Arch Sex Behav. 2018 Sep 18. doi: 10.1007/s10508-018-1290-8.
Abstract
The broad accessibility of online sexually explicit material (SEM) exposes viewers to a wide scope of sexual behaviors. Social concern tends to be heightened over SEM that incorporates highly graphic, “rough” sex. This study assessed the associations among exposure to rough sex in SEM, desire for rough sex, and participation in rough sex while accounting for gender, sexual orientation, and perceived realism of SEM. Young adults (N = 327; ages 19-30; 50.8% men) were recruited through a crowdsourcing website. They completed an anonymous online survey that assessed viewing frequency for a range of sexual behaviors in SEM, the perceived realism of SEM, desire to participate in the behaviors viewed, and if they had ever participated in those behaviors. Hair pulling, spanking, scratching, biting, bondage, fisting, and double penetration were used to create the variable of rough sex. Rough sex desire and participation were common among individuals who have been exposed to rough sex in SEM, with 91.4% desiring to engage in 1 + behaviors at least to a small degree and 81.7% having engaged in 1 + behaviors. Exposure to rough sex in SEM was positively associated with desire for and participation in rough sex, emphasizing the need to ensure that individuals can distinguish between consensual rough sex and sexual violence. This study did not parse out causal effects or directionality, but did provide some insights into the interrelatedness of viewing, desiring, and participating in rough sex.
KEYWORDS: Gender; Perceived realism; Rough sex; Sexually explicit material; Young adults
PMID: 30229516
DOI: 10.1007/s10508-018-1290-8
Discussion
The objectives guiding this study were to understand whether interest and participation in rough sex behaviors were common among young adults who have been exposed to rough sex in SEM, and how desire to participate in rough sex and viewing rough sex in SEM related to actually participating in rough sex behaviors, while controlling for demographic factors. To our knowledge, this study is the first to explore these relationships directly and provides some insights into the role that exposure to SEM may have in the lives of young women and men. To our knowledge, this study is the first to explore these relationships directly and provides some insights into the role that exposure to SEM may have in the lives of young women and men.
Bondage, hair pulling, and spanking were consistently rated as more desirable, viewed, and arousing compared to other behaviors. This finding corresponds to the limited past research on desire for rough sex (Renaud & Byers, 1999; Wright et al., 2015). Conversely, fisting was consistently one of the least desired, viewed, and arousing behaviors which may be due to participants seeing the behavior as too forceful or violent. Although Ryan and Mohr (2005) found that young adults considered playful aggression as desirable, several of their participants clarified that forceful acts were not acceptable and too violent to be desirable. Fisting can be quite violent and has been found to cause serious bodily injury (Cohen, Giles, & Nelson, 2004) and even death if done improperly (Fain & McCormick, 1989; Preuss, Strehler, Dettmeyer, & Madea, 2008; Reay & Eisele, 1983; Torre, 1987).
With regard to actual participation in rough sex behaviors, a notable majority (81.7%) of our sample had participated in at least one rough sex behavior, and almost half (45.9%) of our sample had participated in four or more rough sex behaviors. The pattern for rates of participation largely paralleled those of desire to participate in the behaviors. Hair pulling was the most common behavior (63.3%) followed by spanking (53.5%) and biting (53.5%). Despite bondage being the third most frequently watched, second most desired, and foremost arousing rough sex behavior, it was the fourth most common (40.7%, in the bottom three) behavior in which they reported having participated. Bondage might require more materials, such as restraints, and hence more planning or effort, compared to the other behaviors, although qualitative research on the practice of rough sex behaviors outside of the BDSM realm would provide needed insights here.
Despite past research demonstrating that young men perceive SEM as more realistic than young women (Peter & Valkenburg, 2006) and that women watch more rough sex behaviors in SEM than men (Pornhub.com, 2017), we found very few gender differences in our study. One possible reason for the lack of gender differences in the frequency of watching rough sex in SEM may be due to the fact that we did not obtain exact counts of the number of times individuals viewed rough sex behaviors but instead examined general frequency (e.g., every day). As for the null finding regarding gender differences in perceived realism, we used the same scale as Peter and Valkenburg (2006). However, their sample consisted of adolescents, whereas our sample comprised young adults. It may be there is a convergence in men’s and women’s viewing habits as they enter young adulthood; thus, these discrepancies between past research and the current study partially may reflect age effects. However, gender differences have been found in other research from the same larger project on cisgendered young adults’ SEM use (Vogels, 2018). As we focused solely on individuals who had seen rough sex in SEM for this article, the null result may reflect the fact that all of the participants watched SEM. The more people watch SEM, the more realistic they perceive SEM to be (Peter & Valkenburg, 2006; Vogels, 2018). Women are less likely to report viewing SEM in general (Albright, 2008). For the current study, women were found to be overrepresented among the individuals excluded for never having viewed SEM. It could be the case that the gender difference in perceived realism found in prior research may be driven by women who do not watch SEM, and the difference was not found in the current study as these individuals were not part of the analyses.
Men and women in our sample did differ in how frequently they viewed SEM in general following the same gender pattern of results found in past research, such as Peter and Valkenburg’s (2006, 2009) research and others (e.g., Bridges & Morokoff, 2011; Cooper, Morahan-Martin, Mathy, & Maheu, 2002). In addition, our young adult sample viewed SEM more frequently (M = 3.40, SD= 1.31) than did Peter and Valkenburg’s (2006) adolescent sample (M = 1.42, SD= .64). Young adults may feel more comfortable and have more freedom and privacy to view SEM online compared to adolescents. Moreover, access to online forms of SEM has increased significantly since these earlier studies. For example, handheld electronics with Internet capabilities have vastly increased in popularity, with 35% of U.S. adults owning smartphones in 2010 compared to 68% in 2015 (Anderson, 2015). Tablet ownership among adults also increased drastically in that time period, from 3% in 2010 to 45% in 2015 (Anderson, 2015). In fact, Pornhub.com (2015a) reports that the majority (67%) of young adult (18–34 years old) users’ pornography use is via a phone or tablet—a dramatic change from even 5 years ago (Pornhub.com, 2016).
Is SEM Related to Desire?
Our findings provide some insights into how SEM is associated with young adults’ desire for sexual behaviors. Frequency of exposure to rough sex in SEM accounted for over
a third (36.0%) of the variance in desire for rough sex. As our data were correlational in nature, it is hard to parse out if this relationship is a function of SEM inspiring these desires (cultivation theory) or if desires drive people to seek out SEM with that content (selective exposure). Additional research is needed to test the relationships among these variables prospectively to clarify the directionality of the relationships found in this study, such as using an experimental design where individuals are randomly assigned to view different types of SEM and desire for rough sex is measured afterward
Do SEM Viewing Habits and Sexual Desires Predict
Previous Participation in Rough Sex?
The current study worked well within the framework of MPM. The associations followed suggested paths proposed in the model. The more frequently individuals viewed rough sex in SEM (selection), the more they reported desiring rough sex behaviors (interaction), which in turn was associated with greater participation in rough sex behaviors (application). However, the model assumes a temporal and causal loop, whereas our data were cross-sectional and cannot be use to draw causal links.
In addition to following the pattern suggested in MPM, we were able to significantly predict whether individuals had previously participated in a particular rough sex behavior for both men and women using desire to participate in rough sex behaviors and SEM exposure to these behaviors. This finding makes intuitive sense as participation in these sexual activities should correspond with sexual desires and knowledge of these behaviors as options if the individual is the initiator or requests to participate in rough sex. As rough sex is not a solo activity, it could be the case that a partner initiates or requests rough sex behaviors. In the latter case, desire and SEM exposure may arise after participation. Therefore, more research is needed to test experimentally these associations to see if behavior is results from desire and SEM exposure or if rough sex SEM exposure and desire are products of participating in a rough sex behaviors. Regardless of the directionality of the relationships, SEM content, sexual desires, and sexual behaviors are interrelated.
Study Implications and Future Directions
Rough sex is often defined in the social sciences as dangerous (Richters et al., 2008) and sexually violent (McKee, 2009). Aggressive behaviors in sexual interactions are generally considered taboo, and those who voice interest in such behaviors are often stigmatized (Bezreh, Weinberg, & Edgar, 2012; Kleinplatz, Ménard, Paradis, Campbell, & Dalgleish, 2013; Richters et al., 2008; Wright, 2006). Although greater exposure to aggression and violence in SEM has been linked to more permissive attitudes toward sexual violence and aggression toward women (Scott, 2008; Wright & Tokunaga, 2016; Wright et al., 2016), individuals who report participating in rough sex are no more likely to have been involved in a sexual assault than those with no reported history of participating in rough sex (Richters et al., 2008); it is unclear if interest in rough sex is a metric for tolerance for or acceptance of aggressive or violent interactions between sexual partners. It is clear, however, that many individuals are interested in watching and participating in rough sex behaviors.
This study highlighted the importance of SEM content in relation to sexual desires and experiences. Despite the stigma, young people appear to turn to SEM to pursue this interest. Viewing rough sex behaviors does not appear to be accidental or incidental given their expressed interest in these behaviors. Young adults report using SEM as a tool for sex education (Duncan, 1990; Duncan & Nicholson, 1991; Orenstein, 2016; Ramlagun, 2012; Throstle, 1993, 2003). They might be using SEM as a tool to learn about rough sex, or to find arousing depictions of rough sex, which then may inspire desire to participate in rough sex. Conversely, young adults participating in rough sex may view SEM containing rough sex to help reduce felt stigma surrounding the topic.
Further research is needed to clarify the directionality of these associations.
This study had several limitations that should be noted. We analyzed the subsample of individuals who had viewed at least one rough sex behavior before in SEM. Although viewing these behaviors in SEM appears to be common (81.5% of the completed responses from cisgender individuals were used for this study), not all individuals may be exposed to rough sex behaviors when watching SEM. Thus, our results can be generalized to individuals who have been exposed to a least one rough sex behavior before in SEM but not necessarily other individuals. Future research should assess if rough sex exposure in other media (e.g., movies, books, music, and television) has similar associations to desire and participation. The behaviors selected for this study were merely a small subset of possible rough sex behaviors and were based on the researchers’ definitions of rough sex. Participants’ definitions of rough sex may not include the same behaviors explored here. Future research should directly assess participants’ definitions of rough sex. A larger and more representative sample would provide a more accurate estimation of the prevalence of rough sex behaviors in young adulthood. Also, these results may not generalize to other age groups as young adults have the highest rates of SEM use (Pornhub.com, 2015a, 2015b) and may systematically differ from other age groups in regards to rough sex attitudes and behaviors. Future research should explore rough sex among middle and older adults.
Another limitation of the study is that we did not measure the exact number of times individuals saw a sexual behavior or participated in that behavior. Our measures accounted for the proportion of times individuals saw rough sex, and participation in a rough sex behavior was assessed using a dichotomous (yes/no) measure. We neither asked participants about the context in which they viewed the rough sex SEM nor did we ask if their desire or participation in these behaviors was in the context of the active or passive role (or both). Future research should incorporate more detailed assessments of viewing and participation frequency.Like all studies relying on self-reports, our findings may reflect response bias or socially desirable responding. However, we believe the anonymity of the reports likely helped offset some of those effects. There could have been a selection bias in terms of who chose to participate in the research due to the study being advertised as a study on SEM and sexual activity. Our study did not account for the sexual partners’ desires, beliefs, or pornography consumption, all of which would play a role in which sexual activities occur and their frequency, indicating a need for dyadic research that incorporates both partners’ consumption habits, sexual desires, and sexual experiences. We also did not account for the participants’ perceived stigma or peer norms in regard to rough sex, factors that might mediate the relationships found. Lastly, our data were not collected temporally or experimentally so directionality and causality cannot be assessed.
Conclusions
This study indicates that men and women viewed rough sex behaviors in SEM relatively frequently, and that viewing rough sex via SEM appeared to be positively associated with desire and participation in those behaviors. Despite the taboo surrounding the topic, rough sex desires and behaviors are fairly common among young adults who have been exposed to rough sex in SEM, although some rough sex desires and behaviors (e.g., spanking) are more common than others (e.g., fisting). Therefore, this study highlights the importance of examining rough sex in a clear and nuanced manner, and although additional data are needed to establish the direction of causality, this research reveals insights into an important triad of variables relevant to understanding young adults’ sexual lives.
;