1932

Abstract

The generalized social concern with sexual harassment and nonconsensual sex makes it imperative to incorporate notions of consent in any analysis of human sexual interactions. Such interactions follow an ordered sequence of events, starting with the perception of a sexual incentive, followed by an approach to it, genital interaction, and eventually orgasm. Consent from the partner is needed at every stage. At some points in this chain of events, the individuals involved make cognitive evaluations of the context and predictions of the likelihood for obtaining consent for proceeding to the next phase. Processes such as communication of consent or lack thereof, sexual decision making, and interpretation of cues emitted by the partner are decisive. Increased sexual motivation may influence these processes. However, available data make it possible to ascertain that enhanced motivation has no, or at most minor, effects, thereby invalidating the old assumption that heightened sexual motivation leads to impaired control.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-011823-124756
2024-01-18
2024-07-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/psych/75/1/annurev-psych-011823-124756.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-011823-124756&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Ågmo A. 2003. Unconditioned sexual incentive motivation in the male Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus). J. Comp. Psychol. 117:3–14
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ågmo A, Laan E. 2022. Sexual incentive motivation, sexual behavior, and general arousal: Do rats and humans tell the same story?. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 135:104595
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ågmo A, Laan E. 2023. The sexual incentive motivation model and its clinical applications. J. Sex Res. 60:969–88
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Allen M, Emmers-Sommer TM, D'Alessio D, Timmerman L, Hanzal A, Korus J 2007. The connection between the physiological and psychological reactions to sexually explicit materials: a literature summary using meta-analysis. Commun. Monogr. 74:541–60
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Amezcua-Gutiérrez C, Ruiz-Díaz M, Hernández-González M, Guevara MA, Ågmo A, Sanz-Martin A. 2017. Effect of sexual arousal on cortical coupling during performance of the Tower of Hanoi task in young men. J. Sex Res. 54:398–408
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Anderson MJ. 2003. Marital immunity, intimate relationships, and improper inferences: a new law on sexual offenses by intimates. Hastings Law J 54:1465–574
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Ariely D, Loewenstein G. 2006. The heat of the moment: the effect of sexual arousal on sexual decision making. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 19:87–98
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Au RKC, Tang VKY. 2019. The effect of sexual arousal and emotional arousal on working memory. Cogent Psychol. 6:1645260
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Augustine RI. 1990. Marriage: the safe haven for rapists. J. Fam. Law 29:559–90
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bancroft J, Graham CA, Janssen E, Sanders SA. 2009. The dual control model: current status and future directions. J. Sex Res. 46:121–42
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Basson R. 2001. Human sex-response cycles. J. Sex Marital Ther. 27:33–43
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Benbouriche M, Testé B, Guay J-P, Lavoie M. 2019. The role of rape-supportive attitudes, alcohol, and sexual arousal in sexual (mis)perception: an experimental study. J. Sex Res. 56:766–77
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Berdychevsky L, Carr N. 2020. Innovation and impact of sex as leisure in research and practice: introduction to the special issue. Leis. Sci. 42:255–74
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Beres M. 2010. Sexual miscommunication? Untangling assumptions about sexual communication between casual sex partners. Cult. Health Sex. 12:1–14
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bindra D. 1978. How adaptive behavior is produced: a perceptual-motivational alternative to response reinforcement. Behav. Brain Sci. 1:41–52
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Branfman J, Stiritz SE. 2012. Teaching men's anal pleasure: challenging gender norms with “prostage” education. Am. J. Sex. Educ. 7:404–28
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Brown P. 1983. Augustine and sexuality. The Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, Colloquy 461–13. Berkeley: Cent. Hermeneut. Stud. Hell. Mod. Cult., Univ. Calif.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Brown P. 1988. The Body and Society. Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity New York: Columbia Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Bullock CM, Beckson M. 2011. Male victims of sexual assault: phenomenology, psychology, physiology. J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law 39:197–205
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Chadwick SB, Grower P, van Anders SM. 2022. Coercive sexual experiences that include orgasm predict negative psychological, relationship, and sexual outcomes. J. Interpers. Violence 37:NP22199–225
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Coleman E, Corona-Vargas E, Ford JV. 2021. Advancing sexual pleasure as a fundamental human right and essential for sexual health, overall health and well-being: an introduction to the special issue on sexual pleasure. Int. J. Sex. Health 33:473–77
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Cortina LM, Areguin MA. 2021. Putting people down and pushing them out: sexual harassment in the workplace. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 8:285–309
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Coveney L, Jackson M, Jeffreys S, Kay L, Mahony P. 1984. The Sexuality Papers: Male Sexuality and the Social Control of Women London, UK: Routledge., 1st ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  24. de Jonge FH, Oldenburger WP, Louwerse AL, van de Poll NE. 1992. Changes in male copulatory behavior after sexual exciting stimuli: effects of medial amygdala lesions. Physiol. Behav. 52:327–32
    [Google Scholar]
  25. deFur KM. 2012. Getting to the good stuff: adopting a pleasure framework for sexuality education. Am. J. Sex. Educ. 7:146–59
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Dobson K, Kim J, Impett EA. 2022. Perceptual accuracy for sexual rejection in romantic relationships. Arch. Sex. Behav. 51:491–503
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Doring N, Daneback K, Shaughnessy K, Grov C, Byers ES. 2017. Online sexual activity experiences among college students: a four-country comparison. Arch. Sex. Behav. 46:1641–52
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Ebel-Lam AP, MacDonald TK, Zanna MP, Fong GT. 2009. An experimental investigation of the interactive effects of alcohol and sexual arousal on intentions to have unprotected sex. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 31:226–33
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Elsaadawy N, Impett EA, Raposo S, Muise A. 2022. Accuracy in perceptions of a partner's sexual goals. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 39:1277–93
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Emmers-Sommer TM. 2016. Do men and women differ in their perceptions of women's and men's saying “no” when they mean “yes” to sex?: An examination between and within gender. Sex. Cult. 20:373–85
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Everaerd W, Laan E, Both S, Spiering M 2001. Sexual motivation and desire. Sexual Appetite, Desire and Motivation: Energetics of the Sexual System W Everaerd, E Laan, S Both 95–110. Amsterdam: K. Ned. Akad. Wet.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Farley L. 1978. Sexual Shakedown: The Sexual Harassment of Women on the Job New York: McGraw-Hill
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Fava NM, Fortenberry JD. 2021. Trauma-informed sex positive approaches to sexual pleasure. Int. J. Sex. Health 33:537–49
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Fenner L. 2017. Sexual consent as a scientific subject: a literature review. Am. J. Sex. Educ. 12:451–71
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Flecha R, Tomás G, Vidu A. 2020. Contributions from psychology to effectively use, and achieving sexual consent. Front. Psychol. 11:92
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Flynn KE, Lin L, Bruner DW, Cyranowski JM, Hahn EA et al. 2016. Sexual satisfaction and the importance of sexual health to quality of life throughout the life course of U.S. adults. J. Sex. Med. 13:1642–50
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Fowler LR, Schoen L, Smith HS, Morain SR. 2022. Sex education on TikTok: a content analysis of themes. Health Promot. Pract. 23:739–42
    [Google Scholar]
  38. George WH, Davis KC, Norris J, Heiman JR, Stoner SA et al. 2009. Indirect effects of acute alcohol intoxication on sexual risk-taking: the roles of subjective and physiological sexual arousal. Arch. Sex. Behav. 38:498–513
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Gianotten WL, Alley JC, Diamond LM. 2021. The health benefits of sexual expression. Int. J. Sex. Health 33:478–93
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Grace KT, Anderson JC. 2018. Reproductive coercion: a systematic review. Trauma Violence Abus. 19:371–90
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Green TK 2022. Feminism and #metoo: the power of the collective. The Oxford Handbook of Feminism and Law in the United States D Brake, M Chamallas, V Williams 259–75. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Hall DS. 1998. Consent for sexual behavior in a college student population. Electron. J. Hum. Sex. 1:1–16
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Hård E, Larsson K. 1969. Effects of precoital exposure of male rats to copulating animals upon subsequent mating performances. Anim. Behav. 17:540–41
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Harris KL. 2018. Yes means yes and no means no, but both these mantras need to go: communication myths in consent education and anti-rape activism. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 46:155–78
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Haselton MG. 2003. The sexual overperception bias: evidence of a systematic bias in men from a survey of naturally occurring events. J. Res. Pers. 37:34–47
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Hawkins CA, Everitt BJ, Herbert J. 1988. The influence of steroid hormones on competing sexual and ingestive behavior in the male rat. Physiol. Behav. 44:291–300
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Hickman SE, Muehlenhard CL. 1999. “By the semi-mystical appearance of a condom”: how young women and men communicate sexual consent in heterosexual situations. J. Sex Res. 36:258–72
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Hills PJ, Seib E, Pleva M, Smythe J, Gosling M-R, Cole T 2020. Consent, wantedness, and pleasure: three dimensions affecting the perceived stress of and judgements of rape in sexual encounters. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 26:171–97
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Huberman JS, Mangardich H, Sabbagh MA, Chivers ML. 2023. ERP responses to sexual cues among young women attracted to men. Psychophysiology 60:e14162
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Humphreys TP 2004. Understanding sexual consent: an empirical investigation of the normative script for young heterosexual adults. Making Sense of Sexual Consent M Cowling, P Reynolds 209–25. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate
    [Google Scholar]
  51. IBISWorld 2022. Adult & pornographic websites in the US—market size 2005–2028. IBISWorld https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-statistics/market-size/adult-pornographic-websites-united-states
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Impett EA, Muise A, Rosen NO. 2020. Sex as relationship maintenance. Relationship Maintenance: Theory, Process, and Context BG Ogolsky, JK Monk 215–39. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Impett EA, Peplau LA. 2003. Sexual compliance: gender, motivational, and relationship perspectives. J. Sex Res. 40:87–100
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Javidi H, Widman L, Evans-Paulson R, Lipsey N. 2022. Internal consent, affirmative external consent, and sexual satisfaction among young adults. J. Sex Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2022.2048628. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Johnson JA, Ezzell MB, Bridges AJ, Sun CF. 2019. Pornography and heterosexual women's intimate experiences with a partner. J. Womens Health 28:1254–65
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Jozkowski KN. 2013. The influence of consent on college students’ perceptions of the quality of sexual intercourse at last event. Int. J. Sex. Health 25:260–72
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Jozkowski KN, Sanders S, Peterson ZD, Dennis B, Reece M. 2014. Consenting to sexual activity: the development and psychometric assessment of dual measures of consent. Arch. Sex. Behav. 43:437–50
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Kaplan JM, Bednar I, Södersten P. 1992. Simultaneous display of sexual and ingestive behaviour by rats. J. Neuroendocrinol. 4:381–92
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Katz J, Tirone V. 2010. Going along with it: Sexually coercive partner behavior predicts dating women's compliance with unwanted sex. Violence Against Women 16:730–42
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Kim JJ, Horne RM, Muise A, Impett EA. 2019. Development and validation of the responses to sexual rejection scale. Pers. Individ. Differ. 144:88–93
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Laan E, Everaerd W. 1995. Determinants of female sexual arousal: psychophysiological theory and data. Annu. Rev. Sex Res. 6:32–76
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Laan ETM, Klein V, Werner MA, van Lunsen RHW, Janssen E. 2021. In pursuit of pleasure: a biopsychosocial perspective on sexual pleasure and gender. Int. J. Sex. Health 33:516–36
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Laier C, Schulte FP, Brand M. 2013. Pornographic picture processing interferes with working memory performance. J. Sex Res. 50:642–52
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Lee J, Gillath O. 2022. Increased urination urgency exacerbates sexual risk-taking through heightened sexual arousal. Arch. Sex. Behav. 51:2955–67
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Levin RJ, van Berlo W. 2004. Sexual arousal and orgasm in subjects who experience forced or non-consensual sexual stimulation—a review. J. Clin. Forensic Med. 11:82–88
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Livingston TN, Rerick PO, Davis D. 2022. Relationships between sexual arousal, relationship status, and men's ratings of women's sexual willingness: implications for research and practice. Violence Gend 9:127–34
    [Google Scholar]
  67. MacKinnon CA. 1982. Feminism, Marxism, method, and the state: an agenda for theory. Signs 7:515–44
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Makepeace J. 1989. Dating, living together, and courtship violence. Violence in Dating Relationships: Emerging Social Issues MA Pirog-Good, JE Stets 94–107. New York: Praeger
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Maruna S, Mann RE. 2006. A fundamental attribution error? Rethinking cognitive distortions. Legal Criminol. Psychol. 11:155–77
    [Google Scholar]
  70. McCaul KD, Veltum LG, Boyechko V, Crawford JJ. 1990. Understanding attributions of victim blame for rape: sex, violence, and foreseeability. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 20:1–26
    [Google Scholar]
  71. McCaw JM, Senn CY. 1998. Perception of cues in conflictual dating situations: a test of the miscommunication hypothesis. Violence Against Women 4:609–24
    [Google Scholar]
  72. McNabney SM, Hevesi K, Rowland DL. 2020. Effects of pornography use and demographic parameters on sexual response during masturbation and partnered sex in women. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17:3130
    [Google Scholar]
  73. McNamara RP. 1995. Dramaturgy and the social organization of peep shows. Sex, Scams and Street Life: The Sociology of New York City's Times Square RP McNamara 57–66. Westport, CT: Praeger
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Mitchell KR, Lewis R, O'Sullivan LF, Fortenberry JD. 2021. What is sexual wellbeing and why does it matter for public health?. Lancet Public Health 6:e608–13
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Muehlenhard CL. 2011. Examining stereotypes about token resistance to sex. Psychol. Women Q. 35:676–83
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Muehlenhard CL, Hollabaugh LC. 1988. Do women sometimes say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women's token resistance to sex. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54:872–79
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Muehlenhard CL, Humphreys TP, Jozkowski KN, Peterson ZD. 2016. The complexities of sexual consent among college students: a conceptual and empirical review. J. Sex Res. 53:457–87
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Muise A, Impett EA, Kogan A, Desmarais S. 2013. Keeping the spark alive: being motivated to meet a partner's sexual needs sustains sexual desire in long-term romantic relationships. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 4:267–73
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Muise A, Stanton SCE, Kim JJ, Impett EA. 2016. Not in the mood ? Men under- (not over-) perceive their partner's sexual desire in established intimate relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 110:725–42
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Müller A, Schaber P, eds. 2018. The Routledge Handbook of the Ethics of Consent London, UK: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Ortiz R. 2019. Explicit, voluntary, and conscious: assessment of the importance of adopting an affirmative consent definition for sexual assault prevention programming on college campuses. J. Health Commun. 24:728–35
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Osman SL, Davis CM. 1999. Belief in token resistance and type of resistance as predictors of men's perceptions of date rape. J. Sex Educ. Ther. 24:189–96
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Perelman MA. 2009. The sexual tipping point®: a mind/body model for sexual medicine. J. Sex. Med. 6:629–32
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Perilloux C, Kurzban R. 2015. Do men overperceive women's sexual interest?. Psychol. Sci. 26:70–77
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Pike GK. 2023. Coerced abortion—the neglected face of reproductive coercion. New Bioeth. 29:85–107
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Raub A, Khachadourian V, Wong E, Sprague A, Pournik M, Heymann J. 2021. Ending sexual harassment at work: creating a baseline on laws in 193 countries. Hum. Rights Q. 43:378–93
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Rerick PO, Livingston TN. 2022. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so is intent: men's interpretations of the sexual intent of attractive versus unattractive women. Violence Gend. 9:193–200
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Rerick PO, Livingston TN, Davis D. 2020. Does the horny man think women want him too? Effects of male sexual arousal on perceptions of female sexual willingness. J. Soc. Psychol. 160:520–33
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Rerick PO, Livingston TN, Davis D. 2022. Let's just do it: sexual arousal's effects on attitudes regarding sexual consent. J. Soc. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2022.2106174. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Richards MJ, Bogart A, Sheeder J. 2022. Communication and interpretation of sexual consent and refusal in adolescents and young adults. J. Adolesc. Health 70:915–21
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Ruíz-Díaz M, Hernández-González M, Guevara MA, Amezcua C, Ågmo A. 2012. Prefrontal EEG correlation during Tower of Hanoi and WCST performance: effect of emotional visual stimuli. J. Sex. Med. 9:2631–40
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Saito TR, Moritani N, Hashimoto H, Arkin A, Takahashi KW. 1999. Simultaneous observation of ingestive and copulatory behavior of the male rat. Exp. Anim. 48:285–88
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Sanchez-Fuentes MD, Santos-Iglesias P, Sierra JC. 2014. A systematic review of sexual satisfaction. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 14:67–75
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Satinsky S, Jozkowski KN. 2015. Female sexual subjectivity and verbal consent to receiving oral sex. J. Sex Marital Ther. 41:413–26
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Savio J. 2022. Love on the brain: the impact of sexual arousal on sexual decision-making MS Thesis Te Herenga Waka—Vic. Univ. Wellingt.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Schmitt E. 1983. Le mariage chrétien dans l'oeuvre de saint Augustin: une théologie baptismale de la vie conjugale Paris: Étud. Augustin.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Shafer A, Ortiz RR, Thompson B, Huemmer J. 2018. The role of hypermasculinity, token resistance, rape myth, and assertive sexual consent communication among college men. J. Adolesc. Health 62:S44–50
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Shuper PA, Fisher WA. 2008. The role of sexual arousal and sexual partner characteristics in HIV+ MSM's intentions to engage in unprotected sexual intercourse. Health Psychol. 27:445–54
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Siegel RB. 2003. Introduction: a short history of sexual harassment. Directions in Sexual Harassment Law CA MacKinnon, RB Siegel 1–39. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Skakoon-Sparling S, Cramer KM, Shuper PA. 2016. The impact of sexual arousal on sexual risk-taking and decision-making in men and women. Arch. Sex. Behav. 45:33–42
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Sprecher S, Hatfield E, Cortese A, Potapova E, Levitskaya A 1994. Token resistance to sexual intercourse and consent to unwanted sexual intercourse: college students’ dating experiences in three countries. J. Sex Res. 31:125–32
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Stephenson KR, Pickworth C, Jones PS. 2021. Gender differences in the association between sexual satisfaction and quality of life. Sex. Relatsh. Ther. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2021.2004309
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Suchy Y, Holmes LG, Strassberg DS, Gillespie AA, Nilssen AR et al. 2019. The impacts of sexual arousal and its suppression on executive functioning. J. Sex Res. 56:114–26
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Suschinsky KD, Lalumière ML. 2011. Prepared for anything? An investigation of female genital arousal in response to rape cues. Psychol. Sci. 22:159–65
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Toates F. 2009. An integrative theoretical framework for understanding sexual motivation, arousal, and behavior. J. Sex Res. 46:168–93
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Toates F. 2022. A motivation model of sex addiction—relevance to the controversy over the concept. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 142:104872
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Walker SJ. 1997. When “no” becomes “yes”: why girls and women consent to unwanted sex. Appl. Prev. Psychol. 6:157–66
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Walters KJ, Webb MK, Simons JS. 2022. The implicit sexual risk assessment: a pilot study of a novel behavioral task. Arch. Sex. Behav. 51:2921–29
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Webb M. 2013. “On Lucretia who slew herself”: rape and consolation in Augustine's De ciuitate dei. Augustin. Stud. 44:37–58
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Widman L, Maheux AJ, Craig E, Evans-Paulson R, Choukas-Bradley S. 2022. Sexual communication between adolescent partners: a scoping review and directions for future research. J. Sex Res. 59:984–99
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Willis M, Canan SN, Jozkowski KN, Bridges AJ. 2020. Sexual consent communication in best-selling pornography films: a content analysis. J. Sex Res. 57:52–63
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Willis M, Hunt M, Wodika A, Rhodes DL, Goodman J, Jozkowski KN. 2019. Explicit verbal sexual consent communication: effects of gender, relationship status, and type of sexual behavior. Int. J. Sex. Health 31:60–70
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Willis M, Jozkowski KN. 2019. Sexual precedent's effect on sexual consent communication. Arch. Sex. Behav. 48:1723–34
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Willis M, Murray KN, Jozkowski KN. 2021. Sexual consent in committed relationships: a dyadic study. J. Sex Marital Ther. 47:669–86
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Willis M, Smith R. 2022. Sexual consent across diverse behaviors and contexts: gender differences and nonconsensual sexual experiences. J. Interpers. Violence 37:NP18908–34
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Woerner J, Abbey A, Helmers BR, Pegram SE, Jilani Z. 2018. Predicting men's immediate reactions to a simulated date's sexual rejection: the effects of hostile masculinity, impersonal sex, and hostile perceptions of the woman. Psychol. Violence 8:349–57
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Wood EF, Rikkonen KJ, Davis D. 2019. Definition, communication, and interpretation of sexual consent. Handbook of Sexual Assault and Sexual Assault Prevention WT Odonohue, PA Schewe 399–421. Cham, Switz.: Springer Nature
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Wright MO, Norton DL, Matusek JA. 2010. Predicting verbal coercion following sexual refusal during a hookup: diverging gender patterns. Sex Roles 62:647–60
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Ziogas A, Habermeyer E, Santtila P, Poeppl TB, Mokros A. 2023. Neuroelectric correlates of human sexuality: a review and meta-analysis. Arch. Sex. Behav. 52:497–596
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-011823-124756
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-011823-124756
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error