A Qualitative Account of Coping Following Non-Consensual Sexual Experiences among Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual consent among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) has not been thoroughly documented in the academic literature. Research has suggested that GBMSM incur a greater risk for experiencing non-consensual sexual experiences (NSEs) compared to heterosexual, cis-gendered men. Despite the high prevalence of NSEs impacting this population, little research has been conducted on how GBMSM cope after NSEs. The purpose of this study was to examine how GBMSM cope following NSEs. Responses were analyzed from 206 GBMSM, aged 18–77 (M = 31.84), recruited across Canada. Participants completed an online survey, answering open-ended questions on experiences of NSEs and how they coped afterward. Guidelines for thematic analysis were followed to analyze the responses, indicating that GBMSM cope both maladaptively (e.g., avoidance, withdrawal from social networks and sexual relationships) and adaptively (e.g., seeking therapy, social support) following NSEs. Some participants were affected by and needed to cope with their NSEs over a longer term (e.g., ongoing rumination, enjoying sexual and intimate relationships less). Participants used a range of coping skills and showed openness to reach out for help from formal and informal sources, but also noted that resources were not always accessible or culturally sensitive to GBMSM’s needs. Responses are discussed in the context of barriers to effective coping, such as perceptions of masculinity and maladaptive sexual scripts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".