University students’ perspectives on physiological sexual arousal in victims of sexual assault: The role of gender and rape myths
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Are university students aware that physiological sexual arousal (i.e., erection, lubrication, orgasm) may occur in victims during a sexual assault? In this study, we examined this question and the role of the gender of the participant, the gender of the victim, and the gender of the perpetrator on perceptions of physiological sexual arousal in sexual assault victims. They also examined the link between endorsement of rape myths and these perceptions. A sample of 477 female and 230 male students was recruited and invited to complete an online questionnaire. The questionnaire included an adapted version of the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance–Short Form (IRMA-SF) scale, along with questions about perceptions of sexual arousal in various scenarios of sexual assault. In general, students agreed that physiological sexual arousal could occur in some victims. Particularly, students overall judged sexual arousal to be most likely when both the perpetrator and the victim are men. For erection in male victims specifically, male students believed it to be more plausible when the perpetrator is a woman. Female students thought that lubrication is more likely to occur than male students did, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator. Endorsement of rape myths was negatively associated with the belief that it is possible for a victim to experience sexual arousal during a sexual assault. Almost all participants asserted that there is not enough awareness of this phenomenon, which highlights the potential implications of this study for educational initiatives.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".