‘Risk’ and sexual coercion among gay and bisexual men in Aotearoa/New Zealand–key informant accounts

Abstract

Research over the past decade on rape and sexual coercion among gay and bisexual men has shown that significant numbers of men report some form of unwanted or coerced sexual experience. Most studies have investigated the prevalence and impact of sexual assault, with little exploration of the nature and meanings of sexual coercion. This paper contributes to understandings of the latter, analysing the notion of ‘risk’ as it appeared in the talk of 23 key informants interviewed. These informants offered expert perspectives on the issue of sexual coercion and unwanted sex among gay and bisexual men, based on their professional and community experience. Thematic analysis led us to identify two predominant patterns of talk around risk: a focus on sociocultural contexts as risky for sexual coercion and a focus on certain types of individuals as vulnerable and ‘at risk’ of sexual coercion. Accounts of individual risk fit with currently dominant prevention models, which work to strengthen individuals' abilities to avoid or resist coercion. The accounts that emphasised context fit with recent theorising which suggests broader interventions are also necessary to prevent sexual coercion, ones that challenge normative constructions of sexuality and sexual practice.

Résumé

Au cours des dix dernières années, la recherche sur le viol et la coercition sexuelle chez les hommes gays et bisexuels a montré que le nombre d'hommes qui déclarent avoir subi une quelconque forme d'expérience sexuelle non désirée ou forcée est significatif. La plupart des études ont exploré la prévalence et l'impact des agressions sexuelles, sans trop porter d'intérêt à la nature et aux significations de la coercition sexuelle. Cet article contribue à la compréhension de cette dernière, en analysant la notion de «risque» telle qu'émergeant des entretiens menés avec 23 informateurs clé. Ces informateurs ont apporté des points de vue d'experts sur la question de la coercition sexuelle et des rapports sexuels non désirés chez les hommes gays et bisexuels, basés sur leur expérience communautaire et professionnelle. Une analyse thématique nous a conduits à identifier deux modèles prédominants de discours sur le risque: une focalisation sur les contextes socioculturels risqués, relativement à la coercition sexuelle; et une focalisation sur certains types d'individus vulnérables et «à risque» de coercition sexuelle. Les récits sur les risques individuels s'accordent avec les modèles de prévention dominants actuels, qui s'emploient à renforcer la capacité des individus à éviter la coercition sexuelle ou à lui résister. Les récits qui mettent l'accent sur l'importance des contextes s'accordent avec la récente théorie selon laquelle des interventions plus larges sont également nécessaires pour prévenir la coercition sexuelle, notamment en remettant en question les constructions normatives de la sexualité et de la pratique sexuelle.

Resumen

Los estudios en los últimos diez años sobre violaciones y coerción sexual entre homosexuales y hombres bisexuales muestran que un gran número de hombres informan sobre algún tipo de experiencia sexual no deseada y relaciones sexuales bajo coerción. En la mayoría de estudios se han investigado la prevalencia y las repercusiones de las agresiones sexuales pero poco se ha analizado sobre la naturaleza y los significados de la coerción sexual. Con este artículo intentamos entender esto último analizando la noción de “riesgo” en función de las respuestas recibidas en las entrevistas a 23 informantes clave. Estos informantes ofrecieron perspectivas expertas sobre la coerción sexual y el sexo no consensuado entre hombres homosexuales y bisexuales, basándose en su experiencia profesional y con la comunidad. El análisis temático nos lleva a identificar dos modelos predominantes de lenguaje en torno al riesgo: un enfoque en los contextos socioculturales como arriesgados para la coerción sexual y otro en ciertos tipos de individuos como personas vulnerables y con riesgo de sufrir coerción sexual. Los relatos sobre el riesgo individual encajan con los modelos dominantes de prevención que sirven para reforzar las habilidades de las personas para evitar o resistirse a la coerción. Los relatos que pusieron de relieve este contexto encajan con las teorías recientes que sugieren que también son necesarias intervenciones más generales para prevenir la coerción sexual y que desafíen las construcciones normativas de la sexualidad y las prácticas sexuales.

Keywords:

• gay men
• bisexual men
• sexual coercion
• socio‐sexual context
• sexual ethics

Acknowledgements

Thanks to participants for generously sharing their time and views with us. We appreciate helpful discussions within the wider research team: Johanna Schmidt, Maia Eremin, Jade Le Grice, Krasimira Kirova and Maree Burns who drafted the method section. We are grateful to Jeff Adams for invaluable feedback on a previous draft. We would also like to thank Clive Aspin, who led a Kaupapa Māori study as part of the wider project, Peter Saxton, David Semp and members of the Gender and Critical Psychology Group at the University of Auckland for helpful discussions and feedback during the course of this research. The research was supported in part through a Bright Future Top Achiever Doctoral Scholarship awarded to John Fenaughty by the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology; a Health Research Council of New Zealand/Te Kaunihera Rangahau Hauora o Aotearoa Strategic Development Grant, and a Lottery Health Research Grant, both awarded to John Fenaughty, Virginia Braun and Nicola Gavey.

Notes

1. The account of the ‘gay community’ is a somewhat stereotyped portrayal of a homogenised gay community that does not reflect the diverse, complex and nuanced communities and contexts in which gay and bisexual men live or men's diverse and variable engagements with these communities (Dowsett et al. 2005).

2. The commercial gay scenes within cities in Aotearoa/New Zealand are likely to bear many similarities to those in other westernised countries (Flowers et al. 2000a, Hurley, 2005) although anonymity may be diminished given our relatively small population(s). Although other places of gay community exist (e.g. churches, sports groups), these are significantly more limited in scope and availability than the commercial scene and there is substantial overlap in the populations of men who engage with these different aspects of community. That is to say, a participant in a non‐commercial scene is unlikely to entirely avoid the commercial gay scene in a city like Auckland (for example, recreational groups going to gay bars for after‐practice drinks).

3. We in no way intend to suggest that a highly sexualised community is desired by many/most gay men. Such representations have been identified as heterosexist stereotypes, pathologising of, and potentially damaging to, gay men (Barker et al. 2007).

4. Hurley (2003) offers a more complex and less risk‐focused analysis of sex‐on‐site venues.

5. Richters et al. (2003, 45) make a similar point in relation to unprotected anal intercourse: ‘inexperienced men are vulnerable to being lied to by more experienced and less scrupulous partners, who may remove a condom after undertaking to wear one and not tell the receptive partner’ (see also Mutchler 2002).

6. An individualistic framing around sexual coercion found in the majority of informant accounts was also evident in the reference (here and elsewhere) to a ‘preying man’ – a certain type of man who will take advantage of other (‘vulnerable’) men. The notion of a preying man constructs a (limited) population of deviant coercers or abusers and underplays the cultural norms that allow for (or promote) coercive or unwanted sex (Cowburn 2005). The informants’ accounts reflect what Cowburn has described as a hegemonic discourse of a ‘male offender’, which separates ‘deviant’ men from the wider male population. In contrast, this ‘deviance’ can be theorised as having much in common with ‘acceptable’ and ‘normal’ male behaviour; as enabled and produced within broader societal discourses and norms of masculinity and male sexuality (Cowburn 2005, Gavey 2005). This is not an ‘all men are rapists’ argument (see Carmody and Carrington 2000), but one which explores how normative systems, structures and discourses work to promote coercive (male) sexuality as normative.