You Couldn't Say “No”, Could You?’

Young Men's Understandings of Sexual Refusal

Bibliographic Data

ID12260554
AuthorsRachael O’Byrne (Murdoch University, corresponding author), Rachael O'Byrne (Murdoch University), Mark Rapley (Edith Cowan University, corresponding author), Susan Hansen (0000-0002-5530-7056, Murdoch University, corresponding author)
Year2006
Volume16
Issue2
Pages133-154
Publication date2006-04-20
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueFeminism & Psychology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0959-3535 • E-ISSN: 1461-7161
PublisherSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/0959-353506062970
OpenAlexW2124600760
LanguageEN
Citations received72
References cited42

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

Developmental psychology · Epistemology · Frith · Linguistics · Normative · Gender, Feminism, and Media · Psychology · Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies · Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology · Social Psychology