Women’s Experiences of Adult Sexual Assault, by Perpetrator Gender and Participant Sexual Orientation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The vast majority of theoretical and empirical research assessing sexual assault (SA) focuses on man-against-woman SA (MWSA), leaving other forms such as woman-against-woman SA (WWSA) understudied. Relatively simple questions, such as the relative frequency of WWSA for women of different sexual orientations, the tactics (e.g., coercion, force), or forms (e.g., groping, vaginal penetration) employed in WWSA remain unanswered. To address these issues, 268 women (approximately one-third of each bisexual, lesbian, and heterosexual) completed an online survey reporting on whether or not they had experienced a variety of nonconsensual sexual experiences in their adult lifetime, asking specifically about perpetration by men and women. Results indicated that although SA perpetrated by men was far more common, a substantial minority of participants reported having experienced WWSA. In general, tactics and forms employed were similar, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator or the woman’s sexual orientation, with two exceptions: bisexual women had experienced higher rates of MWSA, and lesbian women had experienced more SA in the form of oral sex compared to other groups. Implications for theory, empirical research, and especially community and clinical practice are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".