Why men don’t say no: sexual compliance and gender socialization in heterosexual men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given that the prevailing literature largely neglects the unwanted sexual activity experiences of men, this study examined both prevalence and predictors of men’s compliance with unwanted, but consensual, sexual activity. Specifically, we examined whether traditional gender-role endorsement, belief in male sexuality stereotypes, and age predict sexual compliance among heterosexual men. Participants (N = 426 men) completed a brief demographic questionnaire, measures of gender-role beliefs and male sexuality stereotypes, as well as a modified measure investigating motives for consenting to unwanted kissing, sexual touching, oral sex, and/or penetrative sex. The reported incidence rate of mild sexual compliance (i.e. consenting to unwanted kissing at least once) in heterosexual men was 61.3% over the past 12 months. Results suggest that sexual compliance in heterosexual men may be predicted by their endorsement of traditional gender-role beliefs and male sexuality stereotypes. Moreover, men may be motivated to be sexually compliant due to motives of altruism, intoxication, sexual inexperience, peer pressure, popularity, and sex-role concerns.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".