjoy it. On the contrary, Peggy‟s other peers discouraged her from engaging in anal sex multiple times because they stigmatized anal sex and considered it “unnatural.”
Peggy‟s case illustrated the pressure and tensions to engage or not to engage in anal sex.
In another case, anal sex was presented as a non-serious sexual practice by peers.
The participant‟s peers disclosed anal sex without any associated risks and negative attitudes. In this case, Lacey was drawn to engage in anal sex based on peer disclosures that minimized the associated risks of anal sex. Lacey stated,
I don‟t know. My friends just kinda talked about it [anal sex] like it wasn‟t a big
deal, so I really didn‟t think there needed to be any preparation, which I learned
later that there should be. One of my girlfriends in high school. Well, she shared
one of her experiences with me, which is how I originally was like oh, well, it
must not be that big of a deal.
Lacey‟s excerpt indicated how insufficient information related to preparation (condoms and lubricant) was depicted nonchalantly by her peer. Lacey indicated that anal sex was represented “like it wasn‟t a big deal.” Because of how her peers depicted anal sex,
Lacey was subjected to risks associated with anal sex. Lacey‟s excerpt demonstrated that peer representations of anal sex influenced the sexual choice to engage in a high-risk practice. In terms of mild sexual pressure, the dangers of anal sex were underscored and minimized. As a result of such information, Lacey did not know some preparation information or methods before she engaged in anal sex. When she stated, “I didn‟t think there needed to be any preparation, which I learned later that there should,” she signified her lack of important knowledge. Therefore, misleading peer disclosure influenced Lacey to engage in a risky sexual practice.
188 Other influences of disclosure from peers exemplified the sexual pressure to engage in anal sex that participants faced. For example, Lorie explained,
Other people had said, “Oh, you know, you should at least try it [anal sex] once.”
And, you know I was in a serious relationship and just decided to see if we
enjoyed it because we were both willing to try anything once.
Disclosure of anal sex from peers perhaps pressured Lorie to engage in anal sex or to “at least try it [anal sex] once.” It appeared as though this pressure from her peers motivated experimental behavior. With this backdrop of sexual pressure, Lorie rationalized that she engaged in anal sex because she was in a serious sexual relationship. By recognizing her serious relationship, Lorie legitimized her choice to engage in anal sex as sexual exploration.
Other indications of sexual pressure were disclosed in intimate situations. A participant‟s sexual partner disclosed interest and made anal sex appear common and popular. Gabby demonstrated such an occurrence in her interview,
I don‟t know. He just brought it [anal sex] up saying that his friends were doing it
with their girlfriends and he wanted to try it, because he had never done it before
either. So he wanted to try and I was, like, “No way, never. Keep dreaming,
buddy, it‟s not going to happen.” And then he just eventually talked his way into
it. He just said that we were trying it [anal sex] and that he should do it, and it
happened.
Sexual pressure was alluded to when anal sex was presented as a popular and common practice. As Gabby explained, “he just brought it up saying that his friends were doing it with their girlfriends and he wanted to try it.” Making anal sex appear to be a common
189 practice among their friends perhaps “normalized” this sexual practice. Although Gabby asserted her resistance to the initial requests for anal sex, she seemed disempowered to maintain her resistance because “he just eventually talked his way into it.” Further representations of sexual pressure to engage in anal sex were indicated by Gabby‟s statement “he just said that we were trying it and that he should do it, and it happened.”
This statement portrayed the implied powerlessness that Gabby exhibited because she identified in this statement that the choice to engage in anal sex was not hers or theirs together.
Another representation of sexual pressure was disclosed by Lacey. She said that she felt partially pressured because of her uncertainties to engage in anal sex. Lacey‟s excerpt indicated the sexual pressure that came with a troubled sexual relationship. She noted,
I mean partially I felt a little bit pressured from my boyfriend because he had
mentioned that he wanted to try it [anal sex], and I was like I don‟t really know
that I want to.... Our relationship was kind of weird to begin with. Most of what
we did he had pressured me into. He was my first boyfriend, first real boyfriend.
I don‟t know. He tended to be really manipulative, and so even having sex with
him, like regular vaginal sex the first time, it was mostly a pressuring thing, like
he pressured me to do it repeatedly. And I finally was just like fine, okay...
Lacey was not only subject to anal sexual pressure; she was also coerced to engage in other sexual practices. To highlight this coercion, she stated, “he tended to be really manipulative, and so even having sex with him, like regular vaginal sex the first time, it was mostly a pressuring thing, like he pressured me to do it repeatedly.” In this excerpt,
190 Lacey clearly illuminated that she recognized sexual pressure and manipulation from her partner.
Similarly, another participant depicted subtle yet observable pressure when she disclosed how her partner introduced anal sex. Similar to Lacey, Dallia stated that her partner popularized anal sex to entice her into engaging into anal sex. She said,
He‟s asked me a couple times actually. He said that he heard about it [anal sex]
from his friends and stuff. And he‟s – he tried to say that he heard that a lot of
girls like it. But I‟ve never heard that from a girl, so – of course a guy‟s gonna
say that though. It‟s a good way to get it, right? He really – it didn't bother him
either way.
Dallia‟s excerpt pointed to how positive reviews of anal sex were used by her partner as a way to convince her to engage in anal sex. Her partner attempted to use sexual reviews from peers to persuade her to be interested in anal sex. By saying, “he heard about it from his friends and stuff. And he‟s – he tried to say that he heard that a lot of girls like it,” it is noticeable that Dallia‟s partner relied on peer reviews. On the other hand, Dallia‟s peer reviews about anal sex seemed to point to the opposite; that anal sex was not enjoyable.
Dallia and her partner discussed anal sex in their relationship and both relied on information from their peers. Based on the anal sex reviews Dallia declined her partner‟s solicitation and this decision was respected within their relationship.
A different participant highlighted aspects of sexual pressure in her diary. Eden‟s diary entry in figure 15 depicts her identification of sexual pressure in an intimate sexual relationship: “I did feel pressured although I did not say anything to him.” While Eden was able to identify this sexual pressure, she failed to assert herself and communicate her
191 concerns to her partner. What made this kind of communication even more difficult and complex is how she noted that “he was very gentle and considerate” immediately after enacting sexual pressure. In this scenario we might also begin to question whether sexual pressure was perhaps disguised from some participants by their partner‟s “consideration.”
Figure 15: Eden‟s diary disclosing sexual pressure in intimate settings.
In an additional entry in figure 16, Eden depicted her friend‟s self-imposed sexual pressure. Eden seemed to frown upon her friend‟s decision to engage in anal sex even after her negative experience by noting “umm.” Eden‟s diary suggests that some part of her friend felt subjected to engage in a sexual practice that is seemingly unpleasant because of her emotional connection to the relationship. A representation of sexual pressure in Eden‟s second diary is more troublesome because there appeared to be some self-imposed sexual pressure. Eden stated, “I asked a close Friend earlier if she had anal sex experience. She said yes. She stated that she bled and did not enjoy the activity, but
192 would do it again for her boyfriend. Umm.” While the circumstances of her friend‟s consent are absent from Eden‟s diary, it was the decision to engage in an unpleasureable sexual practice that suggests some self-imposed or external pressure. Even when sexual pleasure was not experienced, Eden‟s friend appeared to be compelled to engage in anal sex. By asserting that Eden‟s friend would engage in anal sex with her partner despite the unpleasantness, one might infer that she esteemed her partner‟s sexual needs over hers. In light of her negative experience with anal sex, Eden‟s friend seemed to value her sexual relationship. It seems that Eden‟s friend was willing to compromise her sexual needs to satisfy her partner. While relational needs were esteemed, Eden‟s friend subjected herself to sexual risks associated with anal sex, such as the risks related to bleeding and infection.
Figure 16: Eden‟s second diary showing sexual pressure
193 Other indications of sexual pressure were noticeable from Sally‟s excerpt. Sally‟s statement implied some kind of persistence or sexual pressure to engage in anal sex, as well as a sense of acquiescence. She said,
I kinda just wanted to get him off of my back about it, like, “Whatever, I‟ll try it
[anal sex], whatever.” But it wasn‟t really working at first because, I mean, the
lubrication that he was using just wasn‟t working– it was dumb, now that I
think about it. I don‟t know why he thought that was gonna work. But after some
time, maybe a month, after we tried the first time, we tried again. And just – I
don‟t wanna say it just happened because it didn‟t. I mean, he decided to use –
we used Vaseline or whatever, so it didn‟t hurt as bad. And instead of from
behind, he did it from the front like a missionary.
By noting “I kinda just wanted to get him off of my back about it [anal sex], like,
„Whatever, I‟ll try it, whatever.‟ Sally‟s statement suggested that she wanted the requests or the pressure to engage in anal sex to stop. It can be inferred that she was asked several times and wanted the pressure to stop. Her response portrayed a somewhat indifferent attitude towards anal sex, where she succumbed to her partner‟s sexual pressure. Once she gave in to this pressure to engage in anal sex, subsequent engagements occurred because she had already consented to engage in anal sex.
Sally‟s disclosure of her anal sexual experience further highlighted the different strategies that her partner used to enhance sexual pleasure, such as trying out different sexual positions. Sally‟s excerpt illustrated that the pursuit of sexual pleasure motivated her partner‟s interest in anal sex. However, the inability to recognize and use appropriate lubrication enhanced Sally‟s sexual risks on subsequent anal sex attempts.
194 Participants indicated other instances to show how they were subjected to sexual pressure. Amber indicated that having engaged in anal sex once subjected her to sexual pressure. She explained,
The second time, I think he was more persistent because he knew that I had done
it once so that I would probably do it [anal sex] again. It still wasn‟t that
enjoyable, but I think it started to get less painful, so I was more willing.
After this comment, I asked Amber whether she thought her partner coerced her to engage in anal sex. Amber responded, “absolutely not.” After assessing Amber‟s explanation as to why she engaged in anal sex, she indicated that “he was more persistent this time because he knew that I had done it once.” This statement insinuated perhaps an occurrence of subtle pressure. By using the term “persistence,” one can get a sense that
Amber was perhaps constantly asked to engage in anal sex. Thus, through looking at the word choices of the participants, indications of subtle pressure seemed visible. Other signals that also alerted me to Amber‟s sexual pressure were based on the number of times Amber had engaged in anal sex. Among all the participants interviewed, Amber had engaged in the most incidents of anal sex. She indicated that she engaged in anal sex about 15 times over the course of her 6-year relationship. Alternatively, Amber could have also engaged in anal sex out of choice because one can assume that she had become used to this sexual practice.
Other incidents of sexual pressure depicted the disclosure of anal sex practices as subtle pressure. Tori‟s case indicated that intimate and peer influences could have imposed subtle pressure to engage in anal sex. Her partner put pressure on Tori because
195 of her lack of contraception. Anal sex appeared as a suggested alternative. Tori explained,
Well, I laughed at first because I didn‟t think he was serious. He wants to but I
don‟t feel comfortable, and it‟s fine with him. He doesn‟t ask frequently, but he‟s
asked more than once in the past six months. He asked me after I‟ve already heard
people talk about it, like his friends, so I think he‟s just becoming curious and he
wants to do it, just to try it. But I don‟t think – I don‟t get mad about it. It‟s just
normal, I guess. I recently got off birth control because my insurance changed –
not recently, it was a year ago. And I still haven‟t got back on it. So he always
nags me about that [anal sex]. And I don‟t know why, but he thinks that‟s an
alternative to having regular sex.
Earlier influences from peers of how they talked about anal sex seemed to generate interest in anal sex in Tori‟s relationship. Tori did not find the request for anal sex surprising; on the contrary, such a request was perceived as normal and justified when she noted, “I don‟t get mad about it. It‟s just normal, I guess.” Tori‟s excerpt illustrated the existence of open communication, which Tori was comfortable with. Insinuations of subtle pressure were highlighted when she stated, “So he always nags me about that.
And I don‟t know why, but he thinks that‟s an alternative to having regular sex.” Tori‟s use of the term “nagging” illuminated that the request for anal sex occurred frequently in
Tori‟s relationship. Tori‟s excerpt showed that her partner may have preferred unprotected anal sex to vaginal sex for fear of pregnancy from vaginal sex. This could explain why anal sex was viewed as an alternative to vaginal sex. Regardless of this pressure, Tori asserted her position against anal sex in the relationship and stated that she
196 was uncomfortable with this sexual practice. Tori‟s example illustrated that sexual negotiation involved open communication, and this enabled Tori to assert herself in her relationship.
Summary Disclosure of Sexual Pressure
Some of the participants who engaged in anal sex described disclosures that demonstrated instances of sexual pressure. This pressure was mostly subtle in nature.
Sexual pressure was gleaned from participants‟ description of the process of sexual decision to engage in anal sex. Sexual pressure occurred from peers and mostly from intimate partners. Based on the language the participants used, instances of sexual pressure were implied or overtly denoted. In the next section, I discuss sexual negotiation.
Disclosing Sexual Negotiation
This section illuminates participant disclosure of sexual negotiation. The understanding of sexual negotiation in this analysis encompasses participants‟ process of decision-making to engage in anal sex. While the emphasis is on disclosure of sexual negotiation, the use of the term “negotiation” in this section is informed by several scholars. Semple, Patterson, and Grant (2000) perceived negotiation as a communicative act where an exchange of information related to sexual interests and disinterests of individuals is highlighted. Earlier scholars like, Crawford, Kippax and Waldby (1994), explained that sexual negotiation is “the interpersonal communication which takes place during a sexual encounter in order to influence what happens …in terms of the needs and desires of the two people involved” (p. 571). The sexual negotiation these authors espouse was noted in the participant descriptions and is discussed in this theme.
197 Therefore sexual negotiation includes negotiation of consent and the degrees of this negotiation vary because of the contexts. For some participants, sexual negotiation occurred in a sexual encounter, whilst other participants discussed anal sex prior to their sexual activity. Others engage in both kinds of negotiation.
Examples of participant disclosures pointed to how sexual negotiation was often initiated by male sexual partners. Participants sometimes appeared hesitant to engage in anal sex. For instance, Aileen stated that she engaged in anal sex against her choice in preference for her partner‟s sexual needs. She stated, “I think he just wanted to see what it [anal sex] was like. I didn‟t really want to try it, so I don‟t really have an opinion on that part, but I think he just wanted to see what it was like.” Implied in Aileen‟s comment was a kind of powerless position in deciding to engage in anal sex. In Aileen‟s excerpt, it seems that her partner took the active part in making the decision. Aileen stated, “he wanted to see what it was like” two times, indicating her male partner was active in making the decision to engaged in anal sex. On the other hand, Aileen positioned herself as a passive participant when she noted that “I don‟t really have an opinion on that part.”
Her statement presumed her inactive participation in the decision to have anal sex.
Aileen‟s excerpt illustrated that sometimes participants took passive positions in their sexual negotiation.
Another participant whose partner initiated and disclosed interest in anal sex was
Nia. Her description of sexual negotiation highlighted experimentation and curiosity to try something new. She said,
At the time he was curious about it, and I was like, “well, I‟ve never done it
before.” So I‟m usually a pretty open person. It‟s kind of more of a trial thing.
198 With my ex-husband we tried it, couldn't – wasn‟t real successful with it, besides
digital or toy. But with my current partner we have once or twice.
In Nia‟s excerpt, her partner introduced anal sex out of the curiosity to experiment. She stated, “at the time he was curious about it, and I was like, “well, I‟ve never done it before.” The later part of the above quote also highlighted that Nia was also curious to try something she had never engaged in before. Additional indicators of her curiosity were indicated when she stated, “I‟m usually a pretty open person. It‟s kind of more of a trial thing.” This statement exemplified Nia‟s experimental nature. Nia‟s excerpt seemed to highlight that experimentation included other sexual practices such as the use of fingers or the use of toys. Nia‟s sexual negotiation depicted that her partner disclosed interest first. Nia‟s situation exemplified how both she and her partner were motivated by experimentation, therefore making sexual negotiation straightforward.
Another participant exemplified sexual negotiation that was initiated by her partner. Lianna‟s excerpt demonstrated how her partner used his previous anal sexual experiences to initiate sexual negotiation. She elucidated,
Well, he was asking, of course. He had done it with some other girls – other
girlfriends. I was just like, “I don‟t know.” I just didn‟t think it was for me. But I
was thinking, “Well, people wouldn‟t be doing this if they didn‟t get something
out of it.” So you can‟t knock it „til you try it kinda thing. So we both finally
came to do it– he kept asking – but he wouldn‟t press it really. He would be like,
“Hey you wanna –?” “No.” He‟d be like, “Okay.” And then finally, I was just
like, “Yeah, let‟s try that!” And he was surprised. A lot of times within – we‟d be
doing something sexual and that [anal sex] would come up. We talked about sex
199 a lot outside of having sex – so – we‟d talked about it and discussed our feelings
on it and everything – which I think – a lot of people really don‟t have that.
Lianna‟s partner disclosed sexual experience of anal sex served two purposes. First, he disclosed his sexual history, which is important in general in sexual relationships.
Second, her partner‟s sexual disclosure compared Lianna with previous girlfriends who had engaged in anal sex because she was aware that, “he had done it with some other girls – other girlfriends.” Therefore, Lianna appeared sexually inexperienced.
Lianna‟s sexual negotiation demonstrated uncertainty before she agreed to engage in anal sex, “I was just like, “I don‟t know.” I just didn‟t think it was for me.” When
Lianna decided to engage in anal sex she rationalized that “people wouldn‟t be doing this if they didn‟t get something out of it.” In this case, the pursuit of sexual pleasure motivated a consensual sexual choice. She indicated, “So you can‟t knock it „til you try it kinda thing. So we both finally came to do it.” In her interview, Lianna signified that the process of engaging in anal sex is not straightforward. In Lianna‟s case, her sexual negotiation shifted from hesistation to a confident sexual decision that appeared mutual.
Additionally, Lianna‟s explanation showed that she was aware that being open about anal sex and discussing sexual information was uncommon among her peers. Such an observation is expected because communicating about sex in general is often uncomfortable, and disclosing anal sex makes communication more difficult for some students because of the attached negative associations.
One additional participant indicated her process of sexual negotiation with her partner. Leah discussed her initial disinterest in anal sex and showed how she came to her sexual decision. Originally, Leah asserted that she did not want to engage in anal sex,
200 and justified that perspective by stating she did not find it sexually satisfying. She explained,
I, obviously …felt that I didn‟t wanna do it [anal sex] because I‟ve heard that it
was painful, and why would I wanna do something that isn‟t satisfying to me. At
first, I said no. But then, you sort of open up more and more. I mean I think it
[anal sex] should be a mutual thing, but if he brings it up, I will tell him how I feel
about it, and he respects a yes or no. I told him – you know, you kinda joke about
it, you kinda laugh about it, it‟s not a serious thing between me and him. It‟s I
don‟t wanna do that yet, I‟m not ready yet, just give me some time. Or joking
around, I have to be drunk to do that, which I would not recommend. I‟m just
saying, you know, to be honest. So that‟s how I felt, and he knew that okay, this
is gonna happen but maybe not right away.
In the above passage, Leah clearly noted that she initially refused to engage in anal sex when she stated, “I, obviously …felt that I didn‟t wanna do it [anal sex] because I‟ve heard that it was painful, and why would I wanna do something that isn‟t satisfying to me.” This statement signified that Leah‟s reasons were motivated by her value for sexual pleasure. However, unlike other participants, Leah seemed to assert her position regarding anal sex in her sexual relationship because she stated, “but if he brings it up, I will tell him how I feel about it, and he respects a yes or no.” Based on these initial positions, Leah appeared to recognize what she valued sexually. While these statements demonstrated her ability to assert herself, she also highlighted how she negotiated her sexual choice to engage in anal sex.
201 Leah‟s statement suggested how she succumbed to the sexual solicitation she initially resisted. When she indicated that, “at first, I said no. But then, you sort of open up more and more,” Leah showed how she eventually agreed to engage in anal sex. First, her sexual negotiation involved asserting herself about how she felt about anal sex.
Second, Leah also used humor which may have communicated mixed messages about her actual stance on anal sex to her partner. This was noted when she alluded to being drunk before engaging in anal sex. Even though Leah eventually did engage in anal sex, the excerpt provides a snippet of a complex process of sexual negotiation that highlighted choice over sexual pressure.
Other indications of sexual negotiation showed that disclosure of interest of anal sex occurred during intimate situations. Barb stated that her value for her partner‟s sexual needs influenced the sexual decision to engage in anal sex. Barb‟s partner asked about her sexual history and whether she would be interested to engage in anal sex. Barb discussed her decision-making process. She noted that,
It [anal sex] was just something that he wanted to try together, and I really cared
about him. So I figured that – you know, why not? It was just not a – it wasn‟t a
fun experience for me. It was just, “Do you want to try this?” I was like, “eh”
okay when we were having sex. He had asked me if I had ever done it [anal sex]
before, and I told him that I had. And he asked me would I do it again, and I said
maybe. And he asked me if we could do it, and I said yes. Not until months – he
didn‟t bring it up again to do it again for like a couple of months after because I
guess he saw it as a special occasion thing. So he brought it up on his birthday.
202 Barb illustrated that each time they engaged in anal sex, her partner initiated it. Barb further rationalized that her choice to engage in this sexual practice was based on her emotional connection to her partner. Barb‟s sexual negotiation demonstrated the complexities of why she engaged in anal sex. It seems that Barb‟s relational needs in the relationship made her engage in anal sex even when it was not sexually satisfying for her; she indicated, “it wasn‟t a fun experience for me.”
Barb‟s excerpt showed that her sexual negotiation with regards to anal sex focused on indifference. For example, she simply said, “I was like, „eh‟ okay when we were having sex.” Even though Barb seemed indifferent, her explanation portrayed that she talked about her sexual history with her partner. She stated, “he had asked me if I had ever done it before, and I told him that I had.” Barb‟s case illustrated that subsequent disclosures of anal sex occurred when she stated, “Not until months – he didn‟t bring it
[anal sex] up again to do it again for like a couple of months after because I guess he saw it as a special occasion thing.” Such conversation was important in determining sexual negotiation and indicated that Barb and her partner communicated openly about anal sex.
Other representations of sexual negotiation pointed to disclosures which occurred in intimate sexual contexts. Such a context illuminated that conversations about anal sex still occurred. Peggy explained:
I guess the conversation itself about it [anal sex] came up spontaneously. It was
while I was in the middle of participating in sexual activities, I guess, with my
boyfriend. That‟s when it came up, the idea of it came up. And then we kinda
talked about it and then waited until the next time we got together. I decided
myself if I wanted to do it or not, but he brought it up and he said, would you like
203 to do it? And I said, I don‟t know if I want to or not. Let‟s just wait until the next
time we get together. And then we just kinda waited and I said, why not try it
because I actually might enjoy it? And in the process, in the middle of it I was
like, I don‟t think I like this very much. I told him I didn‟t want to do it, so from
there on, we didn‟t participate in it anymore. It only happened once.
Like other female participants, Peggy‟s case also indicated that her male partner introduced anal sex. Her excerpt points to a sexual negotiation which included open conversation about anal sex. Although the first conversation occurred while Peggy engaged in sexual activity, she demonstrated that within her relationship anal sex was discussed more than once. She said, “we kinda talked about it and then waited until the next time we got together.” In this excerpt, Peggy showed that open communication about anal sex with her boyfriend occurred.
Peggy also asserted that the decision to engage in anal sex was hers alone. Such a claim reflected her ability to make independent sexual decisions. She noted, “I decided myself if I wanted to do it or not, but he brought it up and he said, would you like to do it?” Peggy allowed us to see that she dictated when she wanted to engage in anal sex and when she felt uncomfortable. For instance, she explicitly informed her partner of her wishes to stop the sexual act once she was uncomfortable. She said, “in the middle of it I was like, I don‟t think I like this very much. I told him I didn‟t want to do it, so from there on, we didn‟t participate in it anymore. It only happened once.” Peggy appeared to assert her sexual needs clearly and seemed to be more in control of her sexual decisions than some other participants. Subsequent discussions about anal sex also signified that
204 Peggy openly addressed information related to anal sex, making sexual negotiation easier.
A different participant exemplified an instance of open communication in her sexual negotiation. Lorie described her ability to engage in sexual negotiation. She said,
I think the first time we really talked about it [anal sex] we were just talking about
things we had done and hadn‟t done and it just kind of came up in conversation.
He was probably more uncomfortable than I was because I‟m pretty much just –
whatever – obviously, because I came here. But – and he hadn‟t had, really, very
much experience at all, so I think that made it uncomfortable. But as far as
talking about anal sex I think we were both comfortable– I mean, we kind of
giggled a little but it was okay to talk about it. I was pretty open to it because like
I said, we‟re both pretty comfortable with each other and I‟m not really – I don‟t
want to be in that kind of relationship if we‟re not willing to talk about it. So it
was good that he felt comfortable talking about it to me before doing it. That was
important to me.
Lorie‟s comfort and open communication with her partner enabled them to address their sexual histories. Even though Lorie had experienced anal sex before her partner, they both appeared open to talk about anal sex. Lorie‟s excerpt highlighted that she was in a comfortable relationship. She said, “we‟re both pretty comfortable with each other and
I‟m not really – I don‟t want to be in that kind of relationship if we‟re not willing to talk about it.” Here, Lorie clarified that she valued her sexual relationship. However, there were indications that Lorie was uncomfortable with the topic of anal sex. For instance, when she noted, “I mean, we kind of giggled a little but it was okay to talk about it.”
205 This statement further pointed to how Lorie and her partner still addressed discussions related to anal sex because this kind of open communication was important to her.
Furthermore, both Peggy and Lorie‟s excerpts exemplified sexual negotiations that comprised of open communication. Lorie‟s example showed how sexual negotiation occurred when both partners valued open communication. Such negotiation enabled participants to address their sexual histories. Lastly, Lorie‟s open negotiation seemed to enhance her relational needs because she and her partner were able to discuss their sexual needs openly.
Another participant illustrated how she negotiated her decision to engage in anal sex. Eden‟s excerpt below showed that disclosure of interest in anal sex occurred in intimate situations and that she valued consent.
Not like, before we had sex but like during it [anal sex]. Like, he asked if it was
okay. And I said, yeah. And that was the only reason that it happened. It wasn‟t
like a pre-meditated act. I was okay with it, I guess. Like, I didn‟t really like
regret it. I mean, personally, it‟s not for me that‟s why I don‟t do it often– I‟ve
only done it twice. But I didn‟t like – I wasn‟t like that was the worst thing ever.
Like, I‟ll never do it again.
Eden‟s comments revealed that her partner disclosed interest to have anal sex while they were involved in a sexual encounter and that he requested her consent. To capture her process of negotiation, Eden noted the time of the request, “not like, before we had sex but like during it [anal sex]. Like, he asked if it was okay. And I said, yeah.” Eden also indicated that she was comfortable with the negotiating process because, as she explained, “I didn‟t really regret it.” Eden‟s quotes demonstrated that she valued
206 consensual sex. Because her partner requested anal sex, she justified consenting to it, noting, “And that was the only reason that it happened.” This statement indicated Eden‟s value for consent. She indicated that there was no prior discussions of anal sex; “it wasn‟t like a pre-meditated act,” Such a claim denoted that her participation in anal sex was unplanned.
Furthermore, Eden did not enjoy anal sex and justified that, even though she consented, she regulated how often she engaged in anal sex. For instance, she noted,
“personally, it‟s not for me that‟s why I don‟t do it often– I‟ve only done it twice.” Yet at the same time, Eden suggested that this sexual practice was perhaps bearable because she stated, “I wasn‟t like that was the worst thing ever. Like, I‟ll never do it again.” Eden‟s statement signified that she was open to subsequent anal sex experiences. Eden‟s negotiation demonstrated that even when anal sex appeared unplanned, she preferred to have the opportunity to consent. Participants consent to anal sex further seemed to point to subsequent engagements in anal sex.
Similarly, disclosure of sexual negotiation was portrayed by an open communication where sexual histories were exchanged. This occurrence was present in
Hadley‟s second relationship. Even though Hadley disclosed her sexual history, it seems that this disclosure was fraught with threats to the relationship such as jealousy. Hadley explained,
Well, we had talked about just what we liked and different things that we were
willing to do. I think it was definitely more open conversation with him as
opposed to the other person. Not like, “I‟ve had this many partners. I‟ve done
this.” But kind of in passing, we learned about each other‟s sexual history. And
207 we‟ve definitely talked about our likes and dislikes and things like that. But I
mean, I don‟t really wanna know too much specifics about what he‟s done. It‟d
just make me jealous. And I‟m sure it goes the same way. When we first talked
about anal sex in general, he said – I guess I‟d – somehow the question came up
whether or not he had anal sex before, whether or not I had before, and we both
had said that we had. In joking kind of discussion. But then it was kind of like the
first situation where we were already engaged in sex, and he just asked me if I
would be okay with that, and I said, “Yes.” I mean, I was fine with it for sure this
time.
In Hadley‟s second sexual experience, she pointed to how their sexual histories were openly disclosed seemingly before engaging in a sexual encounter. Disclosure of their sexual histories and their sexual interests seemed to have prepared Hadley better than in her first anal sex encounter.
Hadley represented a complicated sexual negotiation that occurred when she was in a sexual context. Hadley reflected on her rationale for consenting to anal sex while in a sexual situation. Hadley explained,
I mean, kinda like in the moment type of a thing. He‟s like, “Let‟s do this.” And
I was like, “Oh, all right. Whatever.” I mean, I‟m sure that we had some drinks.
But I remember it pretty vividly. The first time, it wasn‟t so vivid. But I
definitely remember being approached, asked in the situation, again, if I wanted to
do it. And I said, “Okay. I mean, I think it‟s kind of – not rude, but there‟s – you
almost – I feel like you kind of have to say yes. Well, you don‟t have to. You
have free will and your own choices. But it‟s kind of like, you‟re already there,
208 you‟re already doing it. You might as well just go ahead and continue and do
whatever feels good.
Hadley recognized that there was something unsettling about being asked to engage in anal sex during sexual activity. Her inhibitions may have been unguarded perhaps because of alcohol. She indicated that, “I mean, I‟m sure that we had some drinks. But I remember it pretty vividly. The first time, it wasn‟t so vivid I definitely remember being approached, asked in the situation, again, if I wanted to do it. And I said, „Okay.‟”
Hadley pointed out that even though alcohol was involved she was aware of what her partner was asking.
Regardless, Hadley seemed to question her consent to anal sex when she indicated, “I feel like you of have to say yes, well, you don‟t have to. You have free will and your own choices. But it‟s kind of like, you‟re already there, you‟re already doing it.
You might as well just go ahead and continue and do whatever feels good.” While
Hadley made her own sexual decision regarding anal sex, she seemed to question the circumstances under which her sexual negotiation occurred. When she said, “But it‟s kind of like, you‟re already there, you‟re already doing it. You might as well just go ahead and continue and do whatever feels good.” She indicated that if one had already engaged in sex, other sexual requests such as anal sex were also implicitly agreed to. Yet at the same time, she was fully aware that she was an active agent who has “free will and
… choices.”
Another participant, Grace, discussed how she negotiated her engagement in anal sex. Grace demonstrated that conversations related to anal sex were spontaneous and indirect in her relationship. Grace narrated as follows,
209 We‟ve discussed it [anal sex] on and off. We kinda didn‟t discuss it directly
before we tried it, because you kinda have to be in the mood to actually do
anything like that, so that would be kinda anti-climatic if we just sat there and
talked about and then, “Okay, let‟s go try it out.” But we did talk about it a few
days before anything was tried, so that if it did happen, we wouldn‟t be
completely caught off guard. And then shortly before he tried anything, he kinda
whispered in my ear if it would it be okay. And we always discuss everything
after, just in case anyone felt uncomfortable, and it‟s okay to say stop if you feel
uncomfortable with the two of us, because we‟re comfortable doing that. So
yeah, I mean, we discussed it after everything too, and made sure everything was
okay. He had to get really comfortable with us before he put something like that
into the relationship.
Grace‟s excerpt identified situations where anal sex was comfortable to talk about. For example, she noted, “you kinda have to be in the mood to actually do anything like that, so that would be kinda anti-climatic if we just sat there and talked about and then.” Grace believed that sexual information was often determined by the sexual mood, and that open communication about anal sex still occurred before and after sexual activity. Grace‟s disclosure demonstrated that she was in a comfortable relationship where her sexual needs were met. Furthermore, Grace‟s communication with her partner also indicated that they identified sexual boundaries. For example, she noted, “and it‟s okay to say stop if you feel uncomfortable with the two of us, because we‟re comfortable doing that.” Grace illustrated that her negotiation comprised of constant checks ups on each other‟s comfort levels with regards to anal sex.
210 Amber also noted that her partner requested her participation in anal sex while they were already engaged in sexual activity. Amber explained that no prior discussions of anal sex occurred before she engaged in her first anal sex encounter. She said,
I don‟t think we had any conversation but I think while we were in the act of
foreplay or something, it [anal sex] came up. So we didn‟t have a discussion
about it. Yeah, I don‟t think we had a discussion before. I think it came up. Yeah,
during foreplay, and then, it was briefly talked about because, I mean, we were
doing other stuff sexually. And then, it kinda just happened I think.
Similar to Hadley‟s discussion, for Amber, anal sex seemed to occur in a spontaneous manner. While spontaneity was appealing sexually, it seemed not to afford the participants an opportunity to reflect on the sexual behaviors and risks associated with anal sex.
Ella conveyed another illuminating narrative of sexual negotiation in her interview. Ella disclosed the process in problematic sexual negotiation. This narrative showed how the negotiation affected Ella‟s friend negatively due to the stigma attached with anal sex. Ella explained,
My friends and I have talked about anal sex about once or twice, one of my
friends that had anal sex was really not okay with it. It wasn‟t coerced. It wasn‟t
anything like that. But she was just – after she had anal sex with her boyfriend,
she was very, very nervous, very upset about it, and so she came and talked to me
about it. She had said that – kinda the same situation I was in. Her boyfriend had
asked her about it, and she thought about it for a while. And they eventually did
have anal sex. But instead of being okay with it, I don‟t think she was really
211 ready. I don‟t think she was – not fully convinced – but I don‟t think she was
comfortable with it at the time, as enough as she should have been to engage in
that. So a little regret, I think. You said you were okay, and you convinced
yourself you were okay, but – or comfortable with it. But in reality, she really
wasn‟t, I don‟t think. The girl was very nervous that everyone was going to find
out, and she would be very embarrassed. So she was nervous about that just
because I think it‟s not something that people look down upon and say, “Oh,
you‟re disgusting. You‟re a bad person for that.” But it‟s just – I feel like a lot of
people will look at it and go, “Ooh.” Just not something they really wanted to
know about that person. So I just don‟t think she wanted her dirty laundry being
aired everywhere. So she was nervous that people would find out or someone
would tell.
Ella pointed out that she did not perceive her friend‟s situation as coerced. Ella‟s friend‟s story showed that the boyfriend was, again, the one who disclosed that he wanted to engage in anal sex as Ella explained, “her boyfriend had talked about it and she thought about it for a while.” This statement suggested that Ella‟s friend thought through her sexual decisions before she actually engaged in anal sex. The sexual negotiation appeared straightforward until after the sexual encounter. It seems that Ella‟s friend was mostly concerned about the stigma attached with this sexual practice. According to Ella,
the girl was very nervous that everyone was going to find out, and she would be
very embarrassed. So she was nervous about that just because I think it‟s not
something that people look down upon and say, „Oh, you‟re disgusting. You‟re a
212 bad person for that. But it‟s just – I feel like a lot of people will look at it and go,
“Ooh.”
Ella‟s friend was mostly distressed about the disclosure of her sexual experience to others. Ella‟s narration of her friend‟s story illustrated the tensions encountered in sexual negotiation. Ella‟s friend appeared to be caught between meeting the sexual needs of her partner and the concern of being exposed for engaging in a stigmatized practice. Ella seemed to believe that anal sex needed to be concealed. She stated: “Just not something they really wanted to know about that person.”
Further depictions of sexual negotiations also portrayed open communication about anal sex. For example, Lacey‟s description of her second experience of anal sex relied on non-verbal communication as an indicator of interest in anal sex. Lacey indicated that her partner had disclosed prior interest in anal sex. Based on prior interest from Lacey‟s partner she consented to engage in anal sex. She explained,
Yeah. I mean that time, I think I was just like well, we can try having anal sex,
so I initiated it. But I could tell that he was thinking about it. I guess – well, we
were having sex with me on my stomach and him on top, so I could kinda tell that
he was just thinking about it. I think it was kind of obvious. I think I was just
like well; we might as well just try it. I mean he seemed to be fine with trying it.
But that particular time, I guess I was the one that brought it up because I‟d been
the one that didn‟t wanna do it.
Because Lacey‟s partner indicated prior interest in anal sex, she relied on non-verbal communication as an indicator of interest in anal sex. Lacey‟s except exemplified that sometimes female participants also initiated interest in anal sex and conversations about
213 it. Based on Lacey‟s sexual negotiation, depictions of communication not only relied on verbal but also on non-verbal cues to signal interest.
Summary of Disclosing Sexual Negotiation
Disclosures of sexual negotiation highlighted that participants disclosed information about anal sex in their sexual relationships. When anal sex was solicited, some of the participants indicated hesitation. Participant sexual negotiations were mostly initiated by male partners. Participant negotiation elucidated that, sometimes, their partners were motivated to engage in anal sex because of the need for experimentation.
All the participants demonstrated that open disclosure about anal sex occurred. These disclosures pointed to how some participants shared their sexual histories. Interest in anal sex was sometimes disclosed in intimate sexual contexts. Participant disclosures also demonstrated that participants consented to anal sex.
Summary of Privacy and Disclosure
This section on privacy and disclosure exemplified that even though anal sex is a stigmatized sexual practice, disclosure occurred among participants who engaged in anal sex and those who did not. Both types of participants sometimes disclosed and sometimes concealed information related to anal sex for different reasons. Disclosures provided social support among participants who engaged in anal sex. Disclosures among this group also demonstrated that participants were not astonished by disclosures of interest in anal sex because anal sex appeared to be normalized or expected as an ordinary sexual practice. Tensions between disclosure and concealment were also noted. Mostly, participants discerned privacy rules in order to recognize whether anal sex could be disclosed or concealed. Sexual pressure was also disclosed based on how participants‟
214 sexual decisions were described. Most of these descriptions pointed to subtle pressure, which was portrayed in the language the participants used. Additionally, participants demonstrated how sexual negotiation influenced the process of sexual decision-making.
Participants indicated that men mostly initiated conversations about anal sex. Participant disclosures of sexual negotiation denoted that they consented to anal sex based on open communication.
Among participants who did not engage in anal sex, disclosures were fewer.
Disclosures served to gauge partner interests and to set sexual boundaries. Participants who had not engaged in anal sex demonstrated open communication. Also, participants illustrated that reviews of anal sex were disclosed in peer relationships. These reviews mostly demonstrated that participants sought knowledge about anal sex. In the next section I address participants‟ meanings of anal sex.
Phenomenological Reduction of Meanings of Anal Sex
This section addresses the research question that asked, “What are the ways in which participants give meaning to anal sex?” The section demonstrated the gendered aspect of anal sexuality in terms of the meanings participants associated with this sexual practice. This finding emerged spontaneously because there was no specific question related to the gendered nature of anal sex. Power dynamics in heterosexual relationships were most visible in the themes in this section. In addition, participant descriptions also demonstrated how sexual scripts informed the participants‟ perception of whose sexual pleasure was esteemed. Also, the discomfort that the participants associated with anal sex
215 was attributed to the anatomical differences between themselves and their male partners was based on experience or what they heard from their peers.
This section covers two themes. The first theme presents the meanings related to letting the guy have what he wants, or asserting men‟s domination and female submission. The second theme presents meanings associated with discomfort of anal sex.
Letting the Guy have what he wants, Asserting Men‟s Domination and Female
Submission
Overall, half the participants in both groups claimed that anal sex was a sexual practice that women engaged in to pleasure men. The participants perceived anal sex as a sexual practice that allowed men to exhibit their domination or power, while they perceived women as submissive. Twelve out of the sixteen participants who engaged in anal sex associated anal sex with men‟s pleasure and domination, as well as submission of women. Three participants who had not engaged in anal sex also stated these beliefs.
Among these 15 participants there seemed to be agreement that anal sex was more desired by males for their sexual pleasure. Participants illuminated contested gendered expectations about anal sexuality. Social cultural scripts related to anal sex pointed to sexual expectations that participants espoused for men and women. These sexual expectations esteemed male pleasure above that of women and tended to objectify the woman‟s body in the process.
To begin, three participants who had not engaged in anal sex viewed anal sex as a sexual practice that was more desired and more pleasurable for men than for women. The participants perceived that if one engaged in this sexual practice, it was gratifying to males. For instance, Aggie espoused this view. She noted,
216 To me, it [anal sex] seems like something that a guy would be interested in. Guys,
in general, would be more interested in anal sex, and that girls would probably
just do it to make a guy happy or please him.
Aggie illustrated that women engaged in this sexual practice that was not satisfying to them because it catered to the sexual needs of men. Such an assertion indicated that perhaps Aggie believed that women positioned themselves so as to value their own sexual needs less than their partners‟. This assertion was captured when she said, “girls would probably just do it to make a guy happy or please him.” As she pointed to the internalized socio-cultural sexual expectations that she may have encountered about women‟s roles in intimate sexual situations. In addition, because the man‟s pleasure was esteemed, Aggie seemed to expect that males set the trend for this sexual practice. It seemed as though, for Aggie, a male suggested anal sex because he desired it and the woman complied because she wanted to satisfy her partner.
Similarly, Judith, another participant who had not engaged in anal sex, associated the meanings of anal sex as a sexual practice that was unequal and unsatisfying for women. Judith stated,
I mean, it‟s kinda when you have vaginal intercourse, the woman can get pleasure
out of it[ anal sex]. I guess I don‟t know, because I‟ve never had anal sex, but it
just seems like it [anal sex] wouldn‟t be that pleasurable for the woman, so it‟s
only for the guy. So it‟s kinda the guy is the only one gaining something out of it,
and the woman‟s just there for whatever.
Like Aggie, Judith demonstrated the idea that anal sex was not a mutually satisfying sexual practice. For both participants, anal sex seemed to only sexually satisfy men. By
217 saying, “when you have vaginal intercourse, the woman can get pleasure out of it,” Judith portrayed vaginal sex as a favorable sexual practice. Judith‟s excerpt also highlighted some ideas related to the objectification of a woman‟s body. Judith seemed to perceive a woman who engaged in anal sex as acting as a sexual object that gratified a man. As indicated in Judith‟s excerpt, “the guy is the only one gaining something out of it, and the woman‟s just there for whatever.” Judith‟s statement typified the notion of a woman being objectified.
Tori, the third participant who had not engaged in anal sex, reiterated the same meanings that Aggie and Judith associated with anal sex. She explained,
I think it‟s clearly more pleasurable for the guys, so that‟s why he [Tori‟s
boyfriend] would want to do it, but I think – I feel like I would only want to do it
if it was for my boyfriend or whoever I was dating – but it just doesn‟t sound
comfortable to me.
Tori‟s description named anal sex as a practice that only pleasures men. Tori indicated that she would engage in anal sex for her boyfriend or someone she was dating. By asserting how she was willing to engage in a sexual practice that she suspected would be uncomfortable, Tori indicated that she grappled with the tension between pleasing her partner and possibly taking a subordinate, uncomfortable position. Her perspective pointed to how women may esteem men‟s sexual pleasure than their own.
Aggie‟s, Judith‟s and Tori‟s descriptions privileged male sexuality and undermined women‟s sexual pleasure. If such meanings are connected to anal sex, these meanings may position women in uncomfortable situations of sexual subjugation that may jeopardize their health. These three participants, and the others that follow,
218 exemplify meanings that are interrelated to gender, sexuality and power as participants render their perceptions of anal sex in intimate sexual relationships.
Similar meanings that linked anal sex with esteeming and pleasuring men were also noticeable in the excerpts of participants who engaged in anal sex. In the following excerpt, these meanings were in intension with participants‟ personal discomfort with engaging in anal sex. Peggy showed how she engaged in anal sex to please her partner.
She said,
For me, I don‟t believe I care for it [anal sex]. I have participated in it for a
boyfriend so that, just like my friend, he asked if I wanted to do it and I didn‟t
want to, but I wanted to make him happy and please him. And after performing it
once, I decided I just didn‟t want to do it, and I thought there are other things that
can still please him just as much as this. It‟s kinda my view on it. I don‟t think
that – I don‟t believe it‟s really healthy, either. I don‟t think that that‟s really a
natural thing to do, looking at it from a health perspective, but if someone chooses
to do it, and they want that for their body, then that‟s – by all means, go ahead and
do it.
Peggy‟s narrative pointed to how the meanings connected with anal sex motivated her to pleasure her sexual partner. Peggy also exemplified a participant who esteemed her partner‟s sexual pleasure over her own. Furthermore, she recognized tensions related to experiencing this sexual practice. On the one hand, she acknowledged engaging in anal sex for her partner, even while risking her health. Yet, on the other hand, she asserted herself and recognized that she would not engage in this sexual practice again, partly because she recognized alternative ways of pleasuring her partner that would not
219 jeopardize her health. It seemed that Peggy reflected how women grappled with the gendered socio- cultural norms about women‟s sexual roles in relationships.
Grace also described the meaning connected to anal sex as being about women making themselves available to the sexual needs of men. This connection illustrated how strongly the participants espoused this view. Such a perception denoted that female participants in this study might have relied on socio- cultural sexual scripts from their contexts which perhaps encouraged the views they shared about anal sex. Grace narrated her meanings by distancing herself when she stated,
That she was more willing to do what he wanted her to do, whether it‟s
pleasurable for her or not I guess. It kinda seems to me like it‟s [anal sex] more
for the guy. It would be something generous from the girl. Yeah. I mean, I‟ve
never experienced it myself, but from what I understand, it‟s painful for the girl.
So I guess pain is one of the things that I would associate with it most, but also
some sort of excitement, because it‟s different. I guess it would be kinda letting
the guy take over a little bit as far as that goes. I mean, it would also kinda mean
being the ideal sex goddess that seems to be expected these days. Well, I mean,
the porn industry is huge, especially in college when guys have their own
computers and can feel free to do whatever. And there are a million sites and they
can always find it, and these women in these porn videos are plastic and fake and
do whatever the guy in the video wants, because that‟s what guys want to see.
And so when they finally do get to have sex with a real woman, they expect her to
also kinda suit his needs and do what he wants. So that‟s kinda what I associate
with anal sex too.
220 Grace‟s detailed description offered a more complex description of the meanings associated with anal sex. Her meanings called anal sex a sexual practice that gratified men and objectified women. Grace embraced layered and contradictory meanings that were associated with anal sex. Some of the contradictory observations were linked to whether she had engaged in anal sex or not. Grace initially indicated that she had not engaged in anal sex when she indicated, “Yeah. I mean, I‟ve never experienced it myself, but from what I understand, it‟s painful for the girl.” When discussing negative, disempowering meanings, Grace indicated she had not engaged in anal sex. However, when directly asked after this description if she had engaged in anal sex, Grace indicated that she had. This contradictory narrative may reflect how participants talk about a stigmatized sexual practice, because even the meanings that Grace identified had these contradictory elements.
Some of the meanings Grace associated with anal sex called anal sex a “token” or a “present” that a woman gives to a man even though she recognized this sexual practice as uncomfortable. This means that the woman‟s body was given to men to do as they sexually desired. Furthermore, Grace illuminated that engaging in this sexual practice meant that men were allowed to be sexually dominant over women‟s bodies. This meaning was typified in the quote, “I guess it would be kinda letting the guy take over a little bit as far as that goes,” albeit in a temporary manner. Additionally, by saying “it would be something generous from the girl,” Grace esteemed men‟s pleasure as women offered men permission to engage in a sexually unsatisfying practice that promoted men‟s fake expectations.
221 Grace highlighted socio-cultural scripts from influences of pornography that expect women to portray themselves as sex goddesses for the pleasure of men. It seemed that being a sexual goddess was an idealistic expectation that Grace inferred women should live up to. Images of the expectations of an ideal sex goddess are reinforced by pornographic images. Further, Grace stated that, “these women in porn videos are plastic and fake and do whatever the guy in the video wants, because that‟s what guys want to see.” Grace‟s observation equated these sexual expectations to a fantasy. Further, being an ideal sex goddess seems unrealistic for regular women because the ideal sex goddess is “plastic and fake.” However, it seemed that such portrayals, especially in connection to anal sex, appeared to undermine women‟s sexual experiences by promoting men‟s false expectations.
While these demeaning notions were present in Grace‟s narrative, there was also the contradictory element of excitement that Grace recognized when she said, “but also
[anal sex offers] some sort of excitement, because it‟s different.” Meanings attached to anal sex not only objectify women but can also be contradictory by espousing both excitement and discomfort at the same time. Such a dichotomy introduced murky and blurred meanings related to anal sex for participants like Grace.
Another participant, Sally, further pointed out meanings of anal sex that objectified women for the sexual pleasure of men. Like the previous participants, Sally also asserted that anal sex was disrespectful to the women‟s body. Having contracted anal herpes from her boyfriend, Sally reflected on the meanings anal sex had for her. She said,
For me, I just feel like kind of – puts me in the mindset that I would be
disrespected, to be completely honest. Most of the time, if I think about anal sex,
222 I would think of it as somebody were behind and just kinda like – I don‟t know.
It doesn‟t paint a pretty picture for me. It‟s not what sex should be to me. I feel
like it‟s supposed to be a oneness, and I feel like anal sex doesn‟t necessarily have
that intimate – I don‟t know. I can‟t really put it into words. I just feel like it‟s
just kinda not really taken seriously. It‟s more of a playful type of a tone, not
realizing this is my body. You‟re still just pumping into me, or whatever, but you
don‟t see how I feel when this is happening.
Sally‟s excerpt illustrated that anal sex was disrespectful to women because it was not considered a mutual sexual act. Sally‟s partner was unable to observe and recognize pleasure or pain based on her sexual position. To capture this depiction, Sally said, “most of the time, if I think about anal sex, I would think of it as somebody were behind and just kinda like – I don‟t know. It doesn‟t paint a pretty picture for me. It‟s not what sex should be to me.” Furthermore, Sally explained, “I feel like it‟s supposed to be a oneness, and I feel like anal sex doesn‟t necessarily have that intimate.” While anal sex was perceived as not mutual, Sally also indicated that it was unequal because it did not provide sexual pleasure for her. Because of not being mutual, this sexual practice was perceived to only sexually satisfy men and disregarded female sexuality. Sally problematized this scenario by noting that men disregarded the sexual needs of women.
When she noted, “it‟s more of a playful type of a tone, not realizing this is my body.
You‟re still just pumping into me, or whatever, but you don‟t see how I feel,” Sally‟s statement further reinforced the idea that anal sex had different meanings for men and women. While men could perceive it as a “playful type of tone,” Sally‟s sexual and emotional needs were ignored or unrecognized.
223 Gabby also named this sexual practice as disrespectful because it had coercive undertones for women. She explained:
I think it‟s kind of a disrespectful thing sorta. I don‟t think it‟s a good thing. I
don‟t really agree with it or anything, but I don‟t know. I think it‟s kinda
disrespectful to the girl, because a lot of times, like, more times than not, it‟s a
guy talking a girl into doing it, and pretty much persuading her to do it, like, “Just
try it this once, blah, blah, blah. For women, it‟s something that maybe they
don‟t, they haven‟t wanted to do, but their partner, whoever, kinda talks them into
it. So then it just becomes maybe like a curiosity and they try it once or
something.
Gabby explained that women were hesitant to engage in anal sex but were persuaded to participate in this sexual practice against their liking. This coercion was noticeable when she stated, “because a lot of times, like, more times than not, it‟s a guy talking a girl into doing it, and pretty much persuading her to do it, like, Just try it this once, blah, blah, blah.” Gabby identified some of the strategies she assumed men used to coerce women to engage in a sexual practice that women do not necessarily want to engage in. The overarching premise was that men introduced interest in engaging in anal sex against the interests of women.
Gabby‟s excerpt captured the socio-cultural script that perceived men as active initiators of this sexual activity. Men were depicted as persuaders whereas women were depicted as passive in their sexual decision and choice to engage in anal sex.
Some participants associated anal sex with “letting a guy have what he wants.” As a recurring theme, it was noticeable that women may have internalized the idea of
224 permitting a man to do what he wanted to their bodies. The expectation to engage in a sexual practice, even when a woman did not want to engage in it, was espoused by Dallia as well. She stated,
I feel like most of my friends that have talked about it didn't even want to do it
[anal sex]. It was always the guy that wanted to do it. And they just gave in. So I
feel like it must mean more to the guy – for some of them, not to all guys, but to
all of my friends that have done it. We were actually just talking about this last
week.
It seemed clear in Dallia‟s excerpt that dissimilar sexual expectations between men and women were associated with anal sex. The idea that a woman‟s body was objectified and subordinated during anal sex was in tension for different participants. Such meanings revealed that the woman‟s body was violated because it was positioned in situations that were usually uncomfortable and often against her will. Furthermore, Dallia‟s idea that “it was always the guy that wanted to do it. And they[females] just gave in” depicted women as lacking agency to resist the requests to engage in anal sex. There was a sense of powerlessness in terms of how participants perceived their position because they seemed not to be part of their sexual negotiation.
Sentiments that further explained women‟s discomfort, lack of pleasure and how women did not enjoy this sexual practice were portrayed by Amber. She indicated,
For women, I think it‟s more uncomfortable for women, whereas for men, it‟s
more enjoyable. And they‟ll do either anal or vaginal, and they‟ll – they get the
same affects or whatever, whereas I don‟t think girls like it as much, necessarily.
225 Amber inferred that men were able to engage in penetrative sex while women could not.
It seemed that this option for men increased their chances for sexual pleasure whereas women seemed to have minimal chances for sexual pleasure from anal sex. It appeared as though the participants believed that anatomical differences between men and women might affect enjoyment of anal sex since women were the ones being penetrated.
Other additional perspectives connected meanings of anal sex to power over the woman‟s body. For example, Barb explained,
…women don‟t have the control. Maybe they‟re doing it just to please the man
because they want him to be happy, and they‟re not really thinking about
themselves at that moment.
In this excerpt it seemed that powerless women were portrayed. At the same time, expectations to please the man was a recurring meaning associated with anal sex. At the center of such socio-cultural scripts were perceptions that women are sexual objects who pleasure men while disregarding their own pleasure, thus rendering them powerless.
Similar meanings associated with anal sex illuminated that engaging in anal sex depicted men‟s power on the women‟s body. Lorie observed,
I think for men it‟s definitely domination – like a control thing, more so than they
might get otherwise. I also think it‟s taboo for them, so if they can say that
they‟ve done it it‟s like a pride thing. And a lot of guys enjoy it because it‟s a
better experience, physically, for them, it being tighter and everything.
Lorie recognized that while anal sex was taboo, how anal sex was enacted on the woman‟s body portrayed “domination” and was equated to male “pride.” This perception about anal sex further demonstrated that dominance was linked to certain sexual practices
226 like anal sex. Symbolically, if anal sex was represented by domination and control, inequality in sexual pleasure could be assumed because the woman takes the subordinate role and male pleasure is privileged. Lorie rationalized that “a lot of guys enjoy it because it‟s a better experience, physically, for them, it being tighter and everything.”
Assumptions like Lorie‟s related to males enjoying anal sex undermine women‟s sexual experiences of anal sex; there seems to be an expectation that because the anal area is
“tighter,” women have to offer themselves sexually. Women‟s anatomical differences and how they experience anal sex is ignored in the participants‟ meanings of anal sex.
Other representations of domination with regards to anal sex esteemed male pleasure. Nia said,
I think a lot of people kind of almost like having sex “doggie-style” if you will –
it means like a submission or domination. Because people assume that a woman
couldn't be pleasured through anal sex, is the impression I‟ve gotten. Or people
think it‟s disgusting. But I‟m not sure. And like I mentioned before, people a lot
of times attribute it to a homosexual male practice, so they don‟t see why a female
would engage in it.
The meanings ascribed to anal sex in comments such as Nia‟s are interesting because they are presented in complex, nuanced, and multidimensional ways while propagating perceptions that esteem male sexual pleasure. Nia demonstrated that anal sex does not present a dichotomous relationship of “submission or domination.” Nia also seemed to believe that the act of anal sex undervalues or ignores female sexual pleasure, “Because people assume that a woman couldn't be pleasured through anal sex, is the impression
I‟ve gotten.” This statement further indicated that being penetrated anally was derogatory
227 because it was also equated with revulsion. For example, Nia noted, “people think it‟s disgusting… a lot of times attribute it to a homosexual male practice.” It was clear that the demeaning and degrading connotations that are associated with homosexuals were also attributed to women who engage in anal sex. Regardless of these negative associations, anal sex was perceived as a sexual practice that pleasures men.
A close interrogation of the competing associations also demonstrated that stigma undermines women‟s sexuality. These links suggest that women who engage in this sexual practice are subject to being stigmatized because of the already negative associations that are linked with anal sex. Nia commented that those who “attribute it to a homosexual male practice…don‟t see why a female would engage in it,” which raises concerns about a double standard that women have to be aware of.
Eden also recognized that submission was associated with anal sex and the socio- cultural expectations that relegate women to being powerless in their sexuality. She stated,
I don‟t want to say submission but it‟s kind of, what it like assumes. Like, you let
someone do that [anal sex]. Like, I mean, obviously, you have to let them but for
women I guess that they want to like please their partner, I guess.
The act of letting someone engage in anal sex assumes that women have to give themselves to have anal sex. Eden explained, “obviously, you have to let them but for women I guess that they want to like please their partner;” Eden‟s use of “let them” positions women as giving themselves to serve their partners‟ male pleasure. In this excerpt, Eden observed that how the woman feels about anal sex is absent; instead the
228 focus is on the partner‟s sexual needs are embraced. Another participant, Lianna, also noted that her liberal friends associated anal sex with demeaning women. She explained,
I think – obviously there are a bunch of different people who have a bunch of
different opinions on it – but I know a lot of girls – a lot of my friends – I run
with a very liberal crowd – some of them really think it‟s really degrading and
don‟t think it‟s what should be done – that it‟s men using women– doing just what
they want. Some girls like it. It just varies person-to-person, I think.
In the above excerpt, Lianna appeared to demonstrate that anal sex denigrated women.
She also implicated her liberal friends as espousing the same values against anal sex. She said, “I know a lot of girls – a lot of my friends – I run with a very liberal crowd – some of them really think it‟s really degrading.” Lianna‟s explanation denoted that she recognized that anal sex was not a mutual sexual practice. Lianna equated anal sex with a lack of mutuality because she believed that was not her type of sex; she stated that she didn‟t “think it‟s what should be done – that it‟s men using women– doing just what they want.” Lianna‟s explanation symbolized the lack of mutuality from anal sex because it esteemed male pleasure. The women take a subordinate and objectified position because
Lianna explained that men do “what they want.” This statement seemed to demonstrate that what the woman wants was disregarded for the man‟s sexual needs. Regardless of these of demeaning associations of anal sex, Lianna was cognizant that some women liked anal sex.
Lacey also highlighted the idea that anal sex was not a mutual sexual act.She believed dominance over the woman‟s body interfered with mutual pleasure. Lacey explained,
229 I would say mostly I think – I feel like a lot of people perceive anal sex to be just
like men asserting their masculinity or dominance rather than – I don‟t know.
I guess more than a mutual act. I guess it just has a negative connotation. I don‟t
know. I guess I just perceive vaginal sex to tend to be more mutual. I feel like
most women wouldn‟t want – don‟t want to willingly engage in that.
It seems that vaginal sex was considered a mutual sexual act between men and women than anal sex. Lacey perceived anal sex as a masculine sex act that denoted dominance and undermined women‟s sexuality. When Lacey said, “most women wouldn‟t want – don‟t want to willingly engage in that,” she claimed anal sex was imposed or forced on the women‟s body. Similar notions of power were acknowledged by Sasha. She stated, “I mean, I think that for men it‟s more about power, but other than that, not really.”
Representations of anal sex were also influenced by what participants saw in popular culture. For example, Barb observed that the idea that anal sex is used to dominate women while pleasuring men was reinforced in popular culture discourse. She stated,
I think to men it would mean something – it‟s kind of a power thing in my mind.
Being able to – I don‟t know. I watched a movie called Basic Instinct where the
man had anal sex with this woman, and she got no pleasure out of it at all, but he
was really pleasured by it. And I guess it‟s kind of a power – not a power
struggle – well, I guess it could be a power struggle. He wants to be in control.
So he takes the control away from her because if she was – if it was just regular
sex, then they could be kind of mutual – on the same level.
230 Barb suggested that the exposure to popular culture messages normalized the sexual expectations for women and men in relation to sexuality and specifically anal sex. This type of message perpetuates the idea that men are permitted to objectify women and disregard the sexual needs of women. Barb recognized that sexual pleasure for both women and men was associated with vaginal sex because it was perceived a mutual sexual practice. Barb said, “if it was just regular sex, then they could be kind of mutual – on the same level.” However, for Barb, anal sex had negative associations related to dominance and subjugation of women.
Other participants illustrated that engaging in anal sex was likened to a competition for men. Engaging in anal sex with women suggested that anatomical differences enhanced sexual pleasure for men. Such perceptions privileged the sexual prowess of men. Leah explained,
Anal sex for men, from the men who I‟ve spoken to, it‟s kind of a – they wanna
do it, – it‟s competition for them, they, you know, mark it off your list, I did
this, and it‟s a whole new feeling for them, like physically feeling for them, and
so they enjoy it. And, again, it‟s just a new experience, it‟s exciting.
The meaning of “marking off” what men had engaged in sexually with a girl also demonstrated the sexual normalization of men‟s sexual practices. This competition to mark off represents men‟s objectification of the female body because the idea of competition seems to disregard women‟s experiences of anal sex. Since the end result of engaging in anal sex is competition, women‟s needs are not prioritized. Furthermore, this idea is demeaning to the women‟s body. What was shown by Leah‟s explanation was the
231 idea that the female body is inscribed as a sexual playground where sexual experimentation takes place, but women‟s sexual experiences are ignored.
Gabby echoed similar sentiments and also depicted the idea of men checking off what they have done with the female body. Gabby noted,
I think for men it‟s something extra. It‟s an extra aspect of sex. Like, “I‟ve done
that with a girl. We should do this. I‟ve done everything that I can do with this
girl.” And for women, it‟s more, like, I don‟t really know. For me, I‟d be – I
don‟t know. It‟s hard to explain.
Further portrayals of anal sex were depicted as a standard of social acceptability that men used when they engaged in anal sex with women. Gabby demonstrated that men seemed to value anal sex more than women. Interestingly, while Gabby wanted to compare what anal sex meant for both men and women, she only explained what anal sex meant for men and was hesitant and uncertain about what anal sex meant to her or to other women.
Gabby depicted the idea that men are easily perceived as sexual whereas women are perhaps not able to perceive themselves this way.
Eden illustrated,
It‟s kind of like a status thing I guess. Like, oh, yeah, they‟ll tell their friends.
Like, oh yeah, I did that and I‟m sweet. Like a level of social acceptability,
I guess. Like, among their group of friends or just like college-aged guys in
general. It‟s kind of like a claiming like a prize kind of. Like, I got to do this
and I‟m cool for it. That‟s what a lot of college guys say.
Eden perceived that anal sex was a measure of men‟s sexuality. By connecting anal sex to
“status,” “social acceptability,” or “claiming a prize,” Eden symbolized that anal sex was
232 not only practiced for pleasure; it signified male conquest or sexual victory over women‟s bodies. Meanwhile, Gabby seemed to imply that “college guys” showed off their sexual prowess among their peers. These representations of anal sex take on a meaning beyond an embodied one because they portray socio-cultural meanings that privilege male meanings of anal sex.
Judith explained similar ideas related to male meanings of anal sex and the connection to victory. Judith who had not engaged in anal sex, explained,
Whenever I think of anal sex, it just makes me think of it in a negative way for
some reason. No matter, it‟s just I have negative connotations with it all the time.
It was not in an enjoyable way, but it was also, like, “Look what I got her to do,”
type thing. It was almost like a victory for him, almost like, “We got there.”
You know what I mean? And I don‟t know if women get the same pleasure out of
it as guys do. I kind of wonder how many women do it just because it‟s what a
guy wants to do and not necessarily what they want to do.
Judith‟s representations of anal sex illustrated that, while men used anal sex as a measure of male sexuality, the meanings it portrayed to women were those of subjugation and objectification. Whether the males perceived anal sex as a competition between each other as Eden observed, or victory over women as Judith indicated, the underlying meanings were the same. Both symbolized conquest and seemed to boost the ego of men.
For example, Judith said, “Look what I got her to do,” type thing. It was almost like a victory for him, almost like, “We got there.” You know what I mean? And I don‟t know if women get the same pleasure out of it as guys do.” Judith believed that behind this conception of male victory, male pleasure overrode female pleasure. Even more, a
233 recurring concern that most participants demonstrated was the idea that anal sex was not pleasurable for women.
Summary of Letting the Guy have what he wants, Asserting Men’s Domination and
Female Submission
In this segment, participants perceived that anal sex only pleasured men. The participants‟ presumptions reflected aspects of women‟s objectification and subjugation because women‟s sexual pleasure was undermined and ignored. In addition, the notion of esteeming male sexual pleasure also positioned women in situations of discomfort. Other perceptions pointed to how participants perceived that men asserted their dominance and masculinity by engaging in anal sex with women. Male objectification was sometimes perceived as a competition between themselves or as a victory over the woman‟s body.
Now, I turn to the meanings of discomfort of anal sex.
Meanings of Discomfort from Anal Sex
Another important theme related to the meanings associated with anal sex was connected to participants‟ fear and discomfort associated with this sexual practice.
Fourteen out of the thirty participants indicated in some way or form that anal sex conjured some uneasiness and discomfort for them.
One of these participants who related anal sex with pain was Hadley. In her description, it seems that prior experience of having experienced pain from anal sex had lasting impressions on her recollections of this sexual practice. This experience of pain made her to consider anal sex experience negatively. Consequently, Hadley was hesitant towards anal sex. She explained,
234 I don‟t wanna say fear. I‟m not afraid of it. I just am hesitant towards it. Just
pain. I mean, I‟ve experienced pain before in engaging in anal sex, so it‟s just
like every time it comes up, I kind of – I don‟t steer away from it, but I‟m like,
“Oh, I don‟t know. Maybe not. But maybe.
Even though Hadley indicated that she had encountered pain, it was noticeable that perhaps she would consider engaging in this sexual practice again because of her hesitation. Her statement “I don‟t steer away from it, but I‟m like, “Oh, I don‟t know.
Maybe not. But maybe,” demonstrated the possibility of considering anal sex again.
While she pointed to how she experienced pain, it was surprising that Hadley kept the possibility of engaging in anal sex open. One might wonder why participants like Hadley did not present a firmer stance against anal sex given their experience of pain.
Similarly, Kaitlin, a different participant who had not engaged in anal sex, connected anal sex to a sexual practice that people hide. It seems that the discomfort linked with anal sex emerged from such concealment. Kaitlin observed,
I feel like its part of the sexual experiences that people usually hide. They‟re not
very open about it. I mean, I‟ve never had it so I don‟t really know anything
about it. But – at least, I haven‟t had it because I‟ve just – I don't know – it‟s not
appealing to me. I just – I would feel uncomfortable doing it. And I‟m not in a
relationship. So if I were to ever do it I would have to be with someone for a long
time because it‟s something that you have to be comfortable with. I just feel like it
would be really awkward.
While Kaitlin recognized the negative and uncomfortable associations that are connected to anal sex, she also did not totally discount the possibility of engaging in anal sex if she
235 was involved in a long term relationship. It seemed as though even when participants like
Kaitlin recognized the stigmatized associations that were linked to anal sex, there seemed to be tensions in determining whether she would engage in this practice or not. The uncertainty that was depicted in Kaitlin‟s narrative mimicked the same hesitation that was noted in Hadley‟s excerpt. However, one important point that Kaitlin made was that such a sexual practice could only occur in long term relationships.
On the contrary, other participants who associated anal sex with pain and discomfort seemed to take a firmer stance against engaging in anal sex because of peer reviews of anal sex. For example, Aileen explained,
I‟m not willing to do it, because of what I‟ve heard about it, most people that I‟ve
talked to say that it hurts. Others say it‟s great, they love it. Me, I‟m not willing
to put myself through trying to figure out whether I like it or not, just because
I‟m uncomfortable with that. And I‟ll make sure that my boyfriend knows; that
way he doesn‟t try anything like that, because I‟m not comfortable with it.
Aileen‟s perspective demonstrated the negative associations about anal sex that seemed to deter her against engaging in anal sex. What is interesting in Aileen‟s narrative is that she was exposed to competing information about anal sex; one type of information encouraged it while the other discouraged it. Regardless of such information, Aileen leaned towards an idea that took a firmer stance against anal sex and demonstrated these opinions to her boyfriend.
Another participant who connected anal sex with discomfort and pain was Aggie, a participant who had not engaged in anal sex. She stated,
236 It [anal sex] has negative meanings for me because it seems like something that,
well, for women, anyway, is painful and not something that I would choose to do.
So that‟s why it has negative meanings.
Negative associations of discomfort and pain were mostly linked with women. Perhaps
Aggie may have been hinting at the anatomical differences as the reason for pain that was associated with anal sex. As a result of such connections the meanings ascribed to this practice deterred Aggie from engaging in anal sex.
Similar sentiments of discomfort were also discussed by Judith, another participant who had not engaged in anal sex. She explained,
I just personally never, ever want to do it. I just don‟t feel comfortable doing
that. I don‟t know. I feel comfortable having sex, but not comfortable with that.
I don‟t know. I think that it kinda makes me uncomfortable. Not talking about it,
but just thinking about doing it makes me uncomfortable. I don‟t know. It‟s not
supposed to go there.
As can be observed among the participants (Aggie and Judith) who had not engaged in anal sex, the meanings they associated with anal sex were related to discomfort.
However, when they talked about this discomfort, they also reiterated how they would not engage in this practice fairly assertively by pointing out how uncomfortable this sexual practice made them feel. In Judith‟s case, a clear delineation of a comfortable sexual practice and an uncomfortable sexual practice was made between vaginal sex and anal sex respectively. This discomfort was not only related to physical discomfort of anal sex, it was also obvious in terms of how Judith talked about anal sex by illuminating that
“it‟s [penis] not supposed to go there [anal area].” Therefore Judith‟s explanation of
237 discomfort reminds us of the different associations of discomfort that are both physical and non-physical.
Other representations of anal sex were linked to more uncomfortable and serious physical associations like rape. Sally, a participant who had engaged in anal sex, communicated this representation. She noted,
To me, the way I feel about it, I don‟t know if I can describe a meaning, but
how I feel about it – it kinda reminds me, puts me in the mindset of rape because
it‟s not something that you don‟t go into lightly. It‟s not – I can‟t really describe
it. It seems – I feel dirty about it, you know what I mean? Like when I think
about anal sex, I just – the rectal area isn‟t very clean at all. So I don‟t know.
Associations of anal sex were also connected to how dirty participants like Sally felt on a physical level because it was considered unsanitary. On a deeper level though, Sally‟s association of anal sex with rape and being dirty also depicted some kind of violation of her body. To portray how uncomfortable she was with this sexual practice, Sally used a strong term such as rape to reveal the extreme discomfort that she associated with anal sex; it is important to also note that she did not inform me that she had been raped anally.
Other participants that had engaged in anal sex all referred to anal sex with the uneasiness they felt towards it. The following participants all espoused similar negative sentiments in diverse ways. Phoebe explained, “I get kind of squeamish. I don‟t really like the thought of it really. So I don‟t know. I wouldn‟t have a positive feeling about it probably. Like, uncomfortable with, like, the thought of it kind of.” Barb also noted her unease with anal sex by stating,” I don‟t see it as a normal practice. I don‟t feel as though it‟s a pleasurable experience. It‟s kind of weird to me, I guess.” Similarly, Sasha also
238 explained, “I guess people just kind of think that it‟s dirty.” Lianna also reiterated the same negative sentiments and stated, “To me, I always just felt it was unnatural. It just always conjured up that feeling …that something shouldn‟t be going on right there [anal area].” Lastly, Ella also noted, “I don‟t really want to know about that [anal sex] or think about that [anal sex] or do that [anal sex]. Just something that I would kind of recoil at a little bit.” These participants displayed the discomfort they associated with anal sex, even when they had engaged in this sexual practice.
Summary of Meanings of Discomfort from Anal Sex
This segment addressed the meanings of discomfort participants ascribed to anal sex. Participants associated anal sex with some kind of discomfort that was either related to the physical pain they had heard about or that they had experienced. They also connected the discomfort to the uneasiness anal sex conjured in them. To a large degree, the discomfort associated with anal sex was because it was deemed unnatural, dirty, or linked to hesitation. Participants clearly displayed negative connotations toward anal sex.
Summary of Letting the Guy have what he wants, Asserting Men‟s Domination and
Female Submission and Meanings of Discomfort from Anal Sex
This phenomenological reduction addressed participant descriptions that related to letting the guy have what he wants, asserting men‟s domination and female submission, and meanings of discomfort of anal sex. The first theme demonstrated that participants saw anal sex as a sexual practice that generally esteemed male pleasure. Participant descriptions pointed to how perceptions of male pleasure may have come from participant‟s socio-cultural scripts that esteem male pleasure and ignore female pleasure.
Participants also associated anal sex with male domination and female subjugation. In
239 two instances, participants noted that female objectification involved men using anal sex as a competition or victory over the woman‟s body.
In the second theme participants largely highlighted the discomfort that they associated with anal sex. The participants either perceived anal sex as dirty or unnatural, or uncomfortable, even if they had engaged in anal sex. Largely negative connotations were linked with anal sex because of the stigmatized nature of this sexual practice and because some of them perceived it as unsanitary or painful. The next section discusses the phenomenological reduction on risk.
Phenomenological Reduction of Risk
This section presents a phenomenological reduction of participants‟ descriptions of the risks associated with anal sex. It answers the research question, “how do participants talk about the sexual risks associated with anal sex?” Participants‟ description of risk occurred in tandem with the acknowledgement of the perceived pleasurable benefits of anal sex. The section is organized in the following order. The first theme presents infectious and non-infectious risks of anal sex. Thereafter, a theme related to participants‟ suggested methods of minimizing risks associated with anal sex is presented. The last theme addresses participants‟ identified benefits of anal sex.
Infectious and Non-Infectious Risks of Anal Sex
Both participants who engaged in anal sex and those who had not identified sexual risks related with anal sex. Specifically, nineteen out of the thirty participants identified risks concretely or vaguely. They indicated that one could acquire sexually transmitted infections (STIs) or non-infectious injuries (such as tears, bleeding or a
240 dysfunctional rectal system) from engaging in anal sex. Even though participants who engaged in anal sex were cognizant of the sexual risks, only one participant, Sally, directly mentioned HIV as one of these infections. Perhaps participants‟ answers disguised HIV under the general heading of STIs or infections. This was an important difference between those who engaged in anal sex and those who had not. Some of the participants who had not engaged anal sex mentioned HIV directly as one of the risks in their description of risks.
Participants from both groups depicted examples of infectious (STIs) and non- infectious (tearing, bleeding and dysfunctional rectal system) risks. For example, Eden recognized both kinds of risks. She noted, “yeah, I guess there is bleeding, tearing, or something, those are the only ones I really know of. I mean, I am sure you can get
STI‟s.” Eden demonstrated that even though she had engaged in anal sex, and she was aware of the potential risks associated with anal sex, she still made no mention of HIV.
Other examples that portrayed the participants‟ knowledge of anal sex risks were demonstrated by Sasha. She associated anal sex with the possibility of a non-infectious risk such as a dysfunctional rectal system. Sasha explained, “I don‟t actually really know much about it [anal sex risks]. I know what I‟ve heard, which is like – it can screw up your pooping system. But other than that – I mean, I suppose that it can make you bleed or tear something.” Even though Sasha seemed uncertain about the risks she identified, these risks were similar to the ones Eden identified. Perhaps Sasha‟s uncertainty was due to the lack of exposure to risks associated with anal sex; similar to Eden, HIV was not mentioned in Sasha‟s description of risk. Hadley also recognized the same risks that
Eden and Sasha mentioned. She indicated that there would be “tearing of the anus, I
241 guess, definitely disease, I don‟t know any others, really.” Hadley‟s ability to identify these risks denoted that she was aware of the threats connected with anal sex.
Other participants expressed their knowledge about the risks by explaining the reasons for increased infection susceptibility. Lianna explained,
There are a bunch of reasons– like the whole medical aspect – the walls are a lot
thinner so you‟re more open to get tears in there and have disease. It‟s a lot easier
to contract things. Just diseases – like sexually transmitted diseases – blood
diseases – anything like that. It‟s pretty – it‟s a scary thing to think about that
way.
Lianna was clearly aware of why anal sex is risky, as she recognized the susceptibility of the rectal area to risks of infections. The same sentiments related to the anatomical make- up of the rectal wall were espoused by Barb. She stated, “there‟s the higher risk of STDs because the skin in there is thin – from what I understand, the skin in the anal cavity is thinner than in the vagina or in the mouth. So there‟s more risk of tearing and infections spreading.” The information from these participants demonstrated that they were aware of the risks that anal sex posed although they had engaged in it. In a like manner, Lacey also recognized tearing as a main risk. She also pointed out how infection susceptibility was increased if one engaged in anal sex and then switched to vaginal sex. She asserted,
Well, I mean definitely it can cause some tearing and what not, and that can be a
problem. Anal to vaginal sex can be a big problem because of infections and
what not. ..
Grace also highlighted the same concerns associated with switching from anal sex to vaginal sex. She illustrated,
242 There‟s a whole lot of danger as far as bacteria being passed, whether it‟s from
the girl to the guy or the girl to the guy. And then if they engage in vaginal sex,
then it‟s going to really cause some problems if it‟s after anal sex. And yeah, I
mean, obviously, there‟s going to be some tearing and possibly bleeding
involved. So there‟s always a risk of disease there too, and just the pain part is
kind of a risk too.
As participants that engaged in anal sex, tearing, bleeding and pain were equally acknowledged as threats that increased chances of infection.
These risks were also espoused by participants who had not engaged in anal sex.
Shania indicated,
I mean, I don't personally know that – particularly know that much about risks.
The anus is stretched and whatnot – I mean, it's not supposed to be stretched to
that degree that it is when you‟re having anal sex. But it stretches and it rips and
you get tearing, that's what I mean. You get tearing that can get infected. So
that's a risk because any infection is kind of a risk. And also, if you're a female
and you're engaging with a sexual partner in anal sex and they do start back there
– because you have all these things. Yes, start in the anus and then go to the
vagina and start doing – you're having sex vaginally. Those bacteria and whatnot
are brought to the front, so you also are at risk, once again, for infections and
things like that.
Shania demonstrated her knowledge that switching from the anal area to the vagina during intercourse increased these chances of infection. Even though Shania appeared hesitant, she was able to identify some risks.
243 Closely related concerns were noted by Leah. Leah indicated that the presence of blood signified a threat to infections. She illustrated,
I don‟t know many risks, but I do know that if bleeding is involved, that‟s not
good, that‟s not a good sign, something went wrong. I‟m lucky that it never
happened to me, so I never had to really worry about it or research about it as
much. So I just know that tearing can occur and then bacteria can get in those
tears and it can probably cause more problems.
This excerpt illuminates that participants like Leah were aware of the basics of disease transmission connected with anal sex.
Another participant, Nia, reflected on the risks by narrating a friend‟s experience and encounter with medical personnel. Such advice seemed influential in reinforcing the risks associated with anal sex for her. She explained,
Well, I guess STDs are always a factor. I had a friend who went to the doctor and
when they asked her if she had engaged in it [anal sex] they told her that you
could have tearing of the tissue or even a stretching of the [anal] sphincter which
could cause you to become incontinent of the bowel. She wasn‟t but she didn't
really enjoy the encounter anyway. And she‟s like, “And now, that‟s even more
reason to never do it again.” And she said she never thought about it before. She
said she didn't do it frequently, but the fact that it could cause those kind of
problems – that just kind of educated her on it.
Nia‟s story pointed to the significance of medical advice on the risks associated with anal sex. Perhaps such advice instilled fear and education at the same time. This advice, as noted in the quote, seemed to shape the sexual choices because it was deemed legitimate.
244 As can be noted, Nia‟s friend indicated, “and now, that‟s even more reason to never do it again.” For her, medical advice served as evidence that reinforced her sexual choices.
Aileen also added a different angle to participants‟ knowledge risk by highlighting the dangers that are incurred when lubrication is not used. In her narration,
Aileen indicated that if lubrication was not used, the chances of infections and rectal dysfunction became more likely. Even though she was uncertain, Aileen recognized the possibility of these risks. She stated,
Infection. If you don‟t use lube, you can tear something, and then bacteria can get
in there, and that can cause problems. I don‟t know if it causes problems with
going to the bathroom or anything. All I can think of off the top of my head is
infection, and I don‟t know how serious that can be, but it sounds like it‟s serious.
Similar concerns about risks related to a dysfunctional rectal system were highlighted by
Peggy. She explained that she was educated about these risks in high school. Peggy explained,
I believe that there‟s a tissue inside that could be ripped and you also have what‟s
called an O-ring inside of you. They call it an O-ring, like your orgasmic ring, I
guess, and that, at some point, could be ripped after engaging in anal sex multiple
times. That‟s what a nurse said to me. She just said – she explained this in school.
The nice thing about it, too, is she was just very open and she tried to actually use
a lot of, I guess, what you would say modern day terminology. She would just
say, oh, this is butt sex. She would just come out and say it. And she just said,
just watch what you do because, after a while, you could lose control of the
muscles in there. .. And that you may have to end up wearing diapers for the rest
245 of your life… I wasn‟t planning on having anal sex on a daily basis or doing it all
the time. I was probably just going to have it, if I did enjoy it, probably only do it
once in a while when I felt like I really wanted it. But I didn‟t want it to get to a
point where I was obsessed over it or anything. I feel like it‟s just like, to me, just
like sex. I use it for only certain times, like within a certain time span, I guess.
From Peggy‟s excerpt it is clear that she was aware of the risks associated with anal sex because she was informed about the anatomical changes that might occur. Peggy also indicated that the nurse‟s use of a term that she could relate to such as “butt sex,” was more appealing to communicate the risks associated with anal sex. Peggy also consciously balanced how often she engaged in anal sex because she was aware of dangers. By indicating that she “wasn‟t planning on having anal sex on a daily basis or doing it all the time,” but instead would “only do it once in a while when I felt like I really wanted it,” Peggy demonstrated how she was going manage her pleasure needs and the potential risks that are related to anal sex.
Other participants who had engaged in anal sex seemed uncertain but were able to identify some of the potential risks of anal sex. For example, Lorie explained,
To be honest, I don‟t actually know. People don‟t really talk about the risks, I
guess. I would assume you could do physical damage if it were really rough. But
otherwise, I don‟t really know. Well, first of all, I think for women the risks can
be really, be physical being injured through it [anal sex] if it‟s not done correctly
or if it‟s done too roughly. I‟m sure you could spread STDs though specifically I
really don‟t know. That‟s why I wouldn't do it without a condom because I think
that‟s risky. For guys, though, other than the possible spread of STDs… You can
246 probably transmit diseases and hepatitis and stuff like that since that is a pathway
for your waste to come out of. Plus, men can have anal sex, also, so they can
have the same effects that women do. I think it‟s just more of the main one that
they‟ve imposed on me in school. But I‟m sure there‟s many other things that you
can get through it.
Lorie recognized that risks that are associated with rough anal sex could injure women.
Sexually transmitted infections, such as hepatitis were also acknowledged as a risk.
Furthermore, ways of minimizing these risks were acknowledged when Lorie recognized the importance of condoms. Lacey was another participant who recognized that risks of infection were not only confined to women, but could occur in men if they engaged in anal sex. She stated, “I don‟t know. I guess they could probably get infections, too, but I don‟t know. I would think that especially men that were uncircumcised would be more likely to get infections under the foreskin and what not.” Lacey‟s statement also demonstrated that she was aware of other risk reduction strategies. From Lorie‟s description, one may expect that the occurrence of STIs was likely when a condom was not used.
Shifting to participants who had not engaged in anal sex, the risks that they identified were similar to those who had engaged in anal sex. Four out of the seven participants who had not engaged in anal sex were able to identify infectious and non- infectious risks. Some of them mentioned HIV or AIDS as an additional risk of engaging in anal sex. For instance, Bessie was cognizant of the risks that are connected to bleeding. She stated, “well, the person getting penetrated bleeds because that‟s not a place that‟s used to being penetrated, I guess.” It can be inferred from Bessie‟s statement
247 that this risk mostly affects both women and men who are penetrated. In addition,
Bessie‟s demonstrated that “receivers” (being penetrated) are more prone to bleeding than those who are penetrating. This observation is important because it sheds light on who the participants believe is most at risk for infections.
Tami noted that she was unfamiliar with the risks of anal sex because she was not taught in sex education in high school. Tami noted,
Actually, I don‟t know of many risks. I don‟t think it‟s talked about. It‟s one of
those things that never came up in sex ed. I know that you‟re more likely to get
AIDS from anal sex, but I only found that out when I was trying to give blood in
high school, and there was a girl that was a good friend of mine and she was
dating a boy who was bisexual. And they would not let her give blood because
she had had sex with someone who had had anal sex with another man, so I know
that …But then once I got to looking it up, I realized that the risks were a lot
higher for anal sex, as far as AIDS or just blood-transmitted diseases.
Tami indicated above that she only made the connection between anal sex and HIV or
AIDS through her conversation with a peer. While Tami acknowledged the dangers attached with anal sex, her quote also pointed to the limits of her sex education.
Furthermore, Tami‟s description of how she became aware of the risks is important because some participants may be unaware of the dangers that anal sex poses.
Two other participants also recognized that the risk of HIV or AIDS increased when tears were present. Dallia stated, “I think it‟s easier to get AIDS that way because of the tearage, rippage, or whatever.” Similarly, Judith illustrated how fearful she was with anal sex because of her associations to AIDS. She indicated,
248 Well, I mean, in my mind, I kinda associated it with gay men and that type of
thing, and AIDS, but, I mean, whenever my friend told me that she engaged in
anal sex, I wouldn‟t be, like, “Oh, my God, she‟s going to get AIDS.” It was just
kinda, like, I don‟t know. And then I asked if it hurt and she‟s, like, “Yeah.”… I
would definitely associate vaginal intercourse with more diseases than I would
anal. Just because, I mean, I guess I‟m just naïve to the whole what you can get
from anal sex talk, but I mean, it‟s been drilled in my head about what you can get
from vaginal sex.
Judith exemplified a participant who associated anal sex with gay men and struggled to see connections to how anal sex could pose the same danger to heterosexuals. Judith‟s explanation, that “it‟s been drilled in my head about what you can get from vaginal sex,” captured the idea that she was overexposed to the risks linked with penile-vaginal intercourse. The emphasis on risks related to vaginal sex seems to be premised on the presumptions that vaginal sex is the only type of penetrative sex heterosexuals engage in.
Aggie also reiterated similar risks: “a lot of STDs, I‟m assuming, and then HIV. I don‟t know what the other risks would be, other than I feel like it would kind of hurt, if that counts as a risk.” The inclusion of HIV in these participant responses‟ of risks was important because HIV is one of the major risks connected with anal sex.
While uncertain, a different participant acknowledged the risks of anal sex.
Kaitlin noted that these risks were the same as those acquired from engaging in vaginal sex. She said, “I‟m not positive about those. I‟m guessing it would be the same things you would get if you had sexual intercourse [vaginal intercourse], like STIs.” The
249 uncertainty depicted by participants like Kaitlin may indicate that she was exposed to the risks of anal sex.
Lastly, Victor, one of the two men who had not engaged in anal sex, indicated that
STIs were a risk of anal sex. Victor explained, “diseases, a lot of STDs, you‟re never safe– I guess it‟s never really a completely safe practice. But I guess any kind of sex isn‟t completely safe.” While Victor‟s quote appears skeptical, an important point that he highlighted is the idea that all sexual practices have risks and consequently protective or preventive mechanisms have to be considered. However, it seems that Victor considered anal sex less safe, especially because Victor indicated two times that, “you‟re never safe… never really a completely safe practice,” when he referred to anal sex.
Summary of Infectious and Non-Infectious Risk of Anal Sex
The above risk descriptions demonstrated that participants were aware of the potential risks associated with anal sex. While some participants appeared uncertain about the risks, to a large degree participants who had engaged in anal sex were cognizant of infectious (STIs) and non-infectious risks (tears, bleeding, and rectal dysfunction).
Additionally, participants who had not engaged in anal sex were also aware of the same risks and a few specifically highlighted HIV as a potential risk. Next, I discuss participants‟ suggested methods of minimizing risks.
Participants‟ Suggested Methods of Minimizing Risks Associated with Anal Sex
All the participants were familiar with ways of minimizing risks. They identified condoms as a protective method against STIs. In this section, fifteen participant perspectives on how to minimize the risks are offered to illustrate some of the participants‟ ways of minimizing risks associated with anal sex. In general, participants
250 noted that risks connected with anal sex could be minimized by using condoms and lubrication. Other participants suggested that open and sensitive communication during sexual intimacy as preventive methods that they viewed could minimize risks.
Participants, both those who engaged in anal sex and those who had not, indicated that using lubrication and condoms reduced risks linked with anal sex and STDs. In her interview, Nia explained,
For women, I guess lubrication helps because it makes it go in smoother so it does
less tearing. If you have a partner that goes slow and is considerate. Because I
think once it‟s in it does kind of stretch. But – and then, using a condom to not
contract STDs.
Nia‟s perspective included the importance of a supportive sexual partner during anal sex.
Nia recognized that bleeding or tearing risks are linked to sexual partners who do not recognize women‟s vulnerability. Nia further implied that biological differences between females and males call for better communication during anal sexual activity.
Several other participants who had engaged in anal sex also noted the importance of condoms. Lianna noted, “Yeah – just using condoms and making sure it‟s not dry – you have no resistance there – because that‟ll make it a lot easier, I think.” Lianna‟s perspective on reducing risks highlighted some of the reasons that lead to breaking of condoms. Lianna seemed to imply that tears, pain and chances of infections lie in using lubrication. Lacey also highlighted the significance of lubrication. She explained,
I guess just using a lot of lubrication because I feel like a lot of people don‟t
know that you‟re supposed to use lubrication. It just seems like when people talk
about, they‟re just talking about anal sex as though there‟s no preparation, the
251 same thing as vaginal sex basically, but I mean I don‟t know how I know
specifically…
Lacey indicated that preparation for anal sex was underestimated by her peers. It seems that a lack of awareness of the protective methods may explain such an occurrence. Grace similarly stated, “I would think by wearing a condom it would prevent some of the risk for passing disease anyway, but as far as preventing the tearing itself, I don‟t know if there‟s much you can do about that.” Grace was aware of the ways of reducing infections; however, she was not familiar with other ways of minimizing tears as Lianna and Nia.
Bessie also highlighted the significance of condoms but included other important ways of minimizing risks. Bessie explained,
Well, I think obviously using a condom. I think you should always use that,
unless you‟re in a very stable relationship, and … You should use a condom. You
should definitely talk about it before you do it with the person because – just to
see. You don‟t want to kind of surprise someone with that. But I think using the
condom would be best or getting tested, just in case, even if you don‟t think you
have one, you should get tested regularly. I guess you can use lubrication. I don‟t
know if that would help or not just because it is a place that‟s meant to be tighter,
I guess. The skin‟s not used to being stretched, except for obvious reasons.
As noted by several participants, a stable relationship that was likely monogamous was recognized as an important risk reduction factor. This acknowledgement was important considering anal sex is a high-risk practice. Bessie gestured towards multiple ways of reducing risk; she not only familiar was familiar with using condoms and lubrication, but she indicated the importance of communicating one‟s intentions to engage in anal sex
252 with a partner. In addition, Bessie noted the importance of testing for STIs as another prerequisite to risk reduction. These risk reduction suggestions from Bessie seemed more comprehensive than those offered by any other participant.
Other participants who indicated using condoms included Tami, Kaitlin, Dallia, and Aggie. The following brief quotes demonstrate their responses. Tami stated, “I‟m sure condoms.” Kaitlin also reiterated the same answer initially by saying, “Condoms, I guess. Not doing it. I guess that, yeah.” Kaitlin recognized that not engaging in anal sex is another risk reduction way, whereas Dallia noted, “Lubrication, that‟s what I‟ve heard of. Other than that I‟m sure there‟s – well, no, there‟s probably no other way.” Dallia seemed hesitant and only recognized lubricant as the only risk reduction method and omitted condoms. Aggie clearly highlighted, “ I guess I don‟t know too much about the differences in risks for men and women, other than if it were me and I were a woman, I‟d make sure that there was a condom.” Sometimes the participants did not include lubrication in their responses but recognized the value of condoms as a risk reduction method. In one instance, a participant noted that not engaging in anal sex is also risk reduction. I wondered whether the omission of lubrication was unintentional among the participants who had not engaged in anal sex (Tami, Kaitlin, and Aggie). Because they had not experienced this sexual practice they may have been unaware of the importance of lubrication in protecting against anal tears and breakage of condoms.
Participants like Hadley also explained the importance of communicating with a sexual partner during anal sex as an important risk reduction strategy for women. She stated,
253 I don‟t know. Maybe with – I don‟t know how you‟d put it – just back and forth
penetration, trying to ease into it, I guess, and not just straight to the punch, direct.
That‟s definitely what happened to me. He just went for it, and I was ready in the
sense that I knew, but I wasn‟t ready physically for that kind of penetration. I
mean, I voiced moreso the second time that I wasn‟t really feeling it, and that it
didn‟t feel good to me, and that it hurt. And so he slowed down a bit.
Hadley talked about her anal sex experience to illustrate the importance of communicating her sexual needs to her sexual partner. By sharing her experience, she was able to demonstrate how lack of communication posed a risk for tears during anal sex. Hadley‟s excerpt also pointed to how she exercised agency by talking about her sexual experiences with her partner. Hadley‟s example in reducing risks associated with anal sex is significant because she acknowledged the importance of open communication as a risk reduction strategy that is particularly helpful for women and men.
Other participants alluded to the importance of voicing one‟s feelings with regards to anal sex. Sasha noted that, “You could tell the person to stop when it hurts.”
As evidenced in Hadley‟s and Sasha‟s excerpts, both participants were cognizant of the importance of asserting themselves and exercising agency over their bodies when they became uncomfortable.
Other participants not only indicated the significance of lubrication, they also suggested that it is important for the woman to relax during this sexual practice. For example, Leah stated,
By preparing enough. By using enough lubrication. And honestly, this may
sound funny but when you think you have enough lube, put more on. It‟s really
254 important. It‟s a smoother insertion. It‟s easier and ultimately it won‟t be painful.
You need to be relaxed, and when you‟re not relaxed, and when you‟re tense, it
doesn‟t work. So mentally you do need to prepare for it I think because it‟s a
whole different feeling. The very first insertion will not be satisfying so you
tense up, but perhaps during, it does get better.
Leah‟s proposal of relaxation relates to minimizing tears during anal sex. As a participant who had engaged in this sexual practice, Leah was speaking from her lived experience.
Similarly, it is easy to observe that participants like Hadley and Sasha were speaking from informed positions of having participated in anal sex. Hence, the suggestions they offered may have been strategies they tried themselves.
A different participant also recognized the use of condoms, showering and lubrication as approaches she used to minimize risks. Lacey also included trust as an important way of minimizing risk. She stated,
Probably using protection [condoms], or at least taking a shower immediately
afterwards. I guess I would say a good amount of lubrication, and just be really
sensitive between the two partners, which is – I worry that a lot of couples on
campus that are engaging in it are more like don‟t really trust each other that
much or know each other that well. I just feel like there‟s a lot of like oh, we‟re
out of high school, we should just sleep with random people. I feel like there‟s a
lot of that. And when I went to my first college, I did that, too. Two of them
were completely protected. And one of them was protected some of the time I
guess. Which is a terrible idea, and I‟m glad that I came through those
experiences without getting an STD or anything or getting pregnant. Because now
255 I‟m a lot wiser about it. But at the time, I was just like – I don‟t know. I just
trusted that they would have gotten tested I guess, honestly.
Lacey exemplifies a participant who engaged in high-risk sexual practices. She had multiple partners and unprotected sex. Reflecting on her personal experience seemed to make Lacey recognize the importance of different ways of reducing risk. Lacey‟s excerpt seemed to focus on the importance of trust in sexual relationships. It appeared that trust was equated to monogamy. Lacey preferred monogamy because she seemed opposed to sex with multiple partners. She alluded that, “I just feel like there‟s a lot of like oh, we‟re out of high school, we should just sleep with random people.” Reflecting on her personal experience seemed to make Lacey recognize the importance of different ways of reducing risk. Lacey naively trusted her partners to test themselves for STIs. Further, her candidness points to a participant who underestimated her risks and her sexual partners‟ risks. However, Lacey demonstrated that she was learning from her poor sexual choices she made by noting, “I‟m a lot wiser.”
Other participants highlighted the significance of knowing their partner‟s sexual history. Eden stated, “make sure you know the sexual history of your partners and what you are comfortable with or not.” Eden‟s point emphasized the importance of disclosing prior high-risk sexual practices in relationships. In addition, she identified that communicating each other‟s feelings regarding sexual practices was important. It seems that such communication allowed sexual partners to gauge each other‟s comfort level.
Aileen also offered other ways of minimizing risks. She said, “probably taking the proper actions, using the most effective, safest protection [condoms] you can find. Use a lot of lube. Make sure both people want it, that way when side effects or whatever happen,
256 you‟re both prepared to deal with that.” An additional risk reduction strategy that Aileen captured besides using lubrication and condoms was related to the significance of both parties consenting to anal sex. Aileen seemed to be cognizant of the value of mutual consent. Consent prepares sexual partners for responsible sex because it not only minimizes health risks, but also makes both parties comfortable to engage in a sexual practice that is largely stigmatized.
While most of the participants included various risk reduction strategies that should be used during anal sex, some participants included abstinence as a risk reduction method. One such participant was Peggy. Peggy‟s risk reduction perspective included, not engaging in anal sex. She stated, “to tell you the truth, I don‟t know. I just think that maybe don‟t have anal sex, I guess.” Peggy‟s perspective on reducing the risks associated with anal sex was important in that, while she was unaware of the specifics of reducing risk, she added a different angle that discouraged engaging in anal sex.
The next participant, Sally, talked about ways of minimizing risks by reflecting on her negative experience with anal sex. Sally engaged in unprotected anal sex and acquired anal herpes. In her narrative, Sally reflected on how she wished she had been aware of the risks before she acquired herpes. She reflected,
I think the main thing is being aware of the risks. Before I even contracted
herpes, it was just something that was so taboo, it was just like, “Not me.” Even
sitting in the waiting room, I was just like, “No, they‟re just gonna be like, „You
know, it‟s just something that happened. You‟re maybe allergic to something and
this was a reaction.‟ But I could never – it could never be me.” … Diseases don‟t
know a name or a face. I also wish I was taught more about it. I don‟t know, I
257 just wish – even in school, the main thing they talked about was abstinence. And
then, it was just AIDS. Don‟t get AIDS. Don‟t get pregnant. But I mean,
honestly, I thought, “I wish I would have just got pregnant than having herpes. At
least if I would have got pregnant, I would have first had a decision that I could
make. Than having something for life,..like this virus – it does teach me positive
things. I‟ve tried to take it as positive as I can, in spite of the situation. I feel
blessed that it wasn‟t AIDS or HPV or anything that it could have been. But I
mean, in another life, if I could rewind time or do anything different, that would
be it.
As Sally narrated this excerpt, she was plainly upset and sobbed briefly when she recounted how risks could be minimized. The taboo nature of acquiring an STI made it hard for Sally to share this experience with her family or friends. During this interview,
Sally noted that I was one of the few people besides her doctors and nurses she had shared this information with. Sally‟s narrative points to the significance of knowing risk reduction methods before infection occurs. As noted from Sally‟s excerpts, informational gaps related to ways of minimizing risks were identified. Sally attributed these gaps to her sex education. She stated, “even in school, the main thing they talked about was abstinence. And then, it was just AIDS. Don‟t get AIDS. Don‟t get pregnant.”
Unfortunately, what we infer from Sally‟s narrative is that certain aspects of sex education were overemphasized. The prevention of AIDS and pregnancy may have been addressed in school. However, both HIV and pregnancy could have been connected to penile-vaginal intercourse and not to anal sex. As a result, Sally exemplifies a participant who paid for not having been exposed to prevention strategies.
258 Summary of Participants’ Suggested Methods of Minimizing Risks Associated with Anal
Sex
So far the participants demonstrated different ways of minimizing risks associated with anal sex. While not all the participants mentioned an extensive list of preventive methods, most of the participants were aware of at least one way of minimizing risk.
What was noticeable from these suggested methods was that participants included strategies that were informed by having engaged in anal sex. Even participants who had not engaged in anal sex offered their perspective on risk reduction. Such inclusions were illuminating because they enriched the understanding of preventive strategies. The participants also went beyond the methods of risk reduction that are commonly recommended such as condoms and lubrication.
This section captured participants‟ suggested ways of reducing infectious and non-infectious risks associated with anal sex. Participants were aware of some aspects of minimizing risks. As noted in the introduction, all the participants were aware of condoms; however, there were variations in other preventive strategies that participants identified. On the other hand, participants extended the understating of risk reduction methods beyond condoms and lubrication. They captured aspects related to the significance of communication, e.g. open communication during intimate situations, mutual consent, and more information on the awareness of risk. The next section addresses participants identified benefits of anal sex.
Participant‟s Identified Benefits of Anal Sex
This theme found that participants identified some benefits related to anal sex.
Some participants claimed that anal sex enhanced sexual pleasure. Certain participants
259 perceived that the benefits related to anal sex only pleasured men and not women. Other participants acknowledged more ambivalent perspectives on the benefits by recognizing positive and negatives aspects of anal sex. Still other participants held mixed perspectives with regards to what was pleasurable. Lastly, one participant cogently noted that anal sex was solely for pleasure.
Participants who engaged in anal sex recognized that the benefits of anal sex were tied to enhancing a relationship. Grace noted,
Yeah. I think for someone in a relationship, a long-term relationship, it can be an
exciting new kind of adventure in bed, so it can strengthen you that way as far as
you still explore with each other and kinda take different routes and see what
happens. And whether it goes badly or goes well, you still have that connection
of, “Okay, we tried it.”
Grace‟s quote captured the benefits of anal sex by introducing the idea that it encouraged exploration and could be an element of experimentation, especially in long-term relationships. Grace inferred that including anal sex to the sexual repertoire of couples in long relationships broke sexual monotony. Consequently, such an addition was viewed as a way of enhancing relational pleasure regardless of whether they found anal sex pleasurable or not.
Similar sentiments that recognized the relational benefits of anal sex were also depicted by Dallia. She stated,
Maybe exploring your partner‟s body some – being more comfortable. I feel like
if you were to do that you would feel more close to the person just because – I
don't know – it‟s like a different kind of connection. I feel like for men, maybe – I
260 don't know if it would be a benefit – but it might be a – not necessarily a fantasy
but a – something – I feel like all men always would be okay with doing it. So it
would be another thing off of their list.
Dallia‟s excerpt captures an ambivalent perspective on the benefits of anal sex. The first aspect, “exploring your partner‟s body some -being more comfortable,” was perceived positively because it was viewed as something that enriched a couple‟s sexual practice.
At the same time, Dallia viewed anal sex as a sexual practice that males desired and found more pleasurable than women. Victor, one of the male participants who had not engaged in anal sex, discussed similar relational benefits for couples. Victor stated,
Well, I guess if you‟re looking to spice up the relationship, and you think that
would help things, that would be a benefit. If they like the sensation, that‟s a
benefit. But as far as anything beyond that, I wouldn‟t have any idea.
Victor‟s suggested benefits were similar to some of the benefits espoused by Dallia, specifically the benefit related to enhancing the sexual pleasure. Victor‟s quote appeared to highlight a more mutual benefit for both women and men. Victor stated,
“If they like the sensation, that‟s a benefit.” By using inclusive language such as “they,”
Victor highlighted a mutual sexual benefit for both men and women.
Initially one participant noted that she didn‟t see any benefits of anal sex.
However, after reflecting, Shania noted that anal sex broke the sexual monotony. Shania stated,
I don't see them. I mean, I guess if I we going to have to give a benefit – had to
say there were benefits, I guess if you're stuck in routine, it kind of changes things
up for partners that maybe have been together for a while. So I suppose that's a
261 benefit also. I really can't think of anything, honestly, besides plus my friend
said it felt good, – I guess that's beneficial. Everybody likes to feel good, I
suppose.
Shania perceived anal sex as a new addition that improved sexual relations. The recognition of this benefit also came with the benefit of sexual pleasure. Shania also depicted how most of the information about pleasure stemmed from conversations with her peer. Based on Shania‟s excerpt there clearly was some hesitation when she talked about the benefits. For instance, her statement, “I don‟t see them” at the beginning and then proceeding to offer the benefits perhaps spoke to some level of hesitation and unknowing. This hesitation may imply that Shania was not certain about these benefits per se. Sally, another participant who had engaged in anal sex, claimed that anal sex had pleasurable benefits. She illustrated that anal sex improved a couple‟s sexuality particularly in long term relationships, “I guess they say it feels better, especially if you‟ve been having sex with the same person for a long time. Men get bored, I guess that‟s what they say. I get bored, too. Well, I heard that for some women it feels better than vaginal. I don‟t know how that could be.” While Sally was able to point out the benefits of anal sex in relationships or a couple, she also recognized that she heard that women enjoyed anal sex. Sally‟s excerpt shows that boredom could motivate men and women alike to engage in anal sex to enhance sexual pleasure.
Likewise, Leah noted that the pleasure benefits of anal sex were enhanced because this sexual practice was unusual. Leah explained,
I mean if two people want to experience something else and spice up their sex
life, then I think it‟s great. It is a whole different feeling, and maybe you cannot
262 achieve orgasm vaginally, maybe anally you can. And I think it takes time to get
it right, but eventually it could have benefits.
Other benefits that were identified by Leah seemed to suggest that, if one had sexual concerns such as failure to orgasm, engaging in anal sex could enhance pleasure. Sasha also claimed that anal sex could be pleasurable. Sasha stated, “I mean, according to my male, gay friend, there is pleasure involved. But not for me personally.” Sasha‟s position pointed to how conversations about how pleasurable anal sex seemed was connected with being homosexual. Perhaps she assumed that only gay people enjoyed anal sex because she did not find this sexual practice pleasurable. Sasha‟s excerpt further highlighted that her idea of anal sexual pleasure was informed by her gay friend and not necessarily from her experience.
Another benefit that Nia discussed was that anal sex could enhance intimacy. She stated,
I think there – I mean, I think that it can feel good. I think that it can be an
intimacy you can share with someone. But I don't know that it has a lot of
physical benefit to women other than I think it‟s an emotional – a head thing –
something that either you like or you don‟t. And if it was just anal sex I wouldn't
engage in it. Like I said, it‟s gotta be clitoral stimulation with that or something
more going on.
Nia‟s quote highlighted that men and women experienced anal sexual pleasure differently. Implied in Nia‟s statement was the idea that women did not necessarily enjoy the physical aspect of anal sex unless clitoral stimulation was involved. Nia‟s explanation
263 demonstrated that even when women do not enjoy anal sex, they may engage in anal sex because of seeking an emotional connection.
Another participant, Lianna, said that the benefits of anal sex were the same as those of vaginal sex. Lianna explained,
The same kind of benefits there are with vaginal sex – somebody‟s happy with it.
Different strokes for different folks – everyone likes something different. I‟m sure
there are demented people who like to use it for power and stuff like that – but
when I think about it, personally, I just think about it like – sex is for pleasure.
Lianna demonstrated that she equated anal sex with vaginal sex because both equated to sexual pleasure. At the same time, Lianna was aware that anal sex could be used to abuse a sexual partner for power. To illustrate she stated, “I‟m sure there are demented people who like to use it for power and stuff like that.” Lianna‟s idea also implies that some men can use anal sex to dominate their partners. Similarly mixed reviews on the benefits of anal sex were highlighted by another participant, Judith. She said,
Well, apparently, it feels really good for the guy; that‟s what I‟ve heard. And, I
mean, I‟ve heard obviously mixed reviews. Some people really like it and then
other people are really uncomfortable about it. So I think it just depends on the
person who‟s having it and their sexual preferences.
Judith‟s quote demonstrated that anal sex was largely pleasurable for men. Her excerpt further indicated that she relied on anal sex reviews that came from her friends. These peer reviews presented a seemingly balanced perspective on the benefits of anal sex. It was clear that these benefits of anal sex varied and were dependent on personal preferences.
264 Other participants wondered whether there were sexual benefits for women who engaged in anal sex. Barb explained, “I don‟t see any benefit for women. I guess for men it‟s a tighter space so they can get a different feeling out of it.” Barb‟s quote points to the different benefits that are linked to the anatomical differences between men and women.
This difference seems to be a significant factor that shapes the sexual experiences of men and women in relation to anal sex. Other participants, like Tami, hesitantly recognized that there were benefits for women too. Tami seemed to be more certain about the pleasurable benefits for men as well as the benefit of preventing pregnancy. She stated,
I don‟t know of many benefits for women. I‟m sure there‟s some kind of
satisfaction. For guys, I know that it‟s sexually satisfying with the prostate. I‟m
sure that butt holes are probably tighter than vaginas, so I‟m sure that‟s kinda
satisfying. I don‟t know of any other benefit. The benefit may be that you‟re not
probably going to knock someone up [make a woman pregnant]. I guess that‟s
kind of a benefit.
Similar to Barb‟s observations, Tami also reiterated how anatomical differences appeared to make anal sex more pleasurable for men. Tami also pointed to another significant benefit, the inability to impregnate a woman. Along the same lines, Bessie, a participant who had not engaged in anal sex noted the same pleasurable benefits and the inability to become pregnant. She indicated,
Well, other than for a woman not getting pregnant, I don‟t know. Because I think
– like I said, I wouldn‟t – and I probably never will know whether it feels good or
not. Some people obviously think it does because a lot of people enjoy it. I don‟t
want to say a lot. That‟s generalizing, but people do. I don‟t know if there‟s any
265 benefits other than not getting pregnant, really... I guess men might like it better
because the sensation might be different. Not sure how, but I guess I would just
guess because it‟s two very different feelings– internally, it‟s two very different
things and externally, I mean. So I would just guess. Maybe because one‟s
tighter [anal area] than the other one [vagina].
While Bessie was uncertain about the benefits of anal sex, she pointed to the inability to become pregnant as a benefit that could be appreciated by both men and women.
Additionally, she also assumed that anatomical differences between men and women made for different sexual experiences. Bessie indicated that men were at an advantage in engaging in anal sex, “I guess men might like it better because the sensation might be different.” It seems that when participants pointed to these anatomical differences, they positioned anal sex as a sexual practice that skewed towards men‟s pleasure. Like Bessie and Tami, Lorie also indicated how anal sex benefits men,
Guys enjoy it physically because it‟s a tighter experience. But for women I have
not heard – I mean, some women just enjoy it [anal sex] I think because they‟re
[women] doing it. I don't know that there‟s actually a physical reason that they
are pleasuring from it. And in my experience – I mean, I can‟t use my experience
because I didn't really enjoy it [anal sex].
Lorie‟s excerpt indicated that it seemed to be a certainty that men found anal sex pleasurable more than women. While she appeared to acknowledge that some women enjoyed this sexual practice, Lorie struggled to reconcile the possibility that women could enjoy anal sex because she herself did not. Similarly, Nia also believed that women could gain an emotional, rather than a physical, benefit from anal sex. In fact, Nia
266 seemed skeptical about women‟s benefits from anal sex in general. She explained, “I don't know that there‟s actually a physical reason that they are pleasuring from it.”
As can be inferred thus far, participants perceived pleasurable benefits for women to be more uncertain than for men. For instance, Eden noted that one benefit of anal sex for women was an ability to pleasure one‟s partner: “like, pleasing your partner, I guess.
Women want to do that.” Eden highlighted what she and some participants perceived as the importance of relational values to women, which were inferred by her idea of pleasing a partner. Further, Eden‟s quote suggested that a woman‟s sexual benefit was undermined for the sexual pleasure of her partner. Aggie also espoused the same benefit.
She noted that, “the one benefit that I might say is that to please your partner. I guess I really don‟t have that much to say or heard that much about it.” Aggie also stated overtly that she was unaware of any other benefits. Aggie and Eden clearly both privileged their sexual partner‟s sexual pleasure. It appears that these participants assumed anal sex enhanced their relational needs.
Peggy echoed similar sentiments. She indicated that men benefited more from anal sex. Peggy explained,
I feel like the man who is, I guess you could say giving, I feel like that probably is
very pleasurable for them, than I think whoever is receiving, I think it just
depends on them if they like it or not, but from what I‟ve heard, men that have
talked about it that have given to someone, they seem to really enjoy it. But that‟s
just from what I‟ve heard from my other friends‟ experiences. Well, some of my
friends say that they enjoy it more than what I call regular sexual intercourse. I
guess the benefit is just pleasure.
267 Even though Peggy had engaged in anal sex, most of the reviews she related about the benefits of anal sex were gleaned from conversations with friends. It seemed that peer reviews influenced how participants like Peggy perceived the sexual benefits of anal sex.
Similar reliance on peer reviews regarding the pleasurable benefits of anal sex was also evidenced by Tori. She stated, “People have said it‟s pleasurable, but that‟s pretty much it.”
Aileen further echoed the same sentiments related to how pleasurable anal sex was. She observed that,
I‟ve heard that it sometimes feels better for those who are receiving it. I don‟t
know about the guys or whoever‟s giving it, but I‟ve heard – Yeah. I‟ve heard
that it‟s sometimes good for them. I haven‟t really heard any guys talk about it,
only the girls.
What is interesting about Aileen‟s statement is that her peer reviews about the pleasures of anal sex stemmed from conversations with her friends. It is noticeable that Aileen and some participants received varying advice on the benefits of anal sex. The variation of the perceived benefits of anal sex informs us that there are diverse understandings of who enjoys anal sex between men and women. Aileen‟s excerpt also showed that women conversed about sex and came up with perceptions of what is pleasurable for men. As
Aileen stated, “I haven‟t really heard any guys talk about it, only the girls.”
Lastly, Addison confidently acknowledged the pleasurable benefits of anal sex in a more physiological manner than other participants. She pointed out,
Intensifying orgasm. That's a big one. Just really intense orgasms. That's the big
one. Men, too. Men, too. Stronger, harder ejaculation for men as well. – the
268 prostate in men … helps with that. Oh, god. I've read a lot of sex education type
resources. There's a website I know that's – they're a feminist adult store online,
Babeland.
While Addison had not engaged in anal sex, she seemed familiar with benefits of anal sex for both women and men. As indicated, Addison seemed more informed because her information emanated from diverse resources, from sex education to websites on sexuality.
Summary of Participants’ Identified Benefits of Anal Sex
Participant descriptions of the benefits of anal sex projected the benefits and disadvantages of anal sex. In general, participants recognized that anal sex could foster sexual relationships and sexual pleasure. Other participants recognized the mixed reviews by indicating both positive and negative effects of anal sex. While some participants seemed to question whether anal sex could be pleasurable for women, other participants perceived that anal sex was more pleasurable for men. Still other participants held mixed reviews regarding who gets pleasure from anal sex by illuminating mixed reviews based on what they heard from their peers.
Summary of Phenomenological Reduction of Risk
This phenomenological reduction on risk addressed three major themes. The first presented participant descriptions of infectious and non-infectious risks of anal sex.
Under this theme participants were familiar with the infectious (STIs) and non-infectious risks (bleeding, tears and rectal dysfunction) associated with anal sex. Some of the participants who had not engaged in anal sex indicated HIV as one of the risks associated with anal sex. Only one participant among those who engaged in anal sex stated HIV as a
269 risk. Such an occurrence indicated that perhaps participants who engaged in anal sex ignored HIV or underestimated their risk of HIV.
The second theme related to participants suggested methods of minimizing risks of anal sex. Participants were all aware of how to use condoms and lubrication as a risk reduction method. Participants who engaged in anal sex also suggested other strategies of minimizing risks besides condoms and lubrication. They indicated the importance of communication between partners. Some of these suggestions included consent, open communication during intimate situations as well as more information related to anal sex.
Lastly, the theme on participants‟ benefits of anal sex showed that participants acknowledged that anal sex fostered sexual relationships and sexual pleasure. Participants mostly perceived that anal sex enhanced male sexual pleasure. They also highlighted both negative and positive effects of anal sex. Some participants questioned whether anal sex could be pleasurable for women. Some participants also held mixed reviews with regards to whether anal sex was pleasurable.
270 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION OF IMAGINATIVE VARIATION
INSTITUTIONAL SOCIO-CULTURAL INFLUENCES AS DISCIPLINARY CODES
OF SEXUALITY AND POWER
The phenomenological reduction analysis on socio-cultural values of sexuality demonstrated that participants wrestled with institutional socio-cultural values.
Participants asserted their agency and opted for their personal values on sex. The participants‟ personal values met their relational needs and promoted pleasure. It is important to recognize that the institutional socio-cultural values on sex functioned to protect participants and highlighted the dangers that are associated with unprotected sex.
There was, therefore, a tension between following institutional socio-cultural values versus and following their personal values on sex.
In this imaginative variation analysis, I draw on the works of Foucault (1990;
1995) to illuminate how and why participants resisted institutional socio-cultural influences on sexuality in preference for personal values on sex. I rely on Foucault‟s works on the historical examination of sexuality and power; discipline and punish and power/knowledge. The imaginative variation analysis in this section identified the disciplinary role of power, power‟s effect on the body, and its control of sex. The later aspects of this imaginative variation discuss the important role of sex education, family and religious influences on sexuality.
Disciplinary Role of Power
Participants‟ institutional socio-cultural values on sex worked as sexual values or sexual ideals (as portrayed by sex education, religion and family) because they functioned as disciplinary codes of power which regulated the participants. Foucault
271 (1990) argued that sex became policed because it was an issue that needed to be managed by the collective and individuals. Institutional systems that included schools, churches and the family all became part of a collaboration that managed sexuality. This response towards sex, according to Foucault, created a “whole web of discourses, special knowledges, analyses and injunctions” (p. 26). It was evident that participant‟s responses to the institutional socio-cultural values on sex exposed how they negotiated these values.
Such a connection highlighted the complexity of relations of power among institutional socio-cultural values and participants‟ personal values on sex.
Foucault‟s (1990) ideas on “devices of surveillance” (p. 42) explained in part the function served by the institutional socio-cultural values on sex that were observed in this dissertation and the tensions among participants‟ personal values on sex. As devices of surveillance, institutional socio-cultural values worked as mechanism of control. To ensure this control, Foucault (1995) explained that “hierarchized surveillance” (p. 177) maintained power by operating as a machine. Essentially, mechanisms of control like those exhibited by the institutional socio-cultural values on sex acted invisibly by becoming productive, circular, and continuous (Foucault, 1995). Hierarchized surveillance was manifested by esteeming and privileging an abstinence-only approach predominantly through institutional socio-cultural values on sex. The problem was not so much in the prominence of abstinence but in how other sexual alternatives were undermined or ignored because they were placed in subordinate positions. As a result, it seemed that significant attention was placed on an abstinent-only approach. Therefore, participants‟ personal values on sex signified their resistance to the esteemed hierarchy of the abstinence approach.
272 Further, Foucault (1995) explained that these mechanisms of control, while serving as a form of surveillance, also worked to promote “normalization” and
“homogeneity” (p. 184). By promoting abstinence through the institutional socio-cultural values, a norm was being promoted that claimed everyone needed to fall within this category of sexual behavior. Assumptions from the institutional socio-cultural values on sex also portrayed normal sexual acts versus those that were considered deviant
(Foucault, 1995). Relatedly, since abstinence was promoted as normal sexual practice during participant‟s adolescent years, participants who failed to abide by this sexual rule meant they were deviant even though realistically not all individuals prefer the abstinence approach. According to Birriell and McDonald (2000), differentiating between how normal and how deviant bodies act through normalization brings about the stigmatization of bodies that do not practice normalized practices such as abstinence. By using
Foucault‟s notions of hierarchization of surveillance, normalization and homogeneity a critical interrogation of how the institutional socio-cultural values on sex affected the participants was presented.
Power‟s Relation on the Sexual Body
An assessment of the tensions exhibited between institutional socio-cultural values on sex and the participants‟ personal values on sex showed that the participants‟ bodies were implicated in power relations that were shaped by mechanisms of control.
Foucault (1990) noted that “sexuality is a set of effects produced on bodies, behaviors and social relations” ( p. 127). By recognizing how power comes into effect on the body,
I also identify the complexity of the kinds of mechanisms of power that come to bear on the body based on the participants‟ discourse. Lupton (1995) noted that the body is “a site
273 at which power struggles are enacted and become real” (p. 5). In one sense, by exercising their own agency participants were finding ways in which their sexuality was exercised even if some of these choices were risky. For example, some participants chose to engage in unprotected premarital sex (including unprotected anal sex) and some engaged in sex with multiple partners.
In speaking to the complexity of the sexual body, Grosz (1994) asserted that the historical, social and cultural dimensions of individuals shape and determine the practices that they uphold in their sexual practices. This line of argument follows that bodies can be analyzed as cultural, sexual, racialized and political based on the types of power that is being inscribed on them. When we view mechanisms of power as “real product of encroachments on bodies and their pleasure” Grosz 1994, p. 48) a close assessment of their effects reveals that repressive effects fail to manage or control people‟s sexuality.
Instead, the prohibitions that are attached with sexuality have proposed, “an explosion of unorthodox sexualities … and the proliferation of disparate sexualities” (Grosz 1994, p.
49). Foucault illuminated that rules or mechanisms of control do not entirely control sex, they may actually engender the proliferation of sexuality (Foucault, 1990). Similarly, in this dissertation, the tension that was exhibited between participants‟ institutional socio- cultural values and their personal values on sex depicted some kinds of mechanisms of control. These controls did not totally manage most participants‟ engagement in premarital anal sex and failed among some participants. This reaction brings us to an important condition related to the interplay of power and sexuality.
274 Relationship between Power and Sex
Foucault (1990) indicated that the relationship between sex and power is prohibitive in that it often says „no‟ to sex. In particular, the prohibitive and restrictive power on sex is observed because power‟s relationship to sex tends to promote,
“exclusion, refusal, blockage, concealment or masking” (Foucault, 1990, p. 83). This implies that when sex or sexuality is addressed within public discourse, it is often overlayed with negativity. Similarly, elements of the disapproval of sex were inferred from the manner in which the participants talked about institutional socio-cultural values on sex. In particular, the emphasis on the abstinence-only approach concealed other sexual alternatives for the participants. When an alternative sexual approach was included, it was often painted negatively, perhaps because of the need to enforce deterrence. If sex is viewed negatively within any public discourse, as was portrayed in this dissertation, perhaps we must begin to question the effects of this kind of relationship between sex and mechanisms of power on affected individuals. Particularly, we must begin to question the implications of portraying sex in sex education in a largely negative frame as opposed to embracing both sex‟s negative and positive effects in serving preventive and responsible sexual practices.
Foucault (1990) also highlighted that the relationship between sex and power imposes binaries. Specifically, Foucault indicated that sex is relegated to the “illicit or licit, permitted and forbidden. Second, power prescribes an „order‟ for sex that operates at the same time as a form of intelligibility” (p.83). In connection to this study, the institutional socio-cultural values on sex also exhibited the tensions between two binaries: abstinence and premarital sex. Abstinence was usually the ideal and permitted
275 sexual expectation for the participants because it is safer and has the least sexual risks.
However, by encouraging the abstinent approach, participants who engaged in premarital sex perceived themselves as engaging in a forbidden and illicit sexual practice because premarital sex conjures negative connotations. In this study, I noted that participants minimized these negative connotations by including justifications that countered institutional socio-cultural values on sex. For example, participants‟ personal values espoused love, trust, pleasure and their need for relationships. At the same time, they also countered unsafe relationships like “hook ups.” While Foucault‟s position on problematizing the binary view of sex might appear questionable especially because abstinence clearly has positive preventive qualities. It is valuable to recognize that his ideas suggest an openness to assessing the sexual binaries that relationships of power exhibit on participants in any context because they both constrain and enable participants‟ sexual practices.
Another reaction to the binary outlook on sex and power that seemed evident was depicted by the participants‟ personal values on sexuality. Even though the participants‟ personal sexual values demonstrated agency, they also exercised resistance to the rules dictated by institutional socio-cultural values on sex. According to Foucault (1990),
“where there is power there is resistance… this resistance is never in a position of exteriority in relation to power. One is always „inside‟ power there is no escaping it” (p.
95). The institutional socio-cultural values act as a systemically and pervasively and with overbearing control; yet, these rules also serve prophylactic purposes at the same time.
The systemic function of the institutional socio-cultural values on sex as mechanisms of control opened up a space to begin to interrogate their purpose. The
276 mechanism of control was influenced by the tension that existed with the participants.
According to Lupton (1995), the ideological foundations of institutional socio-cultural values that promote good health often avoid any criticism because promoting safe sex is viewed as noble. In addition, mechanisms of sexual control are often not questioned because they are tied to health. In some respects, the inability to question mechanisms of control has some truth to it because, when we observe participants reactions to the institutional socio-cultural values, we begin to see how the participants asserted resistance and agency in determining the sexual rules that they preferred. This dissatisfaction allowed me to question how these institutional socio-cultural values were experienced especially from the participants‟ perspective.
U.S. Sex Education Implicated in Power Relations
Since the institutional socio-cultural influences on sex were largely influenced by sex education, it seems ideal to highlight the contentions that exist within this field and the impact they had on the participants. Included in this imaginative variation are some contentious issues within the U.S. sex education. As noted in the participant‟s personal values on sex, they opted for sex that occurred in relationships, thus countering the abstinence-only approach. The following synopsis is meant to portray the contentious terrain in which communicating about sex occurred.
The U.S. sex education has been mired in controversy since the 1960s (Balanko,
2000). A close historical assessment of America‟s sex education indicates that it initially mimicked Victorian and Christian era mores, mores which predominantly repressed sexuality (Maddock, 1997; Rury, 1987). In fact, the controversies on sex education were based on two ideologies. According to McKay (1998), the first followed a restrictive
277 (traditional) ideology whose roots were founded on biblical ideals of sexuality.
Proponents of the first ideology promote abstinence-only education in schools. On the contrary, the second ideology espouses human justice and equality as it pertains to sexual choices. This progressive/permissive ideology, promotes comprehensive sex education.
Based on these polar opposites sex educational values controversies have been raging for years (Balanko, 2000).
Major controversies by camps that espouse the restrictive ideology of sex education posited that sex education in schools would increase promiscuity, unplanned pregnancies and venereal diseases (Balanko, 2000). As this debate was raging predominantly, negative messages related to sex education took root. By the 1980s, right wing conservatives and feminists and minority groups failed to reach a consensus on an appropriate sex education. The occurrence of HIV/AIDS in the 1980s further reinforced negative messages towards sexual education and accelerated the need for preventive health messages. These messages generally promoted abstinence as the safest method and resisted speaking about other preventive methods such as condoms among young people who engaged in sex. These messages privilege a one-sided view of prevention.
In recent years, however, the issue of whether to teach sex education in schools seems to have abated. What still exists within the current sex education debate are concerns regarding the content of what should be included in a sex education curriculum
(NPR, Kaiser and Kennedy Poll, 2004). Depending on what sex education curriculum is developed, important aspects must be recognized. Rodriguez (2000) noted that we must acknowledge that adolescents will engage in sex whether we agree with their actions or not. Additionally there is a need also to be aware of the diversity of sexual practices that
278 adolescents will engage in. Some of these acts are of minimal risk, while others pose significant health risks (Rodriguez, 2000). Anal sex clearly falls within the high risk category.
Other important considerations were noted by Berne and Humberman (1999).
They indicated that sex before marriage has become a behavioral norm in the West.
Kirby (1994) demonstrated that, by the age of 17 years, an American adolescent is likely to have engaged in sexual intercourse. Among industrialized nations, the US was found to have the highest rates of gonorrhea; in comparison to France and the Netherlands, the
US had 74 times higher incidents of gonorrhea (UNICEF, UNAIDS & WHO 2002).
These studies found that, when compared to their other European countries (Netherlands, and France), the US experienced poorer sexual health outcomes in pregnancy, abortion and STIs because of higher number of sexual partners among adolescents between ages
15 and 19 years (Darroch, Sing, & Frost, 2001).
Given these negative sexual indicators, sex education within schools is an important investment in reaching most adolescents. Kirby (1994) noted that, because students spend most of their time within the school environment, it is ideal to provide preventive sexual health information in this setting. The guiding features of sex education were mandated by federal policies in 1981. The American Family Life Act (AFLA) instituted values that mostly promoted chastity and self-discipline and encouraged adoption for pregnant adolescents (Sonfield & Gold, 2001). The values of the AFLA became instrumental in the designing of the abstinence–only curriculum in schools
(Landry, Kaeser, & Richards, 1999).
279 The influential role of federal laws in sex education have been instrumental in the kinds of sex education that adolescents eventually receive. Another federal law, Title V,
Section 510 of the Social Security Act, was enacted in 1996. Elements of this law called for the promotion of abstinence-based sex education in school settings, especially among populations considered high risk (Sonfield & Gold, 2001). Included in this mandate is information that said sexual abstinence was the only way to avoid STIs, pregnancy, and psychological harm. Further inclusions also claim that premarital sex is against social norms because it is harmful to society at large (Sonfield, & Gold, 2001). Landry et al
(1999) indicated that two abstinence based programs currently characterize the sex education programs: abstinence-plus and abstinence-only. There is no current federal mandate on sex education that currently supports abstinence-plus programs (The
Guttmacher Institute, 2006). As can be observed, abstinence-only sex educational approaches largely shapes the sex education policies adopted at the school level. The abstinence-plus approach requires that abstinence be included as an ideal practice for adolescents, but also recommends that contraception be included in combating STIs/HIV and preventing unplanned pregnancies (Landry, et al 1999). On the contrary, abstinence- only approaches maintain that “abstinence be taught as the only option outside of marriage, whereas discussion of contraception is either prohibited or its ineffectiveness in preventing pregnancy, STIs and HIV is highlighted” (Landry et al, 1999, p. 283). Both of these camps (abstinence-only and abstinence-plus) experience controversy. Title V only funds programs that promote an abstinence-only approach (Barlow, 2009). Even though
90 percent of Americans acknowledge the significance of including the abstinence approach, 70 percent oppose the federal allocation of money to abstinence-only
280 approaches (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, 1996 and
Advocates for Youth, 1999). As Title V prohibits funding for contraception for preventing unintended pregnancies and disease.
Another component that makes sex education even more controversial is the fragmented nature of its instruction across different states. Landry, Kaeser & Richards
(1999) noted that 86% of local school districts taught abstinence-only. Among these school districts, 51 percent included abstinence-plus, while 35 percent instructed the abstinence-only approach. Furthermore, 55 percent of schools in the south tended to support an abstinence-only sex education in comparison to 20 percent of schools in the northeast that embrace the abstinence-plus. As these findings indicate, institutional support of abstinence-only seems to be prevalent, indicating strong bias.
Parents have also been implicated in this controversy. Some states mandate that students whose parents support only the abstinence only approach have the option to opt out (Landry et al., 1999). In particular, parental consent that allows students to „opt out‟ is available in certain states whose curriculum involves contraception, STIs and HIV.
This particular service allows parents to remove their children when the information is found to be questionable or contrary to their family values. The strong influences of sex education also extend to the families, further creating a complex environment in which sex education exists.
Regardless of the identified leanings towards the abstinence-only sexual education approach, a growing number of parents support comprehensive sex education or abstinence-plus (NPR, The Kaiser Family & Harvard University, 2004). Recently 46% of parents recommended that abstinence-plus as the preferred mode of sex education
281 (NPR, The Kaiser Family & Harvard University, 2004). Thirty six percent of parents did not consider abstinence-only to be the most important feature of sex education. Only fifteen percent of parents promoted an abstinence-only approach. Parents have also been caught up in this sexuality debate. Parents who support the abstinence-plus approach argue that the sexuality education should not be assessed by an either/or perspective.
Instead they advocated for both to be supported (Haffner & Wagoner, 1999).
Redriquez (2000) illustrated that the debate on sex education demonstrates the ideological struggles or tensions that appear to be esteemed over scientific evidence from public health. As this debate continues, Rodriguez also observed that the prevailing and negative communication concentrates on the ill effects of sex (e.g., sexual abuse, unplanned pregnancies and STI/HIV risk). While acknowledging the risk attached with sex, the recognition of other positive values should be encouraged (Rodriquez).
Regardless of the predominant support for abstinence-only approaches, studies that explored comprehensive sex education studies demonstrated that adolescents did not increase their number of sexual activity, reduce the age of sexual debut, or increase the number of sex partners (Kirby 2005; Kirby, 2001; Alford, 2003). In contrast, studies that were conducted to assess the effectiveness of abstinence-only based approaches found them to be ineffective and inaccurate. Darroch et al (1999) found that adolescents who engaged in abstinence-only did not delay the age at which they initiated sex. In fact in six evaluations that examined whether there was some kind of behavior change, three indicated no change whereas two demonstrated increased sexual activity based on the pre and post test conducted (Darroch et al.1999).
282 These results have led the Society for Adolescent Medicine to declare that abstinence-only programs are a threat to the rights to health, information and life (Sentali et al, 2006). In particular, a close examination of federally funded abstinence-only programs have portrayed questionable instruction (Special Investigations Unit, 2004). For instance, abstinence-only instruction related to reproductive health contained, information that was false, misleading, or distorted. In addition, information related to contraceptives and the risks of abortions was also observed to be false. Instead, religious beliefs were portrayed as scientific facts. In the next segment I shift my attention to family and religious influences on sexuality.
Family and Religious Influences on Sexuality
Current evidence suggests that young people‟s sexual development is influenced by social learning (Hagenhoff, Lowe, Hovell, & Rugg, 1987; Hogben & Byrne, 1998). At the interpersonal level, religious and family values affected the participant‟s sexual choices in this dissertation. Religious values and some family values discouraged premarital sex, whereas some participants indicated that their families communicated about sex and its consequences.
Powell and Segrin (2004) noted that college students learn about their sexuality from their parents but also begin to distance themselves from their values on sex. The sexual behaviors that college students display are impacted by their parent‟s reactions towards sexuality (Powell & Segrin, 2004). Past evidence shows that parent-child communication is bidirectional as opposed to being unidirectional (Fitzpatrick &
Badzinski, 1994; Stafford & Bayer, 1993). This idea suggests that “talking about sex begets talking about sex,” implying that when parents open up about sex to their children,
283 they also initiate conversations about sex (Kahn, 1985, p. 277). Further, adolescents who converse about sex with their families also talk about sex outside their home and do not consider it an inappropriate subject (Kahn, 1985).
Scholars have noted the significance of parent-adolescent communication especially mother-daughter communication (Crosby & Miller 2002). This kind of communication has been found to have several positive effects. For instance, adolescents who discussed sex with their mothers were less likely to engage in sex (Dilorio, Kellly &
Hockenberry-Eaton, 1999; Jaccard, Dittus, & Gordon, 1996). Other positive indications showed that adolescent girls used condoms and contraception when sex was discussed with their mothers (Hutchinson, Jemmott, Jemmott, Braverman, & Fong, 2003; Dutra,
Miller, & Forehand, 1999). Adolescents also delayed their sexual debut and appeared capable of managing unhealthy sexual relationships (Crosby & Miller, 2002).
Additionally, Whitaker and Miller (2000) stated that daughters were less likely to believe that engaging in sex was normative among their peers. Literature on the role of fathers in communicating about sex also demonstrates that they play a key role in socializing of daughters in how they relate to men and sexual coercion (Hutchinson, 2002; Dilorio,
Kelley, & Hokenberry-Eaton, 1999). The role of communication was also evident among the participants in study. Even though positive effects have been found in parent-child communication not all participants talked to their parents about sex, some participants had direct communication about sex with their parents; others did not.
Religious values also emerged as an influence on sex among the participants in this study. The religious values of parents have been found to affect parent-adolescent communication. Regnerus (2005) found that public religiosity of parents impacted how
284 often parents talked about sexuality with their children. The effects of religion on adolescents from religious family shapes their attitudes towards broad sexual subjects on premarital sex, homosexuality, pornography and sometimes friendships (Wallace &
Williams, 1997). Typically adolescents from religious families tend to espouse more conservative values and have been found to delay sexual debut and have fewer sex partners (Murry, 1994). A close examination of religious influences on parent-adolescent communication showed that mainline Protestant religious groups such as evangelical
Protestants, Catholics, Mormons and those who do not have any religious affiliations also communicated the least about sex and contraception (Jordan, Price, & Fizgerald, 2000;
Hutchinson & Cooney, 1998; Fox, & Inazu, 1980). Further, Protestants talked about sex the least and appeared most uncomfortable with discussions of sex. Additionally, parents who communicated about sex seemed to emphasize the moral aspects of sexuality when they discussed sex with their children. While these studies appear to generalize how religious families may communicate about sex with their children, there are obviously exceptions to the rule. In connection to this study, some participants acknowledged their parents‟ conservative religious values on sex but opted to discount them in preference for their own personal values on sex.
Conclusion
Clearly, there were multiple influences on participants‟ sexual choices in this study. The terrain from which participants received sex education is a contested one.
Power struggles and tensions continue to have material consequences for the participants.
More importantly, these tensions illuminate the complexity of addressing the broad sexual behaviors that adolescents engage in, including anal sex. Family and religious
285 values also played a key role in shaping how they learned about sex from their families.
Parent-adolescent communication appears to have preventive benefits. Parent-adolescent communication is impacted by several complex factors such as parental religious values.
Regardless, the findings of this dissertation demonstrated that personal values on sex are equally important and worth paying attention to. In the midst of ideological tensions, adolescents continue to define their own sexual rules. These rules allow them to engage in premarital sex because these values fulfilled their relational needs. The next section offers an analysis of the imaginative variation of stigma.
Stigma as Imaginative Variation
Stigma emerged as an important essential structure (Moustakas, 1994) to the findings in this dissertation. Stigma was mainly portrayed in the phenomenological reduction of participants‟ communication. In this imaginative variation analysis, I base the analysis on themes from the phenomenological reduction of participants‟ communication because stigma was most evident there. This imaginative variation addresses stigma as a universal structure or essential structure that contributed to answering the research question; “how if at all did participants communicate about anal sex?”
Under the section on phenomenological reduction of participant communication, stigma was represented in the themes of communicating anal sex by concealment; communicating the unmentionable IT; and, communicating anal sex as a joke. It was not surprising that stigma emerged as an essential structure. Halperin‟s (1999) study indicated that anal sex was the “most stigmatized sexual practice of heterosexual
286 behaviors” (p. 717) . Making a connection between the universal structure of stigma and the phenomenological reduction of participants‟ communication provides a more complex understanding of participants‟ communication. Furthermore, this connection adds an important aspect to the research on anal sex.
Anal Sex as a Deeply Discredited Sexual Practice
Goffman‟s (1963) classic work on stigma provides insight into why participants communicated anal sex by concealment, by using the unmentionable IT, or using jokes to initiate conversations about anal sex. Goffman indicated that a stigma affects individuals by associating “an attribute that is deeply discrediting” with the ability to reduce a person from “a whole individual and usual person to a tainted, discounted one” (p. 3). In this case, engaging in anal sex or talking about anal sex has the potential to discredit an individual. Similarly, Crocker, Major and Steele (1998) have also extended the understanding of stigma by noting that stigmatization occurs because of certain characteristics that an individual posses or is believed to possess. Accordingly, they say a devaluing “characteristic …conveys a social identity that is devalued in a particular social context” (p. 505). Furthermore, these descriptions of stigma presume that stigmatized individuals acquire an attribute that makes them different (Major & O‟Brien, 2005).
Engaging in anal sex aligns an individual with a social group that is already stigmatized, such as homosexual individuals. It is important to note that stigmatizing attributes may be visible or invisible. Anal sex, in this regard, may be an invisible marker unless an individual openly talks about it. Given these descriptions of stigma and its potential to devalue, I posit that participants in this dissertation concealed or communicated by the unmentionable IT or joked about anal sex because they unconsciously or consciously
287 were aware of the stigma attached to anal sex. In the next section, I present a discussion of socially constructed stigma.
Socially Constructed Stigma
Participants in this study appeared to display what Herek (2004) referred to as sexual stigma. Sexual stigma refers to “society‟s negative regard for any non- heterosexual behavior, identity, relationship or community” (p.2). While Herek‟s definition referred mostly to sexual orientation, such a definition could apply to the stigma that was recognized by the participants in this study. Because anal sex is associated with homosexuality participants who engaged in anal sex sought to distance themselves from this association. As Herek explained ideological systems of society justify sexual stigma because they mark what is “deviant behavior, sinful and outside the law” (p.2). These negative associations of anal sex seemed unappealing to participants.
While stigma generates individual discontent through its ability to discredit, scholars have recognized that stigma is socially constructed (Crocker et al. 1998; Jones,
Farina, Hastorf, Markus, Miller, & Scott, 1984). These scholars added that the labels or markers that individuals use to stigmatize others are conferred by society. These labels vary from time to time because of social values at particular times. Further, the culture of a society dictates what behaviors are acceptable or not acceptable. Society imposes negative and stereotypical views on the mark they discredit (Crocker et al. 1998; Steele
1997). Since stigma operates within a social space, meanings of what is stigmatized are acquired through interaction (Mead, 1934). As Steele (1997) noted, members of a culture, even those who are stigmatized, are aware of the cultural stereotypes. More importantly, through language and symbols, meanings about anal sex are communicated (Yang,
288 Kleinman, Link, Phalen, Lee, & Good, 2007). In this study, concealment, the use of IT, the use of euphemisms and using jokes all pointed to the different ways participants used language and symbols to communicate their concern regarding stigma.
Participants in this study seemed aware of the implications of stigma if they engaged in anal sex or talked about it. For example, participants pointed to how anal sex was not a “normal” practice, or stated that it had a “bad connotation. They claimed, “it‟s dirty,” “ very taboo,” “frowned upon,” “strange,” and that “ it‟s gross.” All these terms reinforced difference and marked anal sex with negative connotations that could stigmatize a person who engages in anal sex. Therefore, exposing oneself as having engaged in anal sex could initiate the above labels to be used on the stigmatized. Even talking about anal sex could lead to stigma. Once stigmatized the “spoiled identity” is imposed on the stigmatized, consequently creating shame or embarrassment or withdrawal (Ablon, 1981; Katz, 1981; Link, 1982).
Managing Stigma through Euphemisms
Societal conventions about sex were indentified in the popular cultural examples that the participants described. Conventions which encourage concealment of sex by using euphemisms in the theme on communicating anal sex by concealment were noted.
The depictions of sex with these euphemisms demonstrated the discomfort associated with naming sex and anal sex publicly because of the potential for stigma. Burridge
(2004) illustrated that “what is taboo is revolting, untouchable, filthy, unmentionable, dangerous, disturbing, thrilling –but above all powerful” (p.199). Similarly, the taboo nature of anal sex makes it powerful enough not to be named because of its negative associations. Therefore, when participants used euphemisms for anal sex, or noted
289 euphemisms in popular culture by not naming the “forbidden concept,” they worked to prevent breaching social conventions regarding how sex is talked about (Fernandez,
2008, p. 96). It is interesting to note that popular culture lyrics also follow the convention of disguising sex by using euphemisms. To illustrate how concealment by euphemisms was portrayed some examples are warranted. One participant‟s example of euphemisms in a lyric indicated, “hitting it from the front then hitting it from the back.”
Another participant indicated, “would you do it from the front” and “would you do it from the back.” While another said, “sticks in my buns.” These euphemisms implied the act of anal sex. An important caveat is that, while my reading suggests that anal sex was covert in these euphemisms, other interpretations are possible. In any case, these examples demonstrated that participants used euphemisms and they recognized them in popular culture. Euphemisms minimized the explicit and taboo nature of sex, further reducing the chances of being stigmatized (Fernandez, 2008). Furthermore, euphemisms embraced figurative language to refer to the taboo topic of anal sex to reduce the obscene nature of sex and to offer participants safety.
Embarrassment, Shame and Stigma
Since anal sex was associated with homosexuality, embarrassment and shame seemed to underlie the immediate concerns for participants who talked about their sexual experiences. Embarrassment is perceived to be less intense than shame because embarrassment is connected with breaking social mores which then result in loss of self esteem or social exposure (Edelmann, 1981; Keltner & Buswell, 1997). Shame is connected with the violation of more serious moral expectations (Keltner & Buswell).
Several scholars have pointed out that the emotional aspects of stigma are often neglected
290 (Link, Yang, Phelan, & Collins, 2004). In particular, shame is a key emotional reaction to stigma (Hinshaw, 2007; Schmader & Lickel, 2006). Participants‟ concealment of anal sex or use of the unmentionable IT, or use of jokes may have been motivated by the fear of embarrassment and shame related to stigma.
Conclusion
This imaginative variation recognized stigma as a universal essence in the dissertation findings. By examining how stigma was enacted, the research question,
“how if at all did participants communicate about anal sex,” was answered. Based on
Goffman‟s concept of stigma, perceptions and talk about anal sex may impose its discreditable attributes on participants who engage in or talk about anal sex. This kind of stigma suggests a negative social identity for the individual who is stigmatized. Further, participants who engaged in anal sex specifically encountered sexual stigma associated with homosexual individuals, a stigmatized group in society. This analysis also acknowledged that talking about anal sex is socially constructed because the cultural understandings and attitudes towards anal sex emerge out of interactions. The negative associations between embarrassment and stigma also pose a threat to individuals who disclose anal sex information. These negative associations demonstrated the level of discomfort associated with anal sex. Lastly, participants seemed to manage stigma through the use of the unmentionable IT and the euphemisms that they identified from the popular culture and the use of jokes. Next, I present the imaginative variation to privacy and disclosure.
291 Privacy and Disclosure as Imaginative Variation
This dissertation partly used Sandra Petronio‟s (2002) communication privacy management theory (CPM). The concepts of disclosure and privacy from CPM were used to explore the research question, “ how do participants‟ manage privacy and disclosure of anal sex with their friends and intimate partners?” This imaginative variation analysis identified the interplay of privacy and disclosure as a universal essence. Privacy and disclosure occurred in a dialectical tension as participants negotiated these two processes
(Petronio, 2002). The connection between the findings of disclosure and privacy and this imaginative analysis add to the literature on anal sex research. Based on my review of the literature, no study has sought to understand how disclosure and privacy of anal sex occurs in peer and intimate relationships.
This imaginative variation analysis was based on phenomenological reduction on privacy and disclosure. I demonstrate the interplay of privacy and disclosure among the participants based on the themes related to disclosure of anal sex for social support, disclosing peer reviews of anal sex, disclosing interest in anal sex, gauging interest and setting boundaries, unsurprising disclosures of anal sex in intimate relationships, and, lastly, tensions of disclosure or concealment. In staying true to imaginative variation, I explore why and how participant disclosures or privacy were negotiated or managed in particular ways.
A major finding of this study is that both types of participants (those who engaged in anal sex and those who did not) disclosed interest in anal sex to their peers and intimate partners. Before data collection, I assumed that, because anal sex is generally a taboo topic, participants would mostly conceal this sexual practice. However, the findings
292 pointed to how participants negotiated their disclosure and privacy. Petronio (2002) illuminated in her CPM theory that the content of what is disclosed shapes the disclosure and privacy process. Typically the content of disclosure should be perceived as undesirable and have negative connotations (Allen & Carlson, 2003). In this regard, anal sex was considered a private and sensitive topic which has negative connotations among heterosexual individuals. Petronio (2002) also noted that disclosures are guided by rules that people contend with as they decide whether to disclose or not to disclose. Petronio highlighted that, for disclosure to be considered a communicative act, the process of disclosure and privacy involves more than the self; it engages an interaction with others.
Further, the dialectic of privacy and disclosure also recognizes the connection of metaphoric boundaries among and between individuals.
Selective Disclosure, Reciprocal Disclosure as Motivational Criteria
The findings under the phenomenological reduction on privacy and disclosure pointed to how participants enacted privacy and disclosure for various purposes. Under the theme of disclosing of anal sex for social support, participants illuminated how they used motivational criteria to disclose. The motivational criteria are one of Petronio‟s privacy rule developments which may have influenced why participants disclosed information about anal sex. Jones and Archer (1976) explained that motivations influence people to disclose their feelings or to disguise information. Individuals have some control of their private information if they engage in selective disclosure (Petronio, 2002).
Participants who disclosed their anal sex experiences to their peers and intimate partners appeared to be selective regarding whom they revealed their information. As Petronio
293 (2002) showed, individuals reflected on their disclosures by choosing strategies such as selective disclosure to provide safe disclosures.
Afifi and Olson (2005) suggested that people often assess the recipients of their private information to gauge whether they can disclose or not. Individuals reflect on the kind of responses they believe they will receive before they disclose (Brown-Smith,
1998; Vangelisti, Caughlin, Timmerman, 2001). Scholars have noted that people use diverse strategies to disclose their secrets (Afifi & Steuber, 2008). These strategies are often complex, multifaceted, and are not limited to the ones identified by Afifi and
Steuber (2008). Their study showed that individuals often use preparation and rehearsal, directness, third party revelations, incremental disclosures, entrapment and indirect mediums such as e-mail or phone as strategies (Afifi & Steuber, 2008). Participants in this dissertation relied on selective and reciprocal disclosure as strategies for disclosure.
These participants were strategic in that they identified peers who had similar sexual experiences. In part, using selective disclosure as a strategy worked to the advantage of the participants because their information was more accepted. The participants also relied on reciprocal disclosure as an indicator of who they could disclose to. Dindia (2000) explained, “in social relationships disclosure is a reciprocal phenomenon. Participants in dialogue disclosed their thoughts, feelings, actions etc to the other and are disclosed to in return… this reciprocity begets disclosure” (p. 66). While reciprocity is more complex than outlined by Dindia (2000), I also posit that overt and implied reciprocal disclosure fostered the participants‟ ability to disclose their anal sex experiences to their peers.
294 Furthermore, by disclosing to peers with similar sexual experiences, participants also maintained their private information within collective boundaries. This metaphoric boundary captured how private information was confined to certain people (Petronio,
Ellermers, Gile, & Gallois, 1998). By confining their private information, this collective boundary among participants minimized the risks that were associated with sharing information with individuals who were against anal sex. Such risks include possibilities for embarrassment, shame and being stigmatized.
Open Communication, Sexual Negotiation, Liking and Attraction as Motivational
Criteria for Disclosure in Intimate Relationships
Under the themes of disclosure of interest in anal sex, gauging interest and setting boundaries and sexual negotiation, participants showed how they used open communication and negotiation with their sexual partners. When participants negotiated anal sex, they engaged in goal oriented communication about their sexual interests and expectations. Miller, Benttencourt, Hoffman and DeBro (1993) indicated that, for sexual behavior to be understood, the goals of the sexual interaction need to be established.
Participants highlighted their sexual goals to their partners. These participants exemplified that they had the necessary skills to achieve their sexual goals. Participants either stated their own desire to engage in anal sex or their wish to comply with their partners and communicated such goals to their sexual partners (Read & Miller, 1989).
Edgars (1992) highlighted that the most significant skill in sexual relationships is communication. Norton (1990) also illustrated that communication allows individuals to change from an unsafe position to a position of safety. A position of safety enables both parties to understand what is expected in a sexual encounter.
295 The findings of this study demonstrated that through open communication participants disclosed to their sexual partners and asserted their sexual needs. In effect, the participants‟ disclosure enacted aspects of the interpersonalism model (Monahan,
Miller, Rothspan, 1997). This model argues that “relationship goals, beliefs and communication resources are important factors that enable and constrain individuals in their attempts to enact safer sexual practices” (Monahan, Miller, Rothspan, 1997, p. 315).
These multiple resources point to the complexity that is linked to open communication and sexual negotiation within sexual relationships. In speaking to the complexity of a sexual interaction, Cupach and Metts (1991) illustrated that,
Sexual interaction is not merely comprised of a single goal (i.e. the desire to have
sex) translated into a simple initiation to move, followed by either compliance or
noncompliance. Rather, sexual negotiation is marked by multiple goals, held (held
but not necessarily shared) by both relational partners. These goals are pursued by
multiple (often subtle) behaviors enacted in an interactive context and influenced
by prior sexual episodes in the relationship as well as the broader relational
culture. A more processual view of sexual negotiation episodes will advance
beyond the study of single and simple strategies directed only at having or
avoiding intercourse. (p. 106)
Even though disclosure pointed to how participants used open communication and sexual negotiation to achieve the outcome of engaging in anal sex or not, the process of the participant‟s sexual negotiation was not that simple. Participants‟ communication highlighted that they used different strategies to attain their sexual goals. For example, the contexts in which the sexual requests were made determined whether sex occurred or
296 not. Specifically, being asked in sexually intimate situations increased chances of engaging in anal sex. Other strategies pointed to how sharing a partner‟s prior anal sex encounters may have influenced the sexual decision made. Additionally, some participants appeared hesitant about anal sex, perhaps such hesitation may have encouraged more persuasive strategies to be employed by sexual partners. Lastly, male motivated requests of anal sex seemed to indicate who had the most influence in the sexual decisions. In this study most of these sexual requests were male initiated. These examples point to procedures of sexual negotiation.
Open communication and sexual negotiation seemed to occur concurrently in this study reflected a complex picture of disclosure. Examining how disclosure occurred in participants‟ intimate situations reinforced the significance of sexual communication.
Cline and Johnson (1992) and Quina, Harlow, Morokoff, and Burkholder (2000) illuminated that the health of individuals is dependent on positive sexual communication.
In fact, the participants‟ disclosures within these intimate situations pointed to how information about anal sex appeared to have low risks of disclosure (Petronio, 2002).
Disclosure of anal sex in intimate relationships appeared not to be stigmatized as a result, participants openly discussed this sexual practice with no risk of shame or embarrassment. Because of how participants described their communication in intimate relationships, it was possible to identify open communication and the sexual negotiation that ensued.
Under the theme of unsurprising disclosures of anal sex in intimate situations, participants were not taken aback by their partner‟s requests for anal sex. Given that these disclosures occurred in intimate relationships, I presumed that liking and attraction were
297 expected in the participants‟ relationships. Petronio (2002) explained that when an individual likes another, it is easier to disclose private information to that person. Within the participants‟ sexual contexts their partners may have been motivated to solicit for anal sex because of the motivation of liking and attraction. Miller (1994) also asserted that disclosure is influenced by the type of the relationship. Revealing private information is more likely to occur in long standing relationships than in new ones. It follows that, when relationships become intimate, partners are likely to exchange more information (Taylor
& Alman, 1987). Under this assumption of liking and attraction, participants in the above theme also expected disclosures of information of anal sex within their intimate sexual relationships. It seems that anal sex within their sexual relationships was not stigmatized. Within intimate relationships, liking and attraction may have overridden the negative associations that came with anal sex because it may have met the participants‟ relational needs.
Disclosure-Privacy Benefits
The occurrence of disclosure and privacy also highlighted important tensions that participants experienced with their peers. Under the theme on disclosures of peer reviews of anal sex, participants seemed to disclose because of several reasons. First it seemed disclosures of anal sex in groups sometimes occurred because of self clarification
(Petronio, 2002). According to Petronio (2002), self clarification occurs because individuals want to “reveal private thoughts …to understand their meaning” (p. 66). The peer reviews of anal sex demonstrated that participants and their peers were curious about the intricacies of anal sex. For instance, some of the participants questioned their peers who had engaged in or not engaged anal sex. These questions pointed to the participants‟
298 need for knowledge about this sexual practice. Relatedly, most of the participants who were disclosing peer reviews about anal sex had not engaged in anal sex. Therefore, self clarification was used as an important strategy for their own learning of anal sex.
Another important finding related to disclosing peer reviews of anal sex demonstrated that some participants need social validation (Petronio, 2002). This concept captures the idea that, when disclosure occurs, the recipients of that information validate the received information. Social validation could be risky because acceptance of or valuing disclosures of anal sex was not assured. As was noted in some instances, participants who felt strongly against anal sex reinforced their values against it. In such instances, participants who were against anal sex noted the awkwardness of anal sex or how gross it was, thereby going against peers who sought social validation when they shared information about anal sex. Although disclosures of peer reviews of anal sex appeared positive, there were tendencies among the participants‟ peers to counter the disclosed information reinforcing.
Risk-Benefit Ratio Criteria
The findings under the theme of tensions of disclosure and concealment showed how participants wrestled with the idea of revealing and concealing information related to anal sex with their peers. The tension between disclosure and privacy exhibited by participants demonstrated the significance of private information related to anal sex.
Schoeman (1984) indicated that our private information is often connected “to our conceptions of ourselves and to our relationships with others… the information matters deeply” (p. 406). In like manner, sharing information about anal sex was not a light matter for some participants.
299 Private information has varying levels of significance because there are different consequences or outcomes for revealing information (Green, 2000; Petronio, 1991; Yep,
2000). As stated earlier, participants appeared to be reflective of the decisions to disclose information about anal sex. Petronio (2002) stated that privacy and disclosure levels fluctuate on a continuum with high risk disclosures on one end and low risk disclosures on another. As can be expected, high risk disclosures are those which may “cause shame, threat, or severe embarrassment” (Petronio, 2002, p. 67). I posit that, unlike disclosures of anal sex that occurred in intimate situations, disclosures to peers seemed to have a higher level of risk to the participants. Relatedly, individuals also assessed the stigma risks associated with disclosure of anal sex. The fear of being discredited is important when assessing why some participants appeared to wrestle to disclose or not.
Conclusion
This imaginative variation section on disclosure and privacy answered the question, “how do participants manage privacy and disclosure with their peers and intimate partners.” The imaginative variation demonstrated that participants negotiated their disclosures and privacy because of particular attributes. The participants followed particular rules which guided how and why they disclosed or concealed (Petronio, 2002).
Disclosures were motivated by selective and reciprocal disclosures in peer relationships.
Open communication and sexual negotiation in intimate relationships motivated disclosure. There were fewer disclosure risks when they occurred in sexual relationships.
Other kinds of disclosures also indicated that participants weighed their disclosure- privacy benefits by identifying any gains. Some of the gains identified were social clarification and social validation. These rules did not come without any resistance from
300 the participants‟ peers. Lastly, participant disclosures and concealments were in tension because they weighed their risk-benefit ratios. Participants appeared concerned about the high level of risk associated with disclosing anal sex. Stigma risk was higher among peers than in intimate situations. As a result, participants were likely to conceal information about anal sex to their peers. The following section addresses the imaginative variation of the meanings participants ascribed to anal sex.
Gender and Power as Imaginative Variation
This section focused on the universal structures or essences that are related to the meanings participants ascribed to anal sex (i.e. letting a guy have what he wants, asserting men‟s domination and female submission), meanings of discomfort of anal sex and from the findings of disclosures of sexual pressure and sexual negotiation. The universal structures or essences that closely fit with these findings fall at the intersection of gender and power. The universal structures related to gender and power answer the research question which asked, “what are the ways in which participants give meanings to anal sex?” I largely relied on feminist literature on gendered heterosexuality. I also used feminist and Foucault‟s notions of power to provide an appropriate theoretical perspective with regard to how power was exercised at the micro interpersonal level in participants‟ patriarchal heterosexual relationships.
Gendered Heterosexuality
This analysis of gender on sexuality recognizes the complexity of heterosexual relationships. Wilton (1994) commented that “unequal relations of power between women and men are not simply of academic interest. In the context of HIV/AIDS, unequal relations of power are literally life or death issues for men as well as for women”
301 (p.4). While this study did not focus on HIV/AIDS, Wilton‟s quote signified the importance of examining gendered relationships as they relate to sexuality. What is illuminated is the idea that this inequality has material negative consequences for women and men. Rooted in feminist sociology analysis, Holland, Ramazanoglu, Sharpe, and
Thomson (2004) found that young women perceived heterosexuality as “natural, oppositional and hierarchical” (p.21). This dynamic of heterosexuality was explicitly or implicitly highlighted among the participants in this study. For example, participant‟s descriptions privileged male sexuality over female sexuality, signifying an unequal hierarchy in their heterosexual relationships.
Jackson (1999) elucidated that the subject positions that we “inhibit and enact as men or women, as heterosexual or homosexual are historical products with deep roots in the social and economic order” (p.24). Jackson highlighted the importance of locating meanings that are rooted in social understandings of sexuality. Further, Jackson explained that the social positions enacted by heterosexuality are grounded in the “social and cultural order in which and through which we live our gendered, sexual lives predates us and is thus, in a sense, external to us, this does not mean that there is no room for active agency” (p.24). Even though participants in this study appeared to esteem male pleasure within their relationships, this imaginative variation recognized that such a practice represented gendered socio-cultural sexual expectations.
At the same time, there were instances of agency among the participants where they deviated from socio-cultural expectations that esteem male pleasure. For instance, some of the participants, after engaging in anal sex, communicated their dislike for anal sex in preference for more mutual sexual practices. Jackson (1999) suggested that within
302 heterosexual relationships it is important to be cognizant of agency as it allows individuals to negotiate and resist “hegemonic forms of gender and heterosexuality” (p.
24). Similarly, even within this study, while gendered heterosexual expectations were displayed among the participants, some participants exercised agency.
Power in Gendered Heterosexual Relationships
Analysis of power has centered on actual sexual experiences where gendered hierarchy plays a significant role (Jackson, 1999). Central to this analysis of power is the idea that gendered hierarchy embraces difference. Delphie (1984) argued that this hierarchy must not only be perceived from an anatomical perspective but also recognize social aspects. According to Jackson (1999), gendered hierarchy is what “renders the anatomical differences socially and erotically significant” (p. 132). Power plays an important role in this interconnection between the social and erotic nature of gender hierarchy. Such a perspective still cautions against the over reliance on male and female body parts. Jackson (1999) succinctly noted that “the coercive equation of sex-coitus- something that men do to women is not an inevitable consequence of an anatomical female relating sexually to an anatomical male, but the product of the social relations under which those bodies meet” (p.132). Based on the participants‟ description of their experiences with anal sex, it seemed that having a vagina was deemed a disadvantage as opposed to having a penis, especially when they described their negative experiences with anal sex (e.g. pain or tears). However, Jackson argued that gender hierarchy in relation to heterosexuality must be examined as emerging out of social relationships.
Dworkin (1987) argued that sexual intercourse itself should not be perceived as the problem; instead she claimed that the way heterosexuality is institutionalized and
303 practiced in patriarchal societies should be problamatized. Further, Jackson (1999) also added that the way power was presented in this gender hierarchy is not uniform in interpersonal relationships. Because some women exercised agency within this seemingly constraining gender hierarchy, they found room to assert themselves.
Foucault‟s (1990, 1980) notion of power could also be directed to the interpersonal level in patriarchal heterosexual relationships. Since hierarchy in heterosexuality seems to assume that men are dominant and women are subordinate, power is presumed to flow from the top (male) to down (female). This perspective on power is linear and contrary to Foucault‟s (1990, 1980) explanation of power. Instead,
Foucault argues that power is productive and constitutive. The productive power is created through social networks. Similarly power as enacted by the participants esteemed male pleasure and undermined their pleasure. This power was influenced by the sexual scripts that participants observed in their socio-cultural environment. In essence, if the messages they were exposed to elevated male sexuality, then such messages were internalized and used in their own sexual relationships. However, Foucault‟s (1980) premise of power was that “power must be analyzed as something which circulates... It is never localized here or there, never in anybody‟s hands… Power is employed and exercised through a net like organization…In other words individuals are the vehicles of power, not its points of application” (p.98). In connection to the manifestation of power as presented in the participants esteeming of male sexuality, I posit that, while generally male sexuality was esteemed by most of the participants, other participants enacted some kind of power which defied the hierarchy in heterosexual relations. Some participants initiated conversations on anal sex. Others informed their partners that they did not prefer
304 anal sex. Others still recognized that this sexual practice was not mutual and preferred more mutual sexual relations. In this regard, while esteemed male sexual pleasure depicted a performance of power in heterosexual relationships, elements of participants‟ resistance to this esteemed hierarchy of sexuality was noted.
Sexual Scripts as Social Construction of Sexuality
Feminist scholars have further relied on sexual scripts to understand sexuality. Sexual scripts rely on social constructionist perspectives. The main conception of sexual scripts theory is that sexuality is informed by the cultural messages that are available in a cultural milieu (Gagnon, 1990; Gagnon, Rosen, & Lieblum, 1982; Gagnon & Simon,
1973; 1987; Simon, 1973; 1986). Further, sexual scripts theory asserts that cultural messages dictate what is considered sex, how individuals manage sexual situations, and the reactions they attribute towards their sexual situations. These sexual scripts are adapted to individuals‟ intrapersonal scripts and internalized as “intrapsychic” scripts (the realm of the self-process) (Simon & Gagnon, 1987). Examples of these internalized messages or scripts include messages which prohibit women from sexually exploring themselves, as captured in Don’t Touch Yourself Down There and Nice Girls Don’t
(Masters, Johnson & Kolodny, 1995). In relation to the findings of this dissertation, sexual scripts were particularly evident when participants esteemed male sexuality. Other sexual scripts of interest related to anal sex pointed to the predominance of male initiated anal sex incidents. These sexual scripts represented the gendered asymmetry perceived by the participants in their heterosexual relationships. However, there were a few instances where these sexual scripts were broken. Such as when a female participant initiated requests for anal sex.
305 While discourses serve as a platform that informs sexuality, sexual scripts shape individual interpretations of sexual behavior (Donat & White, 2000). These sexual scripts define how men and women behave in a culture. Several scripts inform the gendered norms. Jackson (1978) explained that young men‟s sexual scripts expect them to be dominant sexually, whereas women are expected to be passive. The circulation of such sexual scripts is deemed dangerous because they misinform the sexual expectations of both men and women (Rapaport & Burkhart, 1984; Warshaw & Parrot, 1991). These expectations give men a sense of entitlement and women are portrayed as victims. The findings of this study related to the theme letting a guy have what he wants, asserting men‟s domination and female submission reflected how sexual scripts are enacted. These participants‟ meanings esteemed male sexuality and undermined their own sexuality.
It‟s important to note that some of the participants were aware of the inequality in sexual expectations between men and women. For example, some of the participants asserted themselves and explained that they would not engage in anal sex because they preferred other ways of pleasing their partner. Others saw anal sex as disrespectful and not mutual. While gendered scripts empower men and disempower women, some participants in this study seemed aware of this gendered discrepancy.
Although sexual script theory is popular among feminist psychologists in the examination of sexuality, other feminists have identified other discourses that influence sexuality. Heterosexual relations are informed by several “circulating hegemonic discourses” that impinge on this gendered relationship (Crawford, Kippax & Waldby,
1997). Phillip (2000) noted that “discourses represent the cultural messages about the way things are and the way things should be” (p.16). When the participants discussed the
306 meanings associated with anal sex, it seemed their meanings were rooted in their cultural environment. Phillips claimed that the discourses that surround us produce and provide competing messages. Even more importantly, Phillips noted that these discourses affect
“not only what we see, but how we see- what we imagine to be possible and what we take for granted” (p.17). For instance, sexual messages are passed on from childhood, from the family, or from social interactions and the media. Consequently, these competing messages influence and shape how sexuality is enacted. These discourses effects on the participants in this study were also visible. The messages pertaining to men‟s sexual pleasure and women‟s sexual subordination emerged from the participants‟ social cultural environments. As Phillips indicated, “we do not live inside our cultures…our cultures live inside us” (p.17). Such a statement captured the idea that participants‟ sexual choices were not only informed by their individual values, but by socio-cultural factors.
Connection to Feminist Gendered Discourses
Two important gendered discourses appeared to connect to the meanings that participants linked with anal sex. One of these discourses was conceptualized by
Hollway (1984a; 1989). She sought to understand heterosexual relations between women and men. Hollway argued that heterosexual relations rely on the male sexual drive discourse. Feminists have used these discourses to understand sexuality in heterosexual relationships. Hollway, (1984a) indicated that the male sexual drive discourse is the most common discourse circulating in heterosexual relationships. This discourse assumes that men‟s sexuality is natural and that men have a need for sex which is biologically dictated
(Hollway, 1984a). According to Hollway, women‟s construction of sexuality within the male sexual drive discourse implicates them as objects, whereas men are viewed as
307 subjects. Within this discourse, women attract men for purposes of keeping them
(Hollway, 1984 b). This discourse further perpetuates the notion that women‟s attraction to men enhances their sexual urges. Some of the participants in this dissertation perceived that pleasing men involved esteeming male sexual pleasure. Engaging in anal sex was viewed as a practice that enhanced male pleasure. The female participant‟s sexual pleasure was largely deemed secondary to that of males. By embracing such a perception, participants were enacting their object positions within the male sexual drive discourse.
When women espouse this discourse, they enter into heterosexual relationships assuming that the male sexual drive is natural and unquestionable (Garvey, 2005). The male sexual drive discourse predicates different sexual expectations for men and women.
Additionally, the findings on disclosures of sexual pressure and sexual negotiation also highlighted that males usually initiated anal sex, further reinforced the male sexual drive discourse. Such a finding agrees with existing literature on anal sex among women
Maynard, Carballo-Dieguez, Ventuneac, Exner and Mayer‟s (2009) study, for example found the gendered aspects of anal sex. Their study observed that 82% of female participants highlighted that anal sex was male initiated whilst 11% was initiated by females. Maynard‟s et al study reflected a male sexual drive discourse just as the one depicted by some participants in this study.
Some participants in this study privileged meanings that espouse the male sexual drive discourse. While some participants enacted the male sexual drive discourse, some participants depicted more mutual sexual relationships where open communication and consent was present. In one instance, a participant actually countered this male sexual
308 drive discourse by initiating anal sex with her partner. In this case, aspects of resistance to Hollway‟s male sexual drive discourse were also portrayed.
A more contemporary feminist scholar also highlighted discourses that project sexual inequalities within heterosexual relations. Phillips‟ (2000) pleasing woman discourse espouses that women play out gendered roles that expect them to be “pleasant, feminine, and subordinate to men” (p. 39). This conception relies on Victorian dictates and expectations of women. According to Phillips, this Victorian discourse emphasizes women‟s service to men and women‟s reproductive functions. Other feminist scholars have noted that the pleasing woman discourse is often typified as white and middle or upper class (Espin, 1984; hooks, 1981; Robinson, & Ward, 1991; Ward, 1996).
According to Phillips (2000), the pleasing woman discourse is informed by the mainstream western culture that connects femininity with “passivity, softness and martyrdom” (p. 39). With this understanding in mind, the pleasing woman discourse supposes that women‟s sexual desire is either absent or overlooked (Phillips, 2000). This discourse signifies that women are encouraged to value feminine values that are connected with “modesty, attractiveness and sacrifice …to men” (p. 39). Furthermore,
Phillips claimed that the pleasing woman discourse espouses some opposing perspectives which do not view women as active agents in their sexual decisions. Phillips‟ pleasing woman discourse is clearly a paradox for women. She concluded by noting that the pleasing woman is supposed to be “actively selfless” (p. 39). Essentially, the female‟s feminine virtues are supposed to serve and satisfy the male sexual desire while the female disregards her own sexual desire.
309 Phillips‟ pleasing woman discourse sheds some light on the findings of this study, especially with regards to letting a guy have what he wants and asserting men‟s domination and female submission. The female participants in this study perceived that engaging in anal sex esteemed male pleasure. Some participants appeared to suggest that they would only engage in this practice because they assumed anal sex sexually satisfied their partners. Female participants would engage in a sexual practice that was not pleasurable to them. This argument does not disregard the lived and embodied concerns of pain, and discomfort that some participants linked with anal sex. It seems that sometimes female participants tolerated and underwent pain or discomfort to support male pleasure. What was significant is that participants‟ perceptions of anal sex relegated their own sexual pleasure to second place. Even more, participants espoused Phillips‟
(2000) pleasing woman discourse. Sadly, the pleasing woman discourse depicts women as asexual, as beings who are not worth sexual pleasure. To a large extent, such a perception was implied because of the number of participants who esteemed male pleasure. In the next section I discuss the imaginative variation on risk.
Risk as Imaginative Variation
This final imaginative variation analysis recognized risk as a universal structure or essence that emerged from the findings in this dissertation. Such a finding answers the last dissertation question. The question asked, “how do participants talk about the sexual risks associated with anal sex?” The imaginative variation was based on the phenomenological reduction of risk and of two themes from the phenomenological reduction of how participants communicated about anal sex. Three themes relating to communicating sexual experimentation, pushing boundaries and stretching limits, and
310 communicating problematic sexual contexts were used to elaborate on risk. All the themes under the phenomenological reduction of risk were used for this imaginative variation analysis. These included infectious and non-infectious risks of anal sex as well as participants‟ suggested ways of minimizing risk associated with anal sex. The final theme was participants‟ identified benefits of anal sex.
A Critique of Risk Discourse
I begin this imaginative analysis by first framing the critiques of risk as generally conceived in contemporary western society. Lupton‟s (1995) critique of risk is a welcome addition to this imaginative variation because of the ambiguities that are posed by how risk was perceived by and enacted among the participants in this dissertation. Lupton asserted that current views of sexual behavior are overwhelmed by the “the discourse of risk” (p. 87). These views of risk are informed by health promotion discourse which treats individuals as conscious and rational beings who weigh all their alternatives.
Lupton (1995) countered this perception of risk by indicating that this view of risk disregards “the role of the unconscious, desire, and pleasure in sexual expression” (p. 87).
Further, the discourse of risk “fails to acknowledge that risk taking itself is pleasurable, enhancing the notion of sex as an escape from the humdrum of everyday existence and the danger of the forbidden” (Bolton, p. 199). The participants not only were able to identify contexts considered to be high risk, they also recognized the relational needs of sex, how the context of college encouraged risk taking, and how pleasurable some perceived anal sex to be.
With this backdrop in mind, I am fully aware of the implications of naming my participants as high risk or their sexual practice as a high risk practice. I embrace
311 Lupton‟s ideas which assert that naming sexual practices or a group of people as high risk is a political one. Because both unprotected and protected anal sex has the potential to pose varying of degrees risk (from HIV to tears or bleeding) among receivers of anal sex particularly.
Understanding Risk
Participants in this study were aware of infectious and non-infectious risks of anal sex. Participants were generally aware of the infectious risks from unprotected anal sex even though they did not specifically mention names of the STIs. The examples of non- infectious risks as identified by participants demonstrated that they recognized the potential threat that anal sex posed to them physically. The non-infectious risks that the participants identified signified the embodied material consequences that they either experienced or heard about. Non-infectious risks increased chances of acquiring sexually transmitted infections (STIs) because of tears and bleeding.
In addition to being aware of condoms, participants also recommended ways of minimizing the risks related to anal sex. Participants‟ knowledge of the different ways of minimizing risks showed that they suggested ways of minimizing risks that went beyond condoms. They indicated open communication during sexual intimacy and mutual consent. Participants also suggested adequate preparation by using ample lubrication and being relaxed during anal sex. Lastly, some also noted the importance of talking about sexual histories.
Participants knowledge of the risks associated with anal sex raised important reflections in this imaginative variation regarding why some participants engaged in a high risk sexual practice even when they were aware of the risks. Further, juxtaposing the
312 participants who did not engage in anal sex but were aware of the risks made for an interesting comparison with regard to how participants managed risk. Current conventional wisdom about adolescent risk behavior portrays adolescents as irrational individuals who engage in risky behaviors because they perceive themselves as invulnerable (Nightingale & Fischhoff, 2001). Conversely, Millstein and Halpern-Felsher
(2001) asserted that no scientific evidence suggests that adolescents perceive themselves as invulnerable. Instead, some adolescents demonstrate vulnerability that equals to that of adults (Fischhoff, Parker, De Bruin, Downs, Palmgren, et al, 2000). Therefore, this assumption then seems to offer a positive view on how risk might be understood among adolescents. For instance, Levitt, Selman, and Richmond (1991) used a psychological developmental model which identified three important characteristics for understanding adolescent risk. These characteristics include, knowledge of the risk, how risk is managed and what the risk means to the adolescent. These three factors may extend the understanding of why participants responded to risk in two ways (some engaging and others not participating in anal sex). Even though both groups were knowledgeable about the risks associated with anal sex, I can safely assume that how these two camps managed the risk (to engage or not in anal sex) reflected their negotiation abilities and what anal sex meant to them and their relationships.
Byrnes (2003) also illustrated that one of the circulating assumptions regarding adolescent risk is that adolescents are perceived to have less knowledge of their risk activity. Gerrard, Gibbons, Benthin, and Hessling (2000) found that teens who engaged in risk activity were as knowledgeable as teens who did not engage in any risks. Such a finding seemed to tie in with some the participants in this study, even if they engaged in
313 anal sex they were familiar with the risks associated with this sexual practice. Byrnes
(2003) cautioned that an awareness of the risks among participants who engage in anal sex did not guarantee that they were overly familiar with a high risk activity. In connection to the participants in this study, some participants showed uncertainty regarding the general risks of anal sex indicating that perhaps they only know information related to anal sex risk partially.
Steinberg (2003) asserted that adolescents, like adults, tend to judge risk based on their values and priorities of risk. Adolescent decision entails that they weigh the implications of their decision differently from adults. Steainman and Cauffman (1996) claimed that understanding decision making in adolescence should be supported by an acknowledgement of both the cognitive and psychological factors of risk (Steinberg,
2003). Examples of cognitive development of risk deal with the developmental changes that adolescents encounter as they mature from teenage to adulthood. These changes are perceived to impact risk taking, with younger adolescents taking more risks (Steinberg,
2003). The psychological factors of risk include a consideration of “responsibility
(healthy autonomy and self reliance), temperance (ability to control impulsivity) and perspective (being able to acknowledge the complexity of the situation within the larger context)” (Steinber & Cauffman, 1996, p. 252). While these factors are not exhaustive in understanding adolescent risk, the occurrence of cognitive and psychological factors were noted to lead to mature decision with regard to risk (Greenberger & Sorensen, 1974;
Irwin & Millstein, 1992). Steinberger and Cauffman cautioned that consistent behaviors among individuals that portray responsibility, temperance and perspective as among participants who did not engage in anal sex does not guarantee that they may engage in
314 mature decision making at a later time. Such a caveat reinforced the notion that risk decision making among adolescents is complex as it does not offer a consistent pattern of how individuals will respond when they encounter a risky situation (Greenberger &
Sorensen, 1974).
College as a High Risk Context for Anal Sex
Participants in this study referred to college as an environment that fosters experimentation. Participants explained that experimentation helped them learn what their interests were. Some participants simply indicated that they were at an age of experimentation. Some indicated that college encouraged experimentation because it offered more freedom and they were away from their parents. There was a general presumption among the participants that engaging in anal sex was part of experimentation.
Literature on risk shows that emerging adulthood is deemed a high risk period of experimentation for young adults in college (Dworkin, 2005). Experimentation seems to come naturally during this stage because “risk behaviors are deliberate and goal directed, the product of subjectively rational decisions” (Dworkin, 2005, p. 219). While risk behaviors are often perceived as careless, Dworkin suggested that risk behavior may be intentional. Under the themes of communicating sexual experimentation, pushing boundaries and stretching limits, and communicating problematic sexual contexts, participant descriptions pointed to the experimental behaviors that they observed their friends engaging in while in college. Other scholars have actually argued that adolescents enthusiastically choose and determine the choices they want for their
315 environment because the risk behaviors are considered unique and exciting (Chassin,
1997; Lightfoot, 1997).
The idea of experimentation has also been captured by several scholars who argue that it serves adolescent developmental needs (Baumrind, 1985; Jessor & Jessor,
1977; Maggs, Almeida & Galambos, 1995; Sibereisen, Noack, & Reitzle, 1987). This perspective challenges the general conception of risk taking behavior. These scholars viewed experimentation to be a skills building process where teens and young adults learn about peer interactions and identity formation. Closely related, Arnett (2000) also stated that experimentation for college students is their attempt to explore who they are.
Therefore, the culture of college of risk taking enables adolescents and young adults to be immersed in an experimental culture (Sperber, 2000).
While experimentation appears to be beneficial for college students, sometimes the participants engaged in high risk behaviors that have more negative outcomes.
According to Johnston, O‟Mailley, and Backman (2003) the peak of alcohol use, drug use and unprotected sexual activity is linked with college time. Even though the culture of college thrives on risk (Irwin, 1993), there seems to be a blurred line between dangerous experimental behaviors and safe ones (Dworkin, 2005). Yet, Dworkin further reinforced the idea that it is not so much the experimentation that is problematic but the negative consequences that emerge from it.
Under the theme of communicating problematic contexts, participants narrated experimental behaviors that could have potential negative effects. These contexts included drunk hook ups, sex in groups, sex with multiple partners, anal sex under severe intoxication or unprotected anal intercourse. These activities meant that the chances for
316 negative sexual outcomes were likely. By highlighting these experimental and high risk behaviors, participants appeared to know some of the dangers that came with their college context. This recognition reinforced Costanzo‟s (1991) assertion that risk behaviors cannot be addressed without consideration for the context. This imaginative variation on risk acknowledges the significance of the college context in fostering risk behaviors which were not only limited to anal sex. Under this anylisis of risk, sexual pleasure was also identified as a benefit of anal sex. Next, I examine the underlying reasons for such an occurrence.
Sexual Pleasure as a Possible Benefit of Anal Sex
Participants recognized sexual pleasure as one of the benefits of anal sex. Some participants mostly highlighted that men benefited more from this practice than women.
In general participants recognized that anal sex was more pleasurable for men. The participants assumed male pleasure was enhanced by the woman‟s physical make up such as a tighter anal area. Another participant noted that anal sex offered a break away from the routines of regular vaginal sex. Other participants also indicated that peer reviews highlighted that males enjoyed anal sex. There was a general sense that males enjoyed anal sex more than women. Anatomical differences were inferred as part of the cause of the disparity in sexual pleasure. Gendered norms about masculinity and sexual pleasure were implicated.
Jackson‟s (1999) offered a pessimistic outlook on women‟s heterosexual sexual pleasure. He stated,
Young women may have access to more sexual information than any other
generation in the past, are probably more sexually experienced and are more
317 likely to espouse sexually egalitarian ideas, but the vast majority are still trapped
within the confines of heterosexual relationships which privilege men‟s desire and
pleasures at their expense. (p. 31)
The unequal experiences of sexual pleasure between men and women is important to illuminate because it reinforces masculinity in ways that position women to be at risk.
Jensen (1998), a pro feminist male, argued that men‟s pursuit for pleasure is tied to how they are socialized. Their sexual pleasure depends on using people as sexual objects.
Further, the construction of sexual pleasure is based on penetration in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Therefore, penetrating the anal area may not just suggest sexual pleasure but the domination of those being penetrated.
Some participants identified the overarching benefit of anal sex to be sexual pleasure. Rey and Meaney (2007) indicated that what is sexually pleasurable is in eye of the beholder. That stated, sexual pleasure is a social construction which embraces
“attitudes, behaviors, and activities that may be considered deviant” (Rey & Meaney,
2007, p. 44). Since anal sex is largely stigmatized, it is also associated with deviant practices. By identifying sexual pleasure as a possible benefit of anal sex, participants defied negative conceptions of anal sex. In addition, if sexual pleasure is associated with high risk practices as anal sex, it seems imperative that sexual pleasure be included in sexual risk discourses so that motivations behind risk taking are understood.
Perceptions of sexual pleasure in western society have also been dominated by
Christian influences that sometimes link sexual pleasure with self-indulgence (Parrinder,
1991). As a result, the pursuit of sexual pleasure has generally been viewed disapprovingly. International discourse on sexual rights, however, recommends the right
318 to sexual pleasure because it brings about “physical, psychological, intellectual and spiritual well being” (Pan American Health Organization PAHO/ World Health
Organization WHO, 2000, p. 38). Given that sexual pleasure is a sexual right, the participants in this study also acknowledged this benefit of anal sex.
Summary of Risk as Imaginative Variation
This imaginative variation on risk answered the research question, “how do participants talk about the sexual risks associated with anal sex.” This analysis recognized the critiques of risk discourse that assert that individuals are rational beings who examine their options. In addition, this imaginative variation analysis also recognized that risk coexists with pleasure. By using risk as an overarching theme, I noted that participants were aware of ways to minimize risks. Even though they did not specifically name sexually transmitted infections (STIs) that may arise from anal sex. In addition, some participants demonstrated that they were knowledgeable about how risks from anal sex could be prevented. The participants identified preventive methods beyond condoms and lubrication. Further, this imaginative variation also showed that risk cannot be addressed without recognizing the context in which risk is occurring. By acknowledging the college context as a high risk environment, we can see that it fosters experimentation. Participants also recognized that pleasure was a benefit of engaging in anal sex. This recognition reinforced the notion that risk coexists with pleasure. Lastly, some participants were also cognizant of the inequality of pleasure that esteems male pleasure over that of female pleasure. Anatomical differences between men and women could explain part of this disparity as can the gendered norms of sexual pleasure. The following chapter discusses the synthesis.
319 CHAPTER SIX: SYNTHESIS
Theoretical Contributions of the Study
Moustakas (1994) noted that essences are never exhausted and that there can be multiple essences. The overarching essence of this dissertation was the tensions that participants encountered between institutional socio-cultural values and personal values that influenced their sexual choices at the macro level. These tensions were also noted at the interpersonal level, particularly during descriptions of privacy and disclosure. At this level participant tensions were influenced by stigma towards anal sex.
This study relied on Foucault‟s (1990a) metatheories of power and sexuality and
Petronio‟s (2002) Communication Privacy Management (CPM). The combination of these two theories enabled me to explore how participants communicated about anal sex from a broader macro perspective while, at the same time, exploring how participants communicated about anal sex at the micro level in their peer and intimate sexual relationships. Combining these two theoretical perspectives enriched how communication was explored among the participants. Further, combining these two theories also highlighted the interplay of relationships of power as enacted by the participants.
From a macro perspective, Foucault‟s theories of power and sexuality enabled me to notice the privileging of certain sexual practices over others through hierachization, normalization and homogeneity. In particular, participants identified the socio-cultural influences that largely promoted an abstinence approach to sexuality. This kind of privileging served as a disciplinary mechanism of control for participants based on
Foucault‟s (1995) notion of disciplining. As participants engaged with these socio- cultural influences they were cognizant of such privileging and the gaps that were
320 inherent in promoting a one sided sexual practice. The personal values seemed to esteem participants relational needs. By using Foucault‟s (1980) notion of power and sexuality at this macro level, the interactional dynamics of power between participants identified socio-cultural values and their personal values was highlighted.
Central to Foucault‟s notion of power at the macro level was its control of the body as a social site of resistance (Foucault, 1977). Foucault (1977) explained that, when power becomes entrenched and invested on the body, there “inevitably emerge the responding claims and affirmations, those of one‟s own body against power…of pleasure against the moral norms of sexuality …Suddenly what had made power strong becomes used to attack it” (p. 56). In like manner, power, as asserted through socio-cultural values, offered some kind of sexual control on participants bodies based on the predominant sexual practice of abstinence. Foucault (1977) further indicated that there was a
“materiality of power … on the very bodies of individuals” (p.55), implying that the promotion of socio-cultural values also had embodied material consequence on participants‟ lives (e.g., unmet sexual needs). The power associated with the socio- cultural values on sexuality had preventive outcomes for participants‟ sexual lives. In spite of such benefits, what was noticeable in this dissertation was that more than half of the participants opted for premarital sex to meet their relational needs, perhaps because of their need for pleasure. This kind of tension between power as exhibited from the socio-cultural values and from the personal values exemplified a complex relational dynamic of power. Such a relationship positioned the body to become “the issue of conflict” based on the expectations from either the socio-cultural values or personal values (Foucault, 1977, p. 57). Consequently, participants‟ personal values of sexuality
321 signified “the revolt of the sexual body [was] the reverse effect of this encroachment” of the socio-cultural values of sexuality (Foucault, p. 57). Participants‟ personal values denoted that their “power [was] entangled with desire and pleasure” in their quest for relationships that allowed them to engage in premarital sex (Segal, 1985, p.41).
Foucault‟s notion of power also demonstrated at the macro level that socio- cultural values functioned to perpetuate sexual morality (Foucault, 1990b). According to
Foucault (1990b) morality “means a set of values and rules that are recommended to individuals through intermediary of various prescriptive agencies such as the family…educational institutions and churches” (p. 25). Similarly the socio-cultural (sex education, religion and some families) values identified in this study reflected the ones identified by Foucault. These socio-cultural values served as prescriptive agencies that determined acceptable sexual practices. The socio-cultural influences esteemed abstinence and prevented participants‟ pleasure. Essentially, these socio-cultural values served as rules of conduct that were protective to participants (e.g., avoiding STIs, unplanned pregnancies) (Foucault, 1990b). Even though these values of sexuality served as prescriptive agencies for the abstinence approach, participants asserted their own individuality through the establishment of the “ethical subject” (Foucault, 1990b, p. 28).
At the macro level of this study, participants‟ personal values represented their motivation to become the ethical subject. According to Foucault, ethics is “the deliberate practice of liberty” (Foucault, 1984, p. 4).Within the seeming constraining influence of the socio-cultural values, participants carved their own personal values of sexuality in order to enhance their liberty to engage in premarital sex for relational needs. It seemed that Foucault‟s notion of ethics presumed that individuals struggle for the practice of
322 liberty so that they can reinvent their own individuality (Hofmeyr, 2006). Within the constraining relationships of power between socio-cultural influences and participants‟ personal values, the need for liberty was present (Foucault, 1984). According to Foucault
(1984), liberty was exemplified by the
self formation as an ethical subject, a process in which the individual delimits that
part of himself that will form the object of his moral practice, defines his position
relative to the precept he will follow, and decides on a certain mode of being that
will serve as his moral goal. (p. 28)
Participants‟ preference for personal values demonstrated that they attained their moral goals of becoming the ethical subject by setting their own standards of sexuality which involved engaging in premarital sex. Participants justified these personal values. For example, most of the participants frowned upon hooking up and opted for premarital sex in relational contexts. Such a goal replaced the moral code that was laid out by socio- cultural values on sexuality. This kind of liberty demonstrated that participants took a political position (Foucault, 1984). Thus, the participants attained their sexual goals or values by devising their own moral values and codes (engaging in premarital sex while in relationships). Therefore, this study demonstrated that, at the macro level, relationships of power between the socio-cultural values and participants‟ personal values existed in a constant dialectical tension.
At the micro or interpersonal level the tension between power, disclosure and privacy was further enhanced by using Petronio‟s (2002) CPM to demonstrate the interplay of power relationships. While Foucault‟s notion of power at the socio-cultural level served as disciplinary and moralizing codes, at the interpersonal level other
323 mechanisms of power exerted their control on the participants. Specifically, stigma emerged as one such mechanism that reminded participants of the consequences of disclosing information about anal sex. Stigma functioned as another disciplinary code that had the potential to ostracize and tarnish participants‟ reputations. Using CPM exposed different aspects of power. Foucault (1984) explained that “relationships of power are extremely wide” (p. 114). Similarly, the combining of Foucault‟s notion of power at the macro level and the micro level highlighted the different forms of relationships of power that participants engaged with. Further, CPM showed how participants managed stigma as a disciplinary code by identifying strategies that worked to their advantage. For example, participants only disclosed to peers who had engaged in anal sex or by gauging interest and setting sexual boundaries. This interplay of power portrayed power being “enacted as a process, through ceaseless struggles and confrontations, transforms, strengthens or reverses forces relations” (Hofmeyr, 2006, p.
219). For example, some participants encountered tensions between disclosure and privacy and were subjected to the privacy risks (embarrassment, awkwardness, shame discrimination and stigma) if they disclosed. On the other, some participants disclosed information about anal sex in their intimate relationships and even among their peers for relational purposes. Therefore, there was a constant tension of stigma enforcing control while at the same time some participants found avenues that were safe for disclosure of anal sex. This tension at the micro interpersonal level somewhat mimicked the relationships of power at the macro level.
CPM also exposed disclosures that privileged gendered power between males and females. In some instances, sexual pressure to engage in anal sex was highlighted albeit
324 in a subtle manner. Further, most of the initiations of anal sex were also male initiated.
Yet again, some participants noted this skewed power because they were cognizant of this inequality. Some of the participants resisted anal sex while other participants initiated anal sex. These disclosures illuminated how power relations did not merely suppress or subjugate but it also enabled some participants to exercise agency (Foucault, 1990).
In conclusion, an important contribution that this study demonstrated was that power is important in sexuality research. Power, and specifically relationships of power, should be explored to examine how participants negotiate dominant socio-cultural values so that a larger picture of how participants engage with dominant discourse of sexuality is drawn. However, the micro or interpersonal aspect offers a richer perspective by offering a complex interplay of relationships of power. In essence this study demonstrated that participants as social actors are “always inside power. There is no escaping it” (Foucault,
1990a, p. 33). Yet, with the constraining effects of power, participants indentified avenues that enhanced their sexuality and shaped how they talked about anal sex.
325 CHAPTER SEVEN: RECOMMENDATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE
RESEARCH
This study explored how college students communicated about anal sex and its implications for health. The recommendations in the following paragraphs reflect the insights gleaned from the findings of this study. The recommendations are targeted towards four groups: sex education policy makers at state levels, health promotion professionals in college, college students and parents. After the discussion of recommendations, the limitations of the study follow. Lastly, suggestions for future research are presented.
Recommendations for Sex Education Policy
In these recommendations, I acknowledge my biases are skewed towards supporting a comprehensive based sex education because of the findings of this study.
These recommendations recognize the sensitive nature of sexuality and the contested nature of this subject. The recommendations do not intend to undermine existing sex education policies. Presently in the United States, there is no unified sex education policy between advocates of abstinence-only and comprehensive or abstinence-plus sex education policies. Discrepancies in sex education approaches exist (Guttmacher
Institute, 2006). Two thirds of public school districts have sex education policies; thirty five percent schools promote an abstinence-only approach targeted toward unmarried individuals, whereas 51% teach a comprehensive education (Landry, Kaeser, Richards,
1999). The comprehensive policies allow contraceptives, prevention of pregnancy and
STIs to be taught.
326 This dissertation showed that sex education was one of the sources of socio- cultural values on sex that was in tension with participants‟ personal values on sex. Sex education policy at the federal and state level should explore ways of hearing student‟s sexual needs by seeking their input on appropriate informational resources. Since sex education is targeted to student populations, their opinions of sex education must be included in the planning and evaluation process of sexual curricula development. It is important to recognize that students are aware of the impact that sex education has on their sexual lives. Students are aware of the benefits and drawbacks of the current sex education systems which predominantly promote the abstinence-only approach over a comprehensive sex education approach.
Since participants displayed generally negative attitudes towards abstinence-only sex education policies, permitting comprehensive sex education must be considered.
While this suggestion may seem simplistic, evidence suggests that abstinence-only programs infringe on adolescent‟s human rights to health, information and life because they fail to prevent pregnancies or the spread of STIs (Santelli, Ott, Lyon, Rogers,
Summers, Schlefer, 2006; Freedman, 1995). Therefore, a human rights approach to sexual health should become central to the designing of sexual health policies. A comprehensive sexual health education appears to fall within this category because it offers sexual choices to students. These choices include abstinence, pregnancy and STI prevention.
One major recommendation within comprehensive sex education is that planners should consider student (upper level high school students) perspectives. When designing sex education policies student voices should be part of the planning process. Participants‟
327 negative views towards sex education implied that exploring their sexual views would highlight some of their sexual concerns and needs. Research on adolescents by DeCenso,
Borthwick, Busca, Creatura, Holms, Kalagian et al (2001) demonstrated that they preferred more positive sex education presentations. These presentations had minimal attention to anatomy and the use of scare tactics. Similarly, some participants described being exposed to scare tactics in their sex education. Further, sex education policies should also emphasize the importance of non-judgmental and unbiased approaches to teaching sex education. Since teachers are on the frontline of sex education dissemination, an unbiased and non-judgmental perspective that fosters student learning will encourage questions and more open and comfortable discussions about sex.
Sex education policies should also consider including the gendered nature of heterosexuality. While emphasizing a preventive approach in sex education is important for students‟ health, including a gendered aspect to sexuality is vital for them to learn how to negotiate their sexual choices. A gendered aspect in sex education could cultivate the interrogation of taken for granted societal sexual expectations for males and females.
Gendered differences related to communication discrepancies were noted in this study, as males initiated most of the requests for anal sex and most of the female participants complained of pain and discomfort associated with anal sex. These disparities pointed to the gendered communication related to sex between males and females. A study by
DeCenso et al (2001) also showed that adolescents were interested in sexual negotiation and communication skills in relationships. Further, DeCenso et al stated that sex education policies must include communication interventions that foster healthy sexual relationships, that create mutual self respect, consent and skills to voice uncomfortable
328 sexual encounters. These suggestions all reinforce the importance of gendered sexual communication.
Lastly, sex education should not represent anal sex as an exclusively homosexual practice. While this presentation has historical bearing to HIV transmission, such a perspective may be stigmatizing to homosexual groups and may undermine efforts to address the risks that anal sex poses to heterosexual individuals who engage in anal sex.
Recommendations for Health Promotion Policy/Interventions
Health promotion programs in college should be aware of the experimental nature of college students and the impact that such a context has on them. Health promotion professionals must not view college students‟ experimentation in exclusively negative ways, but ought to encourage responsible experimental behaviors. Self exploration, and sexual experimentation is part of young peoples‟ sexual development (Hellerstedt &
Radel, 2005; Katz, 2006; Monaterio, Hwang, & Shafer, 2007). Therefore emphasizing ways of minimizing risks such as using protective methods such as condoms must be ongoing. Further, students should be encouraged to make sexual decisions when they are not under the influence of alcohol.
Targeting Peer Groups
Targeting individuals with tailored messages has been shown to enhance the effectiveness of health communication messages (Krueter, Strecher, & Glassman, 1999).
Targeting is borrowed from segmentation principles from marketing that focus on matching specific products with a specific group (Peppers & Rodgers, 1993). Similarly, health promotion interventions must target peer groups because participants in this study demonstrated that they communicated with their peers about sex. These health
329 promotion interventions should explore ways of fostering non-judgmental and unbiased dialogue about sex and anal sex. In this study, supportive communication about anal sex occurred in peer groups, in other cases within these groups anal sex was stigmatized. The formation of peer groups should involve the careful assessment of peer groups for stigmatizing attitudes. Once peer groups are formed, peer discussions may include communication strategies used during sexual negotiation such as the consent process.
Such groups can also address how sexual communication about sexual practices like anal sex are essential to minimizing risks.
Health promotion interventions that foster open communication about taboo sexual topics like anal sex must be discussed sensitively, possibly in peer groups where participants can openly communicate their concerns. Stigma was a concern for some participants who talked about anal sex in this study. Perhaps anonymous ways of addressing health concerns related to taboo sexual practices such as anal sex would serve as a safer option to deal with questions about this sexual practice.
Targeting Sexual Partners
Targeting health promotion messages on the risks associated with anal sex and sex should also be extended to college students in sexual relationships. These couples can participate in peer group sessions that encourage dialogue related to sexual negotiation and sexual communication. Further, such groups should question sexual scripts that privilege male sexual pleasure. For example, both female and male students should explore their own understanding of sexual pleasure and what it means and how it can be enacted in sexual relationships. Such couple peer groups should question why male
330 sexual pleasure is perpetuated and the ways of minimizing or disrupting unequal sexual scripts.
Health promotion could also include and educate couples about the sexual risks associated with anal sex. Since the participants recognized infectious and non-infectious risks, how to minimize these risks must be underscored. Risk reduction must emphasize the potential danger of HIV infection and other STI among individuals who engage in anal sex. Reducing risks associated with anal sex must not only be restricted to encouraging condom and lubrication use. Important suggestions that emerged from the participants in this study highlighted the significance of open partner communication during sexual intimacy. Additionally, sexual negotiation should entail mutual sexual consent. Male partners should be aware of the risks associated with anal sex because of women‟s anatomical make up as receivers. Ways of reducing tears, infections and bleeding should be part of the risk reduction health messages. Also, students should be encouraged to share their sexual histories and be tested for STIs regularly with their sexual partners.
Both peer groups and individuals in sexual relationships should embrace sensitive language that college students would be receptive to. For instance, the use of humor can minimize the discomfort that is often associated with talking about sex and anal sex.
Even though humor was perceived negatively by some participants in this study, I believe emphasizing the positive aspects of humor would be beneficial to encouraging individuals to lighten conversations about sex and anal sex. In general, individuals find discussions of sex uncomfortable. Therefore, humor can serve as a conversational starter before transitioning to pertinent sexual information.
331 Targeting Parents
Health promotion interventions that encourage parents to talk about sex with their children must be promoted. Participants in this study acknowledged parents as being influential figures of their sex choices. Parents played a significant role with regard to communicating safer sexual options as well as how participants learned about sexuality.
Given these benefits, open communication about sex must be encouraged early between parents and their children because of the potential benefits. Miller, Norton, Fan, and
Christopherson (1998) and Davis and Friel (2001) indicated positive outcomes when teens and parents communicate about safe sexual practices. It was found that teens who talked about sex with their parents were less likely to engage in unprotected sex or engage in sexual activity. When deemed appropriate, parents should talk to their children about all three types of sex, vaginal, oral and anal sex because most of the participants engaged in anal sex during their teen years. Safety practices such as condoms and lubrication must be encouraged. While such a recommendation may seem uncomfortable for some parents, perhaps weighing the risks or potential dangers of not talking about the risks associated with anal sex may serve as a motivation for open, honest and non- judgmental discussion with adolescents.
Limitations of the study
All research is limited. A major challenge that this study faced was that anal sex was a sensitive topic for participants. This sensitivity may have affected how much they disclosed. Most participants displayed some element of discomfort when talking about anal sex. This discomfort was displayed by their non-verbal behaviors which included crossed arms, averting eye contact, crossing legs and offering short answers. In two
332 interviews, participants appeared upset by their recollections of their anal sex experience.
In the future, combining audio computer assisted survey interviewing (ACASI) with face to face interviews could improve the quality of participant responses (Turner, Lessler, &
Gfroerer, 1992). One advantage is that ACASI can be used for exploring sensitive and illegal practices because they offer privacy (Rogers, Willis, Al-Tayyib, Villarroel,
Turner, Ganapathi, et al 2005). Regardless of the advantages of ACASI, face to face interviews enabled probing and clarification in this dissertation research.
During the participant recruitment phase, it was difficult to attract male participants for interviews. Even though female participants were encouraged to tell their male friends about the study, there were only two male participants. Future studies on anal sex, or any sexual taboo topic, may benefit from recruiting male research assistants if face to face interviews are planned. Because of the limited number of male participants, male perspectives on socio-cultural values of sex, meanings, risks and disclosure and privacy associated with anal sex were likely absent. This resulted in the skewing of the results towards a female perspective on how college students communicated about anal sex.
The transcendental phenomenological concept of epoche, of self reflexivity, recommended that I suspend all my preconceived ideas related to anal sex when I conducted the study. Even though I wrote down what I felt about anal sex prior to collecting data, my negative feelings towards this sexual practice emerged during the analysis. I struggled to make sense of why the participants engaged in this sexual practice; my bias came through during my interpretations because I represented the participants as victims of this sexual practice. Given these concerns, my interpretations
333 are partial and subject to multiple interpretations. Furthermore, cultural differences and generational differences may have also played a part in my interpretations of how participants communicated about anal sex. For instance, I come from Zambia, a country where sex is never openly discussed. When it was discussed, my peers privileged penile- vaginal sex. Therefore, it was somewhat unusual when I listened to my participants describe how they first engaged in anal sex during their teens. My perceptions in some way dictated how I interpreted the participants‟ anal sex experiences. In order to offer a balanced perspective on the interpretations, I relied on expert and peer review (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985; Ely, Anzul, Friedman, Garner, & Syeinmetz, 1991) to assess my interpretations.
Other important limitations were methodological. Follow up interviews would also have enhanced clarification and further elaboration of this study. However, due to
IRB restrictions that sought to protect the participants‟ privacy and anonymity I was not allowed to contact participants after the interviews and the return of the diaries. The participants‟ contacts were deleted for their protection. As can be noted, the protection of participant‟s privacy in this kind of research was crucial given the sensitive nature of the research. Therefore, these restrictions limited follow up and clarifying questions with the participants.
Future Research
Future research could explore how communication about anal sex occurs in different populations and contexts.
This study aimed to explore how both male and female students communicated about anal sex but did not recruit sufficient male participants. Future research must
334 examine how college male students communicate about anal sex. This exploration must examine male gendered roles and perceptions related to anal sex, particularly since the female participants in this study implicated males as the initiators of this sexual practice.
Also, female participants largely engaged in anal sex to enhance male pleasure.
Therefore, exploring the gendered communication and their meanings towards anal sex would offer a unique perspective.
Widespread exploration of communication among college students should be considered using quantitative methodologies. Using quantitative methodologies may offer wider exploration on the nature of communication related to anal sex and what motivates it. Exploring the college population is important because of the culture of experimentation that participants described in this study. Anal sex falls within one of the experimental sexual practices that some college students will engage in.
Also understanding how communication about anal sex occurs among US high school populations would provide an enriching perspective because most of the participants first engaged in anal sex while in high school. Further examining their understanding of risk would also be important to high school students and how they negotiate risk. Exploring motivations for anal sex and why participants engage in anal sex would also enhance our understanding of how this population negotiates high risk practices.
Exploring how anal sex is communicated in non-Western contexts has yet to occur. In contexts with high HIV/AIDS incidents such as Africa, this kind of study would illuminate whether anal sex poses risks. In particular exploring high risks populations such as men who have sex with men and sex workers is important because these groups
335 are highly stigmatized and ostracized in their communities. This kind of research could also examine the socio-cultural influences of sexuality, gendered nature of sexuality, risk and meanings.
Lastly, future research would be more in-depth if a feminist lens and sexual scripts theory is integrated. This study showed that heterosexuality is affected by sexual inequality. This study showed that gendered disparities were present in participants‟ sexual negotiation, communication and their perceptions of anal sex. These gendered disparities are important to examine as they shape the sexual choices that men and women engage in and how their sexual practices occur.
336 REFERENCES
Ablon, J. (1981). Stigmatized health conditions. Social Science & Medicine, 15(1), 5-9.
Advocates for Youth. (1999). European approaches to adolescent sexual behavior and responsibility. Washington, DC.
Afifi, T.D., Olson, L., & Armstrong, C. (2005). The chilling effect and family secrets. Examining the role of self protection, other protection and communication efficacy. Human Communication Research, 31,564-598.
Afifi, W.A., & Caughlin, J.P. (2006). A close look at revealing secrets and some consequences that follow. Communication Research, 33,467-488.
Agnew, J. (1985). Some anatomical and physiological aspects of anal sexual practices. Journal of Homosexuality, 12(1), 75-96.
Alford, S. (2003). Science and success: Sex education and other programs that work to prevent teen pregnancy, HIV & sexually transmitted Infections. Washington, DC: Advocates for Youth.
Allen, S., & Carlson, G. (2003). To conceal or disclose a disabling condition? A dilemma
of employment transition. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 19, 9-30.
Allen, B.J. (2005). Social constructionism. In S. May & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), Engaging organizational communication theory & research: Multiple perspectives. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Allman, J. (1995). Bearing the burden or baring the soul: Physician‟s self disclosure and boundary management regarding medical mistakes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, Norman.
Aral, S. O., Patel, D. A., Holmes, K.K., Foxman, B. (2005). Temporal trends in sexual behaviors and sexually transmitted disease history among 18to 39 year old Seattle, Washington, residents: results of random digit-dial surveys. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 32, 710-717.
Atkin, C. K., & Freimuth, V. (1989). Formative evaluation research in campaign design. In R. E. Rice & C. K. Atkin (Eds.), Public communication campaigns ( pp. 131- 150). Newbury Park: Sage.
Bailey, K.D. (1994). Methods of social research. New York: Free.
Balanko, S. L. (2000). Good sex? A critical review of sex education. Guidance & Counseling, 17(4), 117- 127.
337 Baldwin, J. I, & Baldwin, J. D. (2000). Heterosexual anal sex intercourse. An under studied, high risk sexual behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 92-220.
Barlow, D. (2009). The teachers‟ lounge. The Education Digest, 74 (6), 65-68.
Beck, U. (1992). From industrial society to a risk society: Questions of survival, social structure and ecological environment. Theory, Culture & Society, 9,97-123.
Bella, R. R., Turner, S., & Rosen, L. (1975). A multivariate analysis of female extra marital coitus. Journal of Marriage and Family, 37: 375-384.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Random House.
Berger, G.S., Keith, L., & Moss, W. (1975). Prevalence of gonorrhea among women using various methods of contraception. British Journal of Venereal Diseases,51, 307-309. Biernacki, P., &Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research, 10(2), 141-163.
Birrell, S., & McDonald, M. G. (2000). Sport reading: Critical essays on power and representation. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
Blackstone, W. (1769). Commentaries on the laws of England Vol. IV. Oxford.
Bloom, L. (1993). Transcription and coding for child language research. The parts are more than the whole. In J. A. Edwards & M. D. Lampert (Eds.). Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp.149-166). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bogdan, R.C., and Biklen, S.K. (1992). Qualitative research in education. An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Boily, M.C., Baggley,R., Wang, L., Masse, B.,White, R.G., Hayes, R., & Alary, M. (2009). Heterosexual risk of HIV-1 infection per sexual act: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Lancet Infectious Disease, 9,118-129.
Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. & Schilling, E. A. (1989). Effects of daily stress on negative mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 808-818.
Bolton, R. (1992). AIDS and promiscuity: muddles in the models of HIV prevention. Medical Anthropology, 14, 145-223.
Borgatta, E. F., & Borgatta, M. L. (1992). Encyclopedia of sociology. (Vol 4). New York: Macmillan.
338 Box, S. (1983). Crime, power and mystification. London: Tavistock.
Blythe, M. J., Fotenberry, J. D., M‟ Hamed, T., Tu, W., & Orr, D. P. (2006). Incidence and correlates of unwanted sex in relationships of middle and late adolescent women. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 160, 591-595.
Brown-Smith, N. (1998). Family secrets. Journal of Family Issues,19, 20-42.
Burr, V. (2003). Social constructionism. (2nd Ed). New York: Routledge.
Burridge, K. (2004). Blooming English. Cambridge.
Byrnes, J. P. (2003). Changing views on the nature and prevention of adolescent risk taking. In D. Romer (Ed.). Reducing adolescent risk. Towards an integrated approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). ( 2002). Trends in sexual risk behaviors among high school students-United States, 1991-2001. MMWR,51,856- 859.
CDC (2008). HIV prevalence estimates-United States. MMWR, 57, 1073-1076.
Chassin, L. (1997). Foreward. In J. Schulenberg, J. L. Maggs, & k. Hurrelmann (Eds.), Health risk and developmental transitions during adolescence (pp. xiii-xvi). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chepenik, L. G., Have, T. T., Oslin, D., Datto, C., Zubitsky, C., & Katz, I.R. (2006). A daily diary study of late-life depression. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 14(3), 270-279.
Civic, D. (2000). College student‟s reasons for nonuse of condoms within dating relationships. Journal Sex & Marital Therapy, 26, 95-105.
Cline, R. J.W., Johnson, S. J., & Freeman, K. E. (1992). Talk among sexual partners about AIDS: Interpersonal communication for risk reduction or risk enhancement? Health Communication, 41(1), 39-56.
Cochran, S. D., & Mays, V. M.(1990). Sex, lies and HIV. New England Journal of Medicine, 322, 774.
Colaizzi, P. F. (1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist view it. In R. Vaille & M. King (Eds.), Existential phenomenological alternatives for psychology (pp.48-71). New York: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, S., & Taylor, L. (1976/1992). Escape attempts: the theory and practice of resistance to everyday life (2nd Ed.). London: Routledge.
339 Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cornell, J. L., & Halperin-Felsher, B. L. (2006). Adolescents tell us why teens have oral sex. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38,299-301.
Cornell, J., & Halpern-Felsher, B. (2006). Adolescents tell us why teens have oral sex Journal of Adolescent Health, 38(3), 299-301.
Costanzo, P. R. (1991). Morals, mothers, and memories. The social context of developing social cognition. In R. Cohen, & A. Siegel (Eds.), Context and development (pp. 91-132). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Crawford, J., Kippax, S., & Waldby, C. (1994). Women‟s sex talk and men‟s sex talk: Different worlds. Feminism and Psychology, 4, 571-587.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches, 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Crosby, R. A., & Miller, K. S. (2002). Family influences on adolescent females‟ sexual health. In G. M. Wingood & R. J. DiClemente (Eds.), Handbook of women’s sexual and reproductive health (pp. 113-127). New York: Kluwer Academic.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage.
Crocker, J. M., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 504-553). New York, NY: MacGraw-Hill.
Cupach, W.R., & Metts, S. (1991). Sexuality and communication in close relationships: In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Sexuality in close relationships (pp.93- 110). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Darroch, J. E., Singh, S., & Frost, J. (2001). Differences in teenage pregnancy rates among five developed countries: the roles of sexual activity and contraceptives use, family. Family Planning Perspectives, 33, 244-250.
Davis, E. C., & Friel, L. V. (2001). Adolescent sexuality: Disentangling the effects of family structure and family context. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 669- 681.
340 Devenport-Hines, R. (1990). Sex, death and punishment: Attitudes to sex and sexuality in Britain since the renaissance. London. Collins.
Dicicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical Education, 40(4), 314-321.
Dileader, C. R. (2002). Back door sex: Renaissance gynosodomy Aretino and the exotic. ELH, 69,303-334.
Dilorio,C., Kellly, M., & Hockenberry-Eaton, M. (1999). Communication about sexual issues: mothers, fathers and friends. Journal of Adolescent Health, 24(3), 181- 189.
Dindia, K. (2000). Sex differences in self disclosure, reciprocity of self disclosure, and self disclosure and liking: Three meta-analyses reviewed. In S. Petronio (Ed.), Balancing the secrets of private disclosures (pp. 21-36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Dolan, J. P. (1992). Negotiate like the pros. The essential guide to effective negotiating. New York: Perigree.
Doljanac, R. F., & Zimmerman, M. A. (1998). Psychosocial factors and high-risk sexual behaviors. Race differences among urban adolescents. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 21(5), 451-467.
Donat, P. L. N., & Bondurant, A. B. (1996, March). Misperceptions of sexual intent: Effects of prior behavior and attitudes. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Psychological Association, Norfolk, VA.
Donat, P. L. N., & White, J. W. (2000). Re-examining the issue of non-consent inacquaintance rape. In C. B. T. Travis, & J. W. White. Sexuality, society and feminism (pp.355-3766). Washington, DC. American Psychological Association
Douglas, J. (1976). Investigative social research: Individual and team field research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Douglas, M. (1985). Risk acceptability according to the social science. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Douglas, M. (1992). Risk and blame: Essays in cultural theory. London: Routledge.
Dutra, R., Miller, K. S., & Forehand, R. (1999). The process and content of sexual communication with adolescents in two parent families; Associations with sexual risk taking behaviors. AIDS and Behavior, 3(1),59-66.
Dworkin, A. (1987). Intercourse. London: Secker and Warburg.
341 Dworkin, J. (2005). Risk-taking as a developmentally appropriate experimentation for college students. Journal of adolescent Research, 20(2), 219-241.
Eaton, L., Flisher, A. J., & Aaro, L.E.(2003). Unsafe sexual behavior in South African youth. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 149-165.
Espin, O. (1984). Cultural and historical influences on Hispanic Hispanic/Latin women. Implications for psychotherapy. In C. Vance (ed.), Pleasure and danger: Exploring female sexuality (pp. 149-164). Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Edgars, T. (1992). A compliance-based approach to the study of condom use. In T. Edgar, M. A. Fitzpatrick & V. S. Freimuth (Ed.), AIDS: A communication perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Edgardh, K. (2002). Sexual behavior in a low income high school setting in Stockholm. International Journal of STD and AIDS, 13, 160-167.
El-Bassel, N., Gilbert, L., Elwin, W., Hyun, G., & Hill, J.(2005). HIV and intimate partner violence among methadone-maintained women in New York City. Social Science and Medicine, 61, 171-183.
Eldelmann, R. J. (1981). Embarrassment: The state of research. Current Psychological Reviews, 1, 125-138.
Elliot, H. (1997). The use of diaries in sociological research on health experience. Sociologic Research Online, 2(2). Retrieved 19 th August 2009 from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/2/7.html
Ely, M., Anzul, M., Friedman, T., Garner, D., & Steinmetz, A. C. (1991). Doing qualitative research: Circles within circles. New York, NY: Falmer.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. The critical study of language. London: Longman.
Fernandez, E. C. (2008). Sex-related euphemism and dysphemism: An analysis in terms of conceptual metaphor theory. Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo- American Studies, 30, 95-110.
Forthofer, M. S., & Bryant, C.A. (2000). Using audience-segmentation technique to tailor health behavior change strategies. American Journal of Health Behavior, 24(1), 36-43.
Furedi, F. (1997). Culture of fear: Risk taking and the morality of low expectation. London: Cassell.
342 Fox, G. I., & Inazu, J. K. (1980). Mother-daughter communication about sex. Family Relations, 29, 347-352.
Fox, N. (1999). Postmodern reflections on risks, hazards and life choices. In D. Lupton, (ed.), Risk and sociocultural theory: New directions and perspectives (pp. 12-33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fisher, W. A. (1988). The sexual opinion survey. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Sexually-related measures. Lake Mills: Graphic Publishing Co.
Fisher, W. A., Bryne, D., & White, W. A. (1983). Emotional barriers to contraception. In D. Bryne & W. A. Fisher (Eds.), Adolescents, sex and contraception (pp.207- 239). Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Fischhoff, B., Parker, A. M., De Bruin, W. B., Downs, J., Palmgren, C., Daws, R., & Manski, C. (2000). Teen expectations for significant life events. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 189-205.
Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Badzinski, D. M. (1994). All in the family: Interpersonal communication in kin relationships. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 726-771). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Flannery, D., Ellingson, L., Votaw, K. S., & Schaefer, E. A. (2003). Anal intercourse and sexual risk factors among college women 1993-2000. American Journal of Health Behavior, 27, 228-234.
Flick, U. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research (2nd Ed.). Thousand, CA: Sage.
Foucault, M. (1977). Power/knowledge. Selected interviews & other writings 1972- 1977.Tranlated by C. Gordon, L Marshall, J. Mepham, & K. Soper . New York: Patheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1990a). The history of sexuality. An introduction. Volume I. New York: Vintage Books.
Foucault, M. (1990b). The use of pleasure. The history of sexuality. An introduction. Volume 2. New York: Vintage Books.
Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish. The birth of the prison. (2nd Ed.). (Sheridan, A, Transl.). New York, NY: Random House.
Foucault, M. (1984). The ethic of care for the self as a practice of freedom. In J. Bernauer & D. Rasmussen (Eds.), The final Foucault (pp. 1-20). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
343 Freedman, L. P. (1995). Censorship and manipulation of reproductive health information. In S. Coliver (Ed.), The right to know: Human rights and access to reproductive health information (pp. 1-37). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Friedman, S.R., Flom, P. L., Kottiri, B.J., Neaigus, A., Sandoval, R., Curtis, R., Zenilman, J. M., Des Jarlais, D. C. (2001). Prevalence and correlates of anal sex with men among young women in an inner city neighborhood. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, 15, 2057-2060.
Fortenberry., J. D., McFarlane, M., Bleakley, A., Bull, S., Fishbein, M., Grimley, D. M., Malotte, C. K., & Stoner, B. P. (2002). Relationships of stigma and shame to gonorrhea and HIV screening. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 378-381.
Garvey, N. (2005). Just sex? The scaffolding of rape. London: Routledge.
Gergen, K. J., & Gergen, M. M. (2000). The new aging: Self construction and social values. Retrieved June 16, 2004, from www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/kgergen1/web/printer- friendly.phtml?id=manu16www.swarthmore.edu/SoScilgergen
Gerrard, M., Gibbons, F., Benthin, A., & Hessling, R. (1996). A longitudinal study of the reciprocal nature of risk behaviors and cognitions in adolescents: What you do shapes what you think, and vice versa. Health Psychology, 15(5), 344-354.
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giorgi, A. (1985). Phenomenology and psychological research. Pittsburgh. Duquesne University Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. S. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City: Double Day.
Goffman (1963). Stigma notes on the management of a spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Gorbach, P.M., Manhart, L. E., Hess, K. L., Stoner, B. P., Martin, D., Holmes K. K. (2009). Anal intercourse among heterosexuals in three sexually transmitted disease clinics in the United States. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 36,(4), 193- 198.
Gorden, R. L. (1969). Interviewing: strategies, techniques and tactics. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
344 Greene, K. L., & Serovich, J. M. (1996). Appropriateness of disclosure of HIV-testing information: The perspective of PLWA. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 24, 50-65.
Gross, M., Holte, S. E., Marmor, M., Mwatha, A., Koblin, B. A., & Mayer, K. H. (2000). Anal sex among HIV-seronegative women at high risk of HIV exposure. The HIVNET vaccine preparedness study 2 protocol team. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, 24,393-398.
Grosz, E. (1994). Volatile bodies. Bloomington, ID: Indiana University Press.
Guba, E.G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E.G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp.17-30). Newbury Park: Sage.
Haffner, D., & Wagoner, J. (1999). Vast majority of Americans support sexuality education. SIECUS Report, 27(6), 22-23.
Hallows, K. (2007). Anodyspareunia: a novel sexual dysfunction? An exploration into anal sexuality. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 22(4), 429-443.
Halperin, D. T. (1999). Heterosexual anal intercourse: Prevalence, cultural factors, and HIV infection and other health risks, part 1. AIDS Patient Care and STDs, 13(12), 717-730.
Hawkes, G., Houghton, J., & Rowe, G. (2009). Risk and worry in everyday life. Comparing diaries and interviews as tools in risk perception research. Health, Risk,& Society, 11(3), 209-230.
Hagenhoff, C., Lowe, A., Hovell, M.F., & Rugg, D. (1987). Prevention of the teenage pregnancy epidemic: A social learning theory approach. Education and treatment of children, 10,67-83.
Hellerstedt, W., & Radel, E. (2005). Sexual activity and the sexual health of adolescents in the United States. International Journal of Childbirth Education, 20(2), 29-32.
Henry Kaiser Foundation. (2004). Sex education in America: General public/parents survey. Washington, DC. Retrieved March 23, 2010 from http://www.kff.org/newsmedia/upload/Sex-Education-in-America-GeneralPublic- Parents-Survey-Toplines.pdf
Hertz, R. (1997). Reflexivity and voice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hilgartner, S. (1992). The social construction of risk objects: or how to pry open networks of risk. In Short, J. and Clarke, L. (Eds.), organizations, uncertainties, and risk. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
345 Hill, C.E., Thompson, B. J., Cogar, M. C., & Denman, D.W. (1993). Beneath the surface of long-term therapy: Therapist and client report of their own and each other‟s covert process. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40,278-287.
Hinshaw, S. P. (2007). The mark of shame: Stigma of mental illness and an agenda for change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hofmeyr, B. (2006). The power not to be (what we are): The politics and ethics of self- creation in Foucault. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 3(2)215-230.
Hogben, M., & Byrne, D.(1998). Using social learning theory to explain individual differences in human sexuality. The Journal of Sex Research, 35,58-71.
Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, S., Sharpe, S., & Thomson, R. (1998). The male in the head: Young people, heterosexuality and power. London: Tufnell.
Hollander, D. (2007). Heterosexual anal sex I common among STD clinic clients, but is frequently not protected by condom use. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 41, 1, 66-66.
Holly,E.A., Ralston, M.L., Darragh, T.M., Greenblat, R. M., Jay N., Palefsky, J.M. (2001).Prevalence and risk factors for squamous anal intraepithelial in women. Journal of Cancer Institute, 93,11,843-849.
Hollway, W. (1984a). Women‟s power in heterosexual sex. Women’s Studies International Forum, 7, 63-68.
Hollway, W. (1984 b). Gender difference and the production of subjectivity. In J.Henriques, W. Hollway, C, Urwin, C, Venn, & V. Walkerdine (Eds.), (pp.227- 263). Changing the subject. London. Methuen. hooks, b. (1981). Ain’t I a woman: Black women and feminism. Boston: South End.
Hutchinson, M. K., & Cooney, T. M. (1998). Patterns of parent-teen sexual risk communication: Implications for interventions. Family Relations, 47, 185-194.
Hutchinson, M. K., Jemmott, J.B., Jemmott, L.S., Braverman, P., & Fong, G.T. (2003). The role of mother-daughter sexual risk communication in reducing sexual risk behaviors among urban adolescent females: A prospective study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 33, 98-107.
Hunt, L. (1992). Foucault‟s subject in the History of sexuality. In D.C. Stanton. (Ed). Discourses of sexuality. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Husserl, E. (1962).Ideas. General introduction to pure phenomenology, book 1, translated by W. R. Gibson. New York: Collier Books.
346
Husserl, E. (1970). Logical investigations (vols. 1 & 2) (J. N. Findlay Translation.). New York: Humanities Press.
Jaffe, L., Seehaus, M., Wagner, C., & Leadbeater, B. J. (1988). Anal intercourse and knowledge of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome among minority group female adolescents. Journal of Pediatrics, 112, 1005-1007.
Jaccard, J., Dittus, P.,& Gordon, V. (1996). Maternal correlates of adolescent sexual and contraceptive behavior. Family Planning Perspectives, 28, 159-165
Jacelon, C.S., & Imperio, K. (2005).Participant diaries as a source of data in research with older adults. Qualitative Health Research, 15(7), 991-997.
Jackson, S. (1978). The social context of rape: Sexual scripts and motivation. Women’s Studies International Journal, 1, 27-38.
Jackson, S. (1999). Heterosexuality in question. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Johansen, S. (2005). Talk sex with Sue Johansen. Anal Sex. Retrieved August 12, 2009 from http://www.talksexwithsue.com/analsex.html
Johnston, L.D., O‟Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (2003). Monitoring the Future: National Results on Adolescent Drug Use: Overview of Key Findings. Focus, 1(2), 213-234.
Jones, E. E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A. H., Markus, H., Miller, D. T, & Scott, R. A.( 1984). Social stigma: The psychology of marked relationships. New York, NY: Freeman.
Jordan, T. R., Price, J. H., & Fizgerald, S.( 2000). Rural parent‟s communication with their teen-agers about sexual issues. Journal of School Health, 70,338-344.
Jourard, S. M. (1971). The transparent self. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Kahn, J. R. (1985). Sexual messages: parental influences on children‟s sexual development. In D. Goldberg (Ed.), contemporary marriage: special issues in couples therapy (pp. 261-289). Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Katz, I. (1981). Stigma: A social-psychological perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Katz, A. (2006). What‟s the agenda? Abstinence-only education programs. Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses Lifelines, 10(1), 30-33.
Kaestle, C. E., & Halpern, C. T. (2007). What‟s love got to do with it? Sexual behaviors of opposite-sex couples through emerging adulthood. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 39(3), 134-140.
347
Kelly, A. E. (1998). Clients‟ secret keeping in outpatient therapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 50-57.
Keltner, D., & Buswell, B. N. (1997). Embarrassment: Its distinct form and appeasement functions. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 250-270.
Kirby, D. (2001). Emerging answers: Research findings on programs to reduce teen pregnancy. Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.
Kirby, D. (2005). No easy answers: Research findings on programs to reduce teen pregnancy. Washington, DC. National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.
Kraner, J. C., McCoy, D. J., Evans, M.A., Evans, L. E., & Sweeney, B. J. (2001). Fatalities caused by the MDMA-related drug paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA). Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 25, 645-648.
Kreuter, M.W., Strecher, V.J., & Glassman, B. (1999). One size does not fit all: The case for tailoring print materials. Society of Behavioral Medicine 21:276-283.
Kurzman, C. (2008). Meaning-making in social movements. Anthropological Quarterly, 81(1), 5-15.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews. Learning the craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Landry, D. J., Kaeser, L., Richards, C. L. (1999). Abstinence promotion and the provision of information about contraception in public school district sexuality education policies. Family Planning Perspectives, 31(6), 280-286.
Lane, J.D., & Wegner, D. M. (1995). The cognitive consequences of secrecy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,237-253.
Landry, D. J., Kaeser, L., & Richards, C. L. (1999). Abstinence promotion and the provision of information about contraception in public school district sexuality education policies. Family Planning Perspectives, 31(6)280-286.
Lanigan, R. (1988). Phenomenology of communication. Merleau-Ponty’s thematic in communicology and semiology. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
Lear, D. (1995). Sexual communication in the age of AIDS: The construction of risk and trust among young adults. Social Science and Medicine, 41(9), 1311-1323.
348 Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (1995). Social approaches to communicate. New York: Guilford.
Lescano, C.M., Houck, C.D., Brown, L. K., Doherty, G., DiClemente, R. J., Fernandez, M. I., Pugatch, D., Scienger, W. E., & Silver, B. J. (2008). Correlates of heterosexual anal intercourse among at-risk adolescents and young adults. Journal of American Public Health, 99(6), 1131-1136.
Levitt, M. Z., Selman, R. L., & Richmond, J. B. (1991). The psychosocial foundations of early adolescents‟ high-risk behavior: Implications for research and practice. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1(4), 349-378.
Lewis, D., Watters, J., Case, P. (1990). The prevalence of high-risk sexual behavior in male intravenous drug users with steady female partners. American Journal of Public Health, 80, 465-476.
Lightfoot, C. (1997). The culture of adolescent risk taking. New York, NY: Guilford.
Lindberg,L.D., Jones, R., & Santelli, J.S.(2008). Non-coital sexual activities among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 43, 231-238
Lindlof, R. L., & Taylor, B. C.(2002). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Link, B. (1982). Mental patient status, work, and income: An examination of the effects of a psychiatric label. American Sociological Review, 47, 202-215.
Lapadat, J.C., & Lindsay, A. C. (1999). Transcription in research and practice: From standardization of technique of interpretive positioning. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(1),64-86.
Lupton, D. (1995). The imperative of health. Public health and the regulated body. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Lupton, D. (1999 a). Risk. London: Routledge.
Lupton, D. (1999 b). Risk and sociocultural theory: new directions and perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Maddock, J. W. (1997). Sexuality education: A history lesson. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 9(3-4), 1-22.
349 Maggs, J. L., Almeida, D.M., & Galambos, N.L. (1995). Risky business; The paradoxical meaning of problem behavior of young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 344-362.
Major, B., & Gramzow, R. H. (1999). Abortion as stigma and emotional implications of concealment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 735-745.
Matthews, A., Derlega, V.J., Morrow,J. (2006). What is highly personal information and how is it related to self-disclosure decision making? The perspective of college students. Communication Research Report, 23(2), 85-92.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research. (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks. SAGE.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research. (4th Ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Maynard, E., Carballo-Dieguez, Ventuneac, A., Exner, T., & Mayer, K. (2009). Women‟s experiences with anal sex: Motivations and implications for STD prevention. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 41, 142-149.
McKay, A. (1998). Sexual ideology and schooling: Towards democratic sexuality education. London. Althouse.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Melbye, M., Ingerslev, J., Biggar, R. J., Alexander, S., Sarin, P.S., Goedert, J.J., Zachariae, E., Ebbesen, P., & Stenbjer, S. (1985). Anal sexual intercourse as a possible risk factor in heterosexual transmission of HTLV-III. New England Journal of Medicine. 312, 857.
Mertens, D.M. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. Thousand Oakes: Sage.
Merten, D.M. (2003). Mixed methods and the politics of human research. The transformative-emancipatory perspective. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 135-164). Thousand Oakes: Sage.
McLone, D.G., Scotti, A. T., Mackey, D.M., & Hackney, J.F. (1968). Cephaloridine treatment of gonorrhoea in the female. British Journal of Venereal Diseases, 44,220-222.
Miles, A.J. G., Allen-Mersh, T.G., Wastell, C. (1993). Effect of anoreceptive intercourse on anorectal function. Journal of Royal Society of Medicine, 86, 144-147.
350 Miller, L. C., Bettencourt, B. A., Hoffman, v., & DeBro, S. (1993). Negotiating safer sex. An interpersonal process. In J. Pryor & G. Reeder (Ed.), The social psychology of HIV infection. Hillside, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Miller, B.C., Norton, M.C., Fan, X., & Christopherson, C. R. (1998). Pubertal development, parental communication, and sexual values in relation to adolescent sexual behaviors. Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 27-52.
Milligan, C., Bingley, A., & Gatrell, A. (2005). Digging deep: Using diary techniques to explore the place of health and well being amongst older people. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 1882-1892.
Millstein, S. G., & Halpern-Felsher, B.L. (2001). Perceptions of risk and vulnerability. In In B. Fischhoff, E. O. Nightingale J. G. Iannotta, Adolescent risk and vulnerability. Concepts and measurement (pp. 15-49). Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Misegades, L., Page-Shafer, K., Halperin, D., McFarland, W., & the YWS Study Investigators Group. (2001). Anal intercourse among young low-income women in California: An overlooked risk factor for HIV? AIDS, 15(4), 533-534.
Monahan, J. L., Miller, L. C., Rothspan, L. C. (1997). Power and intimacy: On the dynamics of risky sex. Health Communication, 9, 303-321.
Monaterio, E., Hwang, L., & Shafer, M. (2007). Adolescent sexual health. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care, 37(8), 302-325.
Morse, J. M., & Field, P. A. (1995). Qualitative research for health professionals (2nd Ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Mosher, W.D., Chandra, A.J., Jones, J.(2002). Sexual behavior and selected health measures: Men and women 15-44 years of age, United States, 2002.Advance Data, 362, 1-56.
Moustakas, C. E. (1994). Phenomenology research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Murry, V. (1994). Black adolescent females: A comparison of early versus late coital initiators. Family Relations, 43, 342-348.
Neuman, W.L.(2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Nichlols, M., Paroski, P., Sampson, G., Leibel, J., & Kennedy, M. J. (1989). Preliminary analysis of factors associated with compliance with guidelines for prevention of sexual transmission of HIV in heterosexual couples. Fifth International Conference of AIDS, Montreal. (Abstract and Poster # W. A. P. 93).
351
Nieswiadomy, R. M. (1993). Foundations of nursing research (2nd Ed). Norwalk: Appleton & Lange.
Nightingale, E.O., & Fischhoff, B. (2001). In B. Fischhoff, E. O. Nightingale, J. G. Iannotta, Adolescent risk and vulnerability. Concepts and measurement (pp. 1- 14). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Norton, R. (1990). The communication scholar in the AIDS crisis. Communication Research, 17, 733-743.
NPR, The Kaiser Family & The Harvard University, (2004). Sex education in America. Retrieved April 21 2010, from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1622610
Okoror,T. A., Burton, E. T., Saur, S., & Coleman, J. (2008). Anal sex among minority students- results from a community needs assessment. American Journal of Health Studies, 23(3), 136-142.
Ohio University (OU) Fact book. (2007). Retrieved on 27 April, 2009, from http://www.ohio.edu/instres/factbook.pdf
Oiler, C. J. (1989). The method. In P. L. Munhall & C. J. Oiler (Eds.). Nursing research: A qualitative perspective (pp.158-174). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Ompad, D.C., Strathdee, S.A., Cenlentano, D.D., Latkin, C., Poduska, J.M., Kellam, S. G., Ialongo, N. S. (2006). Predictor of early initiation of vaginal and oral sex among urban young adults in Baltimore, Maryland. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35(1), 53-65.
Osterweil, A. (2007). Ang Lee‟s Lonesome Cowboys. Film Quarterly, 60, 3, 38-42.
Painter, G. (2005, February 2). The sensibilities of our forefathers. The history of sodomy laws in the United States. Retrieved August 15 2009 from http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/introduction.htm
Padian, N., Carlson, J., Browning, R., Nelson, L., Grimes, J., & Marquis, L. (1987a). Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection among prostitutes in Nevada. Third International Conference on AIDS, Washington, DC. (Abstract # WP.53, p. 119).
Patton, Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (2nd Ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Patton, Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (3nd Ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
352
Pearce, W.B. (1976). The coordinated management of meaning: A rule based theory of interpersonal communication. In G. R. Miller (Ed.), Explorations in human communication (pp. 9-16). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Pearce, W. G., & Cronen, V. E. (1980). Communication, action, and meaning: The creation of social realities. New York: Praeger.
Peltier, J.W., Schibrowsky, J.A., Schultz, D. E., & Davis, J. (2002). Interactive graphics: Cross-selling in the bank industry. Journal of Advertising Research, 42, (2), 7-22.
Penrod,J., Preston,D.B., Cain,R.E., & Starks, M.T. (2003). A discussion of chain referral as a method of sampling hard-to-reach populations. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 14(2), 100-107.
Peppers, D., & Rodgers, M. (1993). The one to one future: Building relationships one customer at a time. New York: Doubleday.
Petronio, S. (1991). Communication boundary management: A theoretical model of managing disclosure of private information between marital couples. Communication Theory, 1, 311-335.
Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy. Dialectics of disclosure. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Petronio, S., Reeder, H, M., Hecht, M.L., & Mon‟t Ros-Mendoza, T. (1996). Disclosure of sexual abuse by children and adolescents. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 24,181-199.
Phillip, L. M. (2000). Flirting with danger: Young women‟s reflections on sexuality and domination. New York: New York University Press.
Plummer, K. (2001). Documents of life 2. An invitation to critical humanism. London: Sage.
Poland, B. D. (1995). Transcription quality as an aspect of rigor in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 3, 290-309.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1989). Phenomenological research methods. In R. S. Valle & S. Halling (Eds.). Existential phenomenology perspectives in psychology (pp. 41-60). New York: Plenum.
Potter, J., & Witherell, M. (1995). Discourse analysis. In J. A. Smith, R. Harre, & L. Van Lagenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in Psychology. London: Sage.
353 Powell, H. L., & Segrin, C. ( 2004).The effect of family and peer communication on college students‟ communication with dating partners about HIV and AIDS. Health Communication, 16(4), 427-449.
Princeton Review Party Schools. (2010). Where‟s the party. Retrieved 14 September, 2009, from http://news.lalate.com/2009/07/27/princeton-review-party-schools- 2010/
Puff, H. (2003). Sodomy in reformation Germany and Switzerland 1400-1600. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Quina, K., Harlow, L. L., Morokoff, P. J., & Burkholder, G. (2000). Sexual communication in relationships: When words speak louder than actions. Sex Roles, 42(7), 523-549.
Rapaport, K., & Burkhart, B. R. (1991). Personality and attitudinal characteristics of sexually coercive college males. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 216-221.
Read, S. J., & Miller, L. C. (1989). Inter-personalism: Toward a goal oriented theory of persons in relationships. In L. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social psychology (pp. 413-472). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Redriquez, M. (2000). Working together for a sexually healthy America. Educational Leadership, 58(2)66-69.
Regina v Jellyman. (1838). 8 C & P. 604.
Regnerus, M. D. (2005). Talking about sex: Religion and patterns of communication about sex and contraception. Sociological Quarterly, 46, 79-105.
Rey, B. J., & Meaney, G. J. (2007). The pursuit of sexual pleasure. Sexuality and Culture, 11(1), 28-51.
Reynold, G., Latimore, A., & Fisher, D. (2008). Heterosexual anal sex among female drug users: U.S. National compared to local Long Beach, California data. AIDS and Behavior, 12(5), 796-805.
Robinson, T., & Ward, J. V. (1991). A belief in self far greater than anyone‟s disbelief: Cultivating resistance among Africa American female adolescents. In C. Galligan, A. G. Rogers & D, Tolman (Eds.), Women, girls and psychotherapy: Reframing resistance (pp. 87-103). Binghamton: Harrington Part.
Rodgers, S., Chen, Q., Duffy, M., Flemming, K. (2007). Media usage a health segmentation variables. Journal of Health Communication, 12, 105-119.
354 Rogers, S. M., Willis, G., Al-Tayyib, A., Villarroel, M. A., Turner, C.F., Ganapathi, L., Zenilman, J., & Jadack, R. (2005). Audio computer assisted interviewing to measure HIV risk behaviors in a clinic population. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 81, 501-507.
Rompalo, A. (1990). Sexually transmitted causes of gastrointestinal symptoms in homosexual men. Medical Clinics of North America, 74(6), 1633-1645.
Rose, R. L., Bearden, W.O., & Manning, K. (1996). Using individual differences to segment the “market” for an attribution-based substance abuse intervention program. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 15(2), 252-262.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rury, J. L.(1987). “We teach the girl repression and the boy expression:” Sexuality, sex equity and education in historical perspectives. Peabody Journal of Education, 64, 44-58.
Russell, M. L., Moralejo, D.G., & Burgess, E.D. (2000). Paying research subjects: Participants perspectives. Journal of Medical Ethics, 26, 126-130.
Sampson, H. (2004). Navigating the waves: The usefulness of a pilot in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 4, 383-402.
Sanders, S. A., & Reinisch, J.M. (1999). Would you say you “had sex” if….? JAMA, 281, 275-277.
Santelli, J., Ott, M. A., Lyon, M., Rogers, J., Summers, D., Schlefer, R. (2006). Abstinence and abstinence and abstinence-only education: A review of U.S. policies and programs. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 72-81.
Sax, L.J., Gilmartin, S.K., & Bryand, A. N. (2003). Assessing response rates and non- response bias in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education, 44(4),409-432.
Schmader, T., & Lickel, B. (2006). Stigma and shame: emotional responses to the stereotypic actions of one‟s ethnic group. In S. Levin & C. van Laar (Eds.), Stigma and group inequality: Social Psychological Perspectives (pp. 262-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schmale, J. D., Martin, J. E., & Domescik, G. (1969). Obervations on the culture diagnosis of gonorrhea in women. Journal of American Medical Association, 210, 312-314.
355 Schmitz, B., & Wiese, B. (2006). New perspectives for the evaluation of training sessions in self-regulated learning; Time-series analyses of diary data. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 64-96.
Science Daily. (2009, April 10,). More at-risk teens and young adults engaging in anal intercourse. Retrieved August 4, 2009, from http://sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090408145354.htm
Segal, L. (1985). Sexual uncertainty or why the clitoris is not enough. In S. Cartledge & J. Ryan (Eds.), Sex & love: New thoughts on old contradictions (pp. 30-47). London. The Women‟s Press.
Semple, S. J., Patterson, T. L., & Grant, I. (2000). The sexual negotiation behavior of HIV-positive gay and bisexual men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 934–937.
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, (SIECUS). (1996). SIECUS position statements on sexuality issues, 1995-1996. New York.
Short, J. (1984). The social fabric at risk toward the social transformation of risk analysis. American Sociological Review, 49, 711-725.
Sibereisen, R.N., Noack, P., & Reitzle, M. (1987). Developmental perspectives on problem behavior and prevention in adolescence. In K. Hurrelmann, F. Kaufmann & F. Losel (Eds.), Social intervention: Potential and constraints (pp. 205-218). New York: de Gruyter.
Sibley, D. (1995). Geographies of exclusion: Society and difference in the west. London: Routledge.
Siegal, D.M., Klein, D. I., & Roghmann, K. J. (1999). Sexual behavior, contraception, and risk among college students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 25, 336-343.
Smith, B.A. ( 1999). Ethical and methodological benefits of using a reflexive journal in hermeneutic-phenomenology research. Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 31(4), 359-363.
Sonfield, A., & Gold, R. B. (2001). States implementation of section 510 abstinence education program, FY 1999. Family Planning Perspectives, 33, 166-171.
Special Investigations Unit. (2004). US house of representatives, committee on government reform the content of federally funded abstinence-only education programs. Washington, DC.
Stafford, L., & Bayer, C. L. (1993). Interaction between parents and children. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
356
St. Lawrence, J.S., Husfeldt, B.A., Kelly, J.A., Hood, H.V., & Smith, S. (1990). The stigma of AIDS: Fear of disease and prejudice toward gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 19, 85-99.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychology, 52, 613-629.
Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (1996). Maturity of judgment in adolescence: Psychosocial factors in adolescent decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 249–272.
Sullivan, A. (2003). "Unnatural Law". The New Republic 228 (11).
Surgeon General. (2001). The Surgeon General‟s call to action to promote sexual health and responsible behavior. Retrieved August 10th 2009, from http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/sexualhealth/call.pdf
Supreme Court of the United States. (2003). John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner v Texas (2003). Docket Nos 02-102. 539 U.S. 558.
Swingewood, A. (1991). A short history of sociological thought. New York: St Martin‟s Press.
Taylor, S.J., and Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: The Search for Meanings. 2nd Ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Teitelman, A. M., Ratcliffe, S. J., & Cederbaum, J. A. (2008). Parent-adolescent communication about sexual pressure, maternal norms about relationship power, and STI/HIV protective behaviors of minority urban girls. American Journal of Psychiatric Nurses Association, 14, 50-60.
Tesch, R. (1988). The contribution of a qualitative research: Phenomenological research. Unpublished manuscript, Qualitative research management. Santa Barbara: CA.
The Guttmacher Institute. (2006). US teen pregnancy statistics: National and state trends by race and ethnicity. Retrieved June 20 2010 from, http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf
The Guttmacher Institute. (2006) In brief: facts on sex education in the United States. Retrieved March 23rd 2010 from http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_sexEd2006.html
Thomson, S.C., Anderson, K., Freedman, D., & Swan, J. (1996). Illusions of safety in a risk: A study of college students‟ condom use. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 186-210.
357
Turner, C.F., Lessler, J., & Gfroerer, J. C. (1992). Future directions for research and practice. In C. F. Turner, J. Lessler, J. C. Gfroerer (Eds.), Survey measurement of drug use: methodological issues (pp. 299-306). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
UNICEF, UNAIDS & WHO (2002). Young people and HIV/AIDS: Opportunity in crisis (New York, United Nations Children‟s Fund).
Vangelisti, A. L., Caughlin, J. P., Timmerman, L. (2001). Criteria for revealing family secrets. Communication Monographs, 68, 1-17.
Varghese, B., Maher, J., Peterman, T. A., Branson & Steketee, R. W. (2002). Reducing the risk of sexual HIV transmission: Quantifying the per-act-risk for HIV on the basis of choice of partner, sex, act, and condom use. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 29(1), 38-43.
Van Kaam, A. (1966). Application of the phenomenological: Duquesne University Press.
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience. Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany. State University of New York Press.
Voeller, B. (1991). AIDS and heterosexual anal intercourse. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 20(3), 233-276.
Wallace, J. M., & Williams, D. R. (1997). Religion and adolescent health-compromising behavior. In J. Schulenberg, J. I. Maggs, & K. Hurrelmann, (Ed.), Health risks and developmental transitions during adolescence (pp. 444-468). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Walsh, C. E. (1990). Pedagogy and the struggle for voice: Issues of language power, and schooling for Puerto Ricans. New York: Bergin & Garvey.
Ward, J. V. (1996). Raising resisters: The truth of telling in the psychological development of African American girls. In B. J. Leadbeater & N. Way (Eds.), urban girls: resisting stereotypes, creating identities (pp. 85-99). New York: New York University.
Weinstock, H., Berman, S., & Cates, W. J. (2000). Sexually transmitted diseases among American youth: Incidence and prevalence estimates. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 36(1), 6-10.
Westin, A. E. (1970). Privacy and freedom. New York: Atheneum.
358 Whitaker, D. J., & Miller, K. S. (2000). Parent-adolescent discussions about sex and condoms: Impact on peer influences of sexual risk behavior. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15(2), 251-273.
Yang, L. H., Kleinman, A., Link, B. G., Phalen, J. C., Lee, S., & Good, B. (2007). Culture and stigma: Adding moral experience to stigma theory. Social Science & Medicine, 64, 1524-1535.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and method (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zimmerman, D.H., & Wieder, D. (1977). The diary interview method. Urban Life, 5(4), 479-498.
Zulu, K.P. (2004). Male to male sex and HIV/AIDS in Zambia. The survey of 15-35 year old males. ZAPHIT. Unpublished Report.
359 APPENDIX A: CONSENT FORM
360
361 APPENDIX B: E-MAIL SOLICITATION FOR RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS
Hi,
I am a doctoral candidate in the School of Communication, majoring in
Health Communication. My research is entitled, Opening Up Communication on a High
Risk Sexual Practice.
I am seeking participants aged 18 years and above to participate in an
In-depth interview and to record in a journal. Participants must be heterosexual.
Participants must be comfortable talking about high risk sexual practices. Participants who have experienced high risk sexual practices are welcome to contact me.
If you are interested and are willing to commit about an hour of interview time, please contact me. Participants can earn up to $20 in gift cards if they participate in the interview and journal. Please Contact me at: [email protected].
Thanks,
Mumba Mumba
362 APPENDIX C: IRB APPROVAL LETTER
363 APPENDIX D: RECRUITMENT FLIER
364 APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW GUIDE
Interview Protocol
Conversation Starter
I know it‟s not easy to speak to a stranger about sexuality, but I appreciate your time and trust to come and speak with me at such a busy time in the quarter.
Understanding Context
1. Who do you talk to about sexual matters? Probe: why do you choose to talk to------
- about these sexual matters?
2. Since coming to college what sexual information have you learned that was different
from high school?
3. How did you learn about this sexual information? Probe what other sources of sexual
information are available to you?
Socio-Cultural Influences
4. What socio-cultural beliefs influence your sexual choices? Probes: Where do your
beliefs come from?
Exploring Occurrence and Communication of Anal Sex
5. What sexual practices do you think are common among college students? (wording
change)
6. Where did you first hear about anal sex?
7. Tell me what you heard about anal sex?
8. Who do you think engages in anal sex?
9. Do you think college students engage in anal sex? Probe: If not why do you say so? If
yes why do you say so?
365 10. What type of college students engage in anal sex?
Meanings of Anal Sex
11. What does anal sex mean to you? PROBE: What does anal sex mean for women
PROBE: What does anal sex mean for men?
12. Are you aware of any other names for anal sex that college students use?
13. Tell me how you learned about these names? Probe: what do these names mean?
Probe : Do the names have negative or positive meanings for men and women?
14. Have you had anal sex before? Probe: If yes when did you first engage in anal sex?
Probe: Who did you engage in anal sex with?
15. With whom did you engage in anal sex? Probe: What made (or makes) you engage
in anal sex? Or not engage in anal sex?
16. How often have you engaged in anal sex?
Privacy and Disclosure Management
17. Have you ever talked about anal sex with your friends (boyfriends/girlfriends)?
Probe: Who initiated the conversation on anal sex? Probe: What did you talk about
related to anal sex with your friends?
18. What was going on when you and your friends were talking about anal sex?
19. What did you think about the friends or people who were talking about anal sex?
20. (IF THEY HAVE ENGAGED) How did you talk about anal sex with your partner?
(Disclosure) Probe: In your relationship who first asked about anal sex?
21. What was your reaction to your partner asking you about anal sex? Or how did your
partner react by you asking her/him about anal sex?
366 22. Tell me why you decided to talk to your partner about anal sex? Or tell me why you
decided not to talk to your sexual partner about anal sex. Probe: At what point in the
relationship did you talk about anal sex?
23. What were the circumstances that made you engage in anal sex? Probe: Tell me about
your experience?
24. Did you tell anyone about the anal sex encounter besides your sex partner? Probe:
How did the person you told respond?
Sexual Risk
If answered yes to 14 PROCEED. IF NOT GO TO QUESTION 25-39.
25. (ALSO ASKE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE NOT ENGAGED) What type of
protection do people who engage in anal sex use? Probe: How did you learn about
this protection?
26. What kind of protection did you use during anal sex?
27. What were the circumstances under which anal sex occur?
28. Were you sober?
29. Were you coerced?
30. Did you have any conversation about anal sex before you engaged in anal sex with
your partner?
31. Did you have anal health problems arising from engaging in anal sex? Probe: What
were these health problems?
32. Did you talk to your health care provider about any of the (mention problem
participant mentions) health problems that arose from engaging in anal sex?
33. What was your health provider‟s response?
367 34. What did you think about your health provider‟s reaction?
35. Are you going to engage in anal sex again? Probe: If yes why? if not why not?
ASK STUDENTS THAT HAVE NOT ENGAGED IN ANAL SEX
36. Tell me about the risks associated with anal sex?
37. How can these risks be minimized in women and in men?
38. Based on what you have heard, are there any benefits of anal sex? Probe: can you
name some of these benefits?
39. What can women and men do to maximize these benefits? (wording and clarity
added)
Demographic Information
Age: Sex:
Major: Sexual Orientation:
Race:
Undergraduate Level: Freshman/Sophomore/Junior/Senior (Circle what applies).
Do you have any religious affiliations? Probe: What are they?
How would you describe your religious affiliations?
a) very religious b) somewhat religious c) not religious
Do you have any political affiliations? Probe: What are they?
368 APPENDIX F: JOURNAL QUESTIONS
These questions will help the researcher to understand the sexual context that surrounds your environment.
Question 1. I would like you write down any times you have encountered anal sex in your environment. These sources can be from your personal experience, from music, from videos/Music, from a street, or any other sources I have not named here. Please write down (be specific) about where you saw these depictions of anal sex then explain why you thought they were depictions of anal sex. Please record any observations or personal experiences for seven days from the time of the interview in the journal I have given you.
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Day 6
Day 7
369 Question 2. Could you also reflect on how your background (e.g. family values, religious values, social affiliations or popular culture) influences your sexual practices and how you talk about anal sex? Please be specific and write as much as you can.
370 Instructions for Dropping off Journal. Once you are done, please drop the journal in the envelop provided within a week from the interview. Please do not put your name on the envelop. Drop the journal in Lasher 022 in my mail box. Then e-mail me that you have dropped the journal and I will make arrangements to give you the remaining $10 gift card.
371
APPENDIX G: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILES
Table 1
Demographic Profiles Pseudonyms Method of Anal Sex Age Ethnicity Gender Religious Political Major Year in Solicitation or Not Affiliations Affiliation College 1 Aggie Mass E-mail No 23 White F None None Communication Graduate Student 2 Peggy Mass E-mail Yes 19 White F None Practicing None Dance Sophomore Catholic 3 Tori Class No 20 White F Very Religious Republican Communication Junior solicitation 4 Katrina Class No 19 Black F Somewhat Democratic Communication Sophomore solicitation Religious 5 Drew Mass E-mail No 20 Asian M None None MIS Senior 6 Lorie Mass E-mail Yes 21 White F None Democratic Journalism Senior 7 Sally Mass E-mail Yes 20 Black F Very Religious Democratic Political Science Junior 8 Barb Flier Yes 20 Black F Somewhat Democratic Journalism/Psychology Junior Religious 9 Bessie Flier No 20 White F None Liberal Creative Writing Junior 10 Tami Class No 21 White F None Liberal- Journalism Senior solicitation Progressive 11 Dallia Class No 20 White F None None Sociology/Criminology Junior solicitation 12 Kaitlin Snowball No 21 White F Somewhat None Marketing/PR Senior Religious Catholic 13 Judith Classroom No 20 White F None Democratic Business Junior solicitation Law/Marketing 14 Micah Flier No 23 White F None None Communication Graduate 15 Victor Flier No 24 White M None Somewhat Sociology Graduate Conservative
16 Aileen Flier Yes 21 White F Somewhat None Geology Senior Religious (ND) 17 Addison Flier No 19 White F Jewish Liberal Sociology Junior 18 Shania Flier No 18 Black F Somewhat Green Party Visual Communication Freshman religious (ND) 19 Nia Mass E-mail Yes 24 White F Somewhat None Counseling Graduate Religious (Protestant) 20 Grace Flier Yes 21 White F Not very Independent Journalism Junior Religious (Catholic) 21 Eden Snowball Yes 21 White F Somewhat Liberal Journalism Junior Religious 22 Ella Snowball Yes 18 White F Somewhat Democrat Political Science Freshman Religious (Episcopalian) 23 Gabby Mass E-mail Yes 20 White F None None Political Science Junior 24 Phoebe Snowball Yes 20 White F None Democrat Communication Junior 25 Amber Mass E-mail Yes 22 White F None None Physical Therapy Graduate 26 Lacey Flier Yes 20 White F None Liberal Sociology Junior 27 Hadley Mass E-mail Yes 22 White F None None Commercial Senior Photography 28 Leah Mass E-mail Yes 21 White F Somewhat Moderate Speech & Hearing Senior Religious (Lutheran) 29 Sasha Mass Email Yes 18 White F None None Psychology Freshman 30 Lianna Snowball Yes 21 White F None Liberal undecided Junior TOTAL 17 30 Engaged 13 Did Not
373