Developing Understanding and Challenging Stereotypes

The findings from this project “[a]dd to a body of research that is designed to ‘dismiss the myth of the nonaggressive woman on empirical grounds’” (Krahé et al., 2003, p. 228). By demonstrating empirically for the first time in the UK that this form of female perpetrated sexual violence occurs, the findings of this project directly contravene “the traditional belief that a woman cannot force a man to have sex” (Davies, 2013, pp. 93–94). This is important because despite some recognition within academic research of women’s ability to compel men into penetration, there is still a widespread societal belief, informed by gender stereotypes and the traditional sexual script, that:

specific [sex] roles are assigned to men and others are assigned to women. [This] excludes the image of women as sexual aggressors, initiating sex with men…and, at times, coercing their partners to engage in unwanted sexual activities…[as well as excluding] the image of men as sexually reluctant or as victims of sexual coercion (Byers & O’Sullivan, 1998, p. 146).

The widespread and pervasive nature of the gender schematized traditional sex script has been remarked upon by Davies (2002), who notes that “most people, including many psychologists, view the sexual assault of men by women as somewhat implausible.” Thus, this study, though not suggesting prevalence rates, provides empirical evidence of the existence of this issue for the first time within the UK, which in turn challenges gender stereotypes that suggest that this form of sexual violence cannot or does not happen.

The findings from this research support some of the existing findings on women’s sexually aggressive strategies toward men. It is difficult to directly compare the quantitative findings presented here with those from other studies, largely because of the different definitions used to refer to similar behavior. For example, the terms “verbal pressure” (Krahé & Berger, 2013), “persuasion” (Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1994) and “psychological pressure” (Struckman-Johnson, 1988) are all seemingly used to refer to verbally coercive strategies. Moreover, differing methodological approaches have been taken across studies, making accurate comparisons challenging. Nevertheless, the frequency with which some of the aggressive strategies are used broadly reflects prevalence rates found in existing studies.

In relation to verbally coercive strategies, while there are differences in the reporting rates of men experiencing this strategy—varying between 20 and 70% across existing studies—this strategy consistently features as either the most or second most reported within the majority of studies (see, e.g., Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1998; Struckman-Johnson et al., 2003). Similarly, although the rates for women’s self-reporting of this strategy are generally lower, at between 0.8 and 43%, coercive strategies still feature as among the most frequently used (see, e.g., Anderson, 1998). In this way, and to this extent, the finding that verbally coercive strategies were experienced most frequently by participants is broadly in line with existing research in this area. The exceptions to the above are the findings from Tomaszewska and Krahé’s (2018) study involving male and female university students in Poland and Krahé et al.’s (2015) study across 10 European countries (excluding the UK). In both studies “verbal pressure” was less frequently reported, being the least frequently reported strategy experienced by male victims in Tomaszewska and Krahé’s (2018) study, or the second least frequently reported in Krahé et al.’s (2015) study. An explanation for the divergence here is difficult to pinpoint, but again it may reflect the differences in methodological approaches, differences in participant demographics, or other variable factors. Acknowledging some divergence in findings where they arise is important when considering the potential for future research in the area.

In relation to alcohol, the findings presented here reflect its prominence within both the aggressive strategies used by female perpetrators and the experiences of victims of sexual violence (Krahé & Berger, 2013). Indeed, the quantitative findings from the present study on the strategy of taking advantage of an already intoxicated man broadly accord with those found in existing literature, in that this was typically the most, or second most frequently reported strategy, both by men (see, e.g., Struckman-Johnson et al., 2003; Tomaszewska & Krahé, 2018) and in self-reporting by women aggressors (see, e.g., Anderson, 1998). However, in relation to active alcohol or drug use (i.e., where the female perpetrator is actively involved in the intoxication of the male victim), within existing research, higher rates have been reported. Indeed, it has often featured as one of the more frequent strategies where cited (see, e.g., Anderson & Aymami, 1993; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1998). One explanation for the discrepancy could be the definitions and explanations used in the studies. Indeed, it is difficult to make comparisons where broad terms like “intoxication” (see, e.g., Struckman-Johnson, 1988) are used without the provision of wider context as to how the intoxication occurred. Moreover, most of the existing research has involved college students who are living in an environment where “alcohol and drug use are common parts of social activity” (O’Sullivan et al., 1998, p. 179) and thus this may explain the higher rates of its use within these studies.

While many of the findings from this study broadly align with existing research in the area, this research also presents challenges to existing understandings of FTP cases, as well as women’s sexual aggression toward men more broadly. This principally relates to women’s use of physical force or violence. The findings presented here in relation to the use of force contradict most earlier empirical studies, which suggest that women are unlikely to use physical force or violence as an aggressive strategy. Indeed, as noted above, most existing studies have put the rate at which physical force is used by women at between 2 and 10% (Weare, 2018) and it has typically featured as the least frequently used strategy. These findings can be contrasted with this study where 14.4% of the men reported the use of force and 19.6% reported use of force and threats of physical harm combined (see Table 6). There are, however, some exceptions, where reporting of this strategy has been at higher percentage rates that are closer to those seen in this study. For example, Struckman-Johnson et al. (2003) reported that 24.7% of the 275 college men in their study had experienced one or more forms of physical force in relation to sexual contact, and Anderson (1998) found that 20% of 461 college women self-reported using physical force to obtain sexual contact with a man. Nevertheless, in most existing studies, even those where reporting of physical force was above 20%, “[p]hysical force was the least commonly utilised tactic” (Bouffard et al., 2016, p. 2363). The exception to this being more recent European studies, where use or threats of physical force have featured as among the most frequent aggressive strategies reported by male victims of women’s sexual violence (see, e.g., Krahé et al., 2015; Tomaszewska & Krahé, 2018).

As noted above, the findings presented here, where physical force was the third most frequently reported strategy, contradict much of the existing research which suggests it is less common. There could be several explanations for the higher reporting rate of this strategy here, the first of which is that this study solely explored men’s experiences of compelled penetration. Therefore, the higher frequency with which force is used may be specific to this form of sexual violence. Similarly, as this is the first study to look at this issue in the UK, there may be cultural and social differences that impact upon women’s use of force. The design of the study could also have impacted the increased reporting of this aggressive strategy. The study was promoted as being about FTP cases, and the use of the term “force” here may have led to a response bias. That is to say that despite efforts to prevent such a response bias (as noted earlier in the article), men who were victims of a use of “force” by a female perpetrator may have been more likely to respond to the survey, than men who experienced other aggressive strategies (e.g., where their intoxication was taken advantage of). Finally, the participants in this study were self-selected, rather than a convenience sample (e.g., college students) as seen in most existing studies. Therefore, the demographics of those who participated could account for the higher reporting rate of this aggressive strategy. Regardless of the explanation offered, the findings highlight that more effort needs to be put into dispelling the stereotype that women cannot and do not use force when compelling men into penetration and, more broadly, the myth that women do not “have the size, strength, or ability to physically force a man to have sexual contact” (Struckman-Johnson & Anderson, 1998, p. 11). This is a damaging stereotype that is likely to negatively impact upon reporting rates and criminal justice and societal responses to this form of sexual violence.

It is clear both from these findings, and those presented elsewhere, that women use a variety of sexually aggressive strategies. However, the inclusion of qualitative data in this study has also allowed previously unobserved information to be uncovered about the strategies used by women in FTP cases. In particular, two original findings have emerged: first, some women use multiple aggressive strategies within the same incident and, secondly, some women use particularly “gendered” strategies. These findings will go some way to developing clearer understandings around women’s aggressive strategies when perpetrating sexual violence against adult men.

Women’s Use of Multiple Aggressive Strategies

While quantitatively the men were asked to select the “option” that most closely matched their most recent FTP experience, thus suggesting the use of only one aggressive strategy per incident, content analysis of the answers provided to the open-ended follow-up question suggests otherwise. Indeed, the qualitative data highlights the use of multiple aggressive strategies by some women within the same incident. This is not something that has previously been noted within existing research on women’s sexual aggression, except in passing by Struckman-Johnson et al. (2003). The research findings from this study indicate that some women combine aggressive strategies when compelling penetration. For example, one participant described how his partner was both verbally and physically abusive:

My partner of the time came home from a night out with some female friends, she had been drinking and also taken cocaine. She demanded sex, I refused, she became initially verbally abusive and then went on to physically hit me landing a number of blows to the side of my head until I complied.

Two participants also explained how women took advantage of them as they slept and then used force or restraint to compel penetration. For example: “I woke from my sleep to find me handcuffed to the bed and her giving me oral sex, I told her to stop but she wouldn’t.” While it is interesting in and of itself to note the combinations of strategies used by women, the value of this discovery lies in revealing more detail than previously known about women’s aggressive strategies and thus the experiences of the men subject to it. This level of understanding is crucial to developing appropriate responses to such cases, which remain underreported and under-discussed.

Women’s Use of “Gendered” Aggressive Strategies

The second key finding from this study relates to women’s use of what is termed “gendered” strategies; that is, strategies where women are aware of, and take advantage of, their gendered roles and experiences, qua women. In the findings, these strategies took two forms: threats regarding false rape allegations and exploitation of women’s roles as mothers to interfere in the father–child relationship.

Threats of False Rape Allegations

As noted earlier, two instances of women threatening to make false allegations of rape against men were reported, for example:

A threat of a false rape accusation…she kept on telling me that she would tell the police that I had raped her and ruin my family and my life.

It is important not to make generalizations about this specific strategy, not least because only two participants reported it as part of their experiences. Moreover, in discussing this as a particular strategy, it is in no way suggesting that the issue of false rape allegations (and threats of) should dominate, or in any way undermine, the issue of women as victims of rape and other forms of sexual violence. Rather what is being raised is the fact that this particular strategy has not previously been identified within research in this area, and therefore recognizing it as a potential issue for men who experience this in compelled penetration cases is important. Indeed, the similarities in the men’s stories suggest that this “gendered” strategy would benefit from further exploration to develop understandings around its use. It is also important to consider this strategy in relation to the impact that false reporting of rape (and threats of) has on the treatment of rape, and rape victims, within the criminal justice system (Rumney, 2006), and in society more broadly.

Although it is difficult to accurately determine the prevalence of false allegations of rape (Rumney, 2006), a 2013 Crown Prosecution Service study in the UK highlighted the small number of prosecutions for making false allegations of rape, especially when compared with prosecutions for rape (Levitt & Crown Prosecution Service Equality and Diversity Unit, 2013). However, it is suggested that a strategy involving the threat of a false allegation is one that is likely to have maximum impact when used by a woman because of existing legal and social definitions and understandings of sexual violence, i.e., men as perpetrators and women as victims. Therefore, while the same threats of a false rape allegation could be made by a man in respect of a woman, the woman concerned may not believe there would be real consequences for her as a result. For men, however, the potential for such a threat to become a reality may be particularly coercive because of the damaging consequences that could occur.

It is true that there are undoubtedly still issues around women who report sexual violence being believed (see, e.g., Bahadur, 2016; Jordan, 2004). However, a report of rape is (quite rightly) expected to at least involve a police investigation and, depending on the available evidence, potentially a criminal trial. There is also likely to be a substantial amount of emotional distress experienced by a man under investigation in the context of a false allegation due to the potential stigma and reputational ruin associated with being considered a “rapist” (Levitt & Crown Prosecution Service Equality and Diversity Unit, 2013; Wells, 2015). Societal perceptions around sexual violence perpetrators are only likely to enhance this further, with recognition of men as perpetrators and women as victims much more common than any other victim–perpetrator paradigm (Weare, 2018). This is understandable, with evidence consistently highlighting women as disproportionately experiencing sexual violence from men. Nevertheless, when taking all of this into account it is clear why women threatening false allegations of rape is a “gendered” coercive strategy, as well as being one that may be particularly powerful. While this strategy was only reported by two men, the complex nature of cases involving threats of/false rape allegations (Levitt & Crown Prosecution Service Equality and Diversity Unit, 2013) means that this is an issue that would benefit from further research in the context of it as a strategy used by sexually aggressive women. In exploring this issue further, it should not, however, be used to dismiss or undermine the experiences of women who experience sexual violence.

Exploitation of Women’s Roles as Mothers

More frequently, men reported women exploiting their roles as mothers or mothers-to-be, for example by threatening to negatively interfere in the men’s relationships with their children, harming the fetus while pregnant, or terminating the pregnancy. Seven men reported this strategy being used against them; for example: “[s]aid that she would stop all access to see my children” and “said she’d get an abortion if I didn’t have sex with her.”

As an institution, motherhood has been argued to be patriarchal and oppressive (Rich, 1995), requiring women to meet stereotypes around “good” mothering, and viewing as deviant those who do not (see, e.g., Roberts, 1993). Women’s role as mothers has also been documented as being used against them in the context of domestic abuse and coercive control perpetrated by men (Weissman, 2009). However, the individual experiences of women as mothers are not homogenous and include instances where women use their role as mothers, and primary caregivers, to “manage” their children and act as gatekeepers or influencers in the father–child relationship (see, e.g., Allen & Hawkins, 1999). In the context of the findings presented here, there is evidence that some women use their roles as mothers as a coercive strategy in relation to compelled penetration. In doing so, it appears that they are creating and exploiting a power hierarchy where they use their gendered role as mothers to solidify control over men’s behavior and coerce them into intercourse. While this specific strategy was reported relatively infrequently, the reoccurring and similar nature of the men’s experiences makes future consideration of this “gendered” strategy necessary.

Conclusions

Based on quantitative and qualitative data provided by men who have experienced compelled penetration, the study reported on in this article evidences for the first time in the UK the experiences of men who have been FTP a woman. In doing so, the study demonstrates the range and frequency of aggressive strategies used by women, finding that women most frequently use coercive strategies, take advantage of men’s intoxication, and use force and threats of physical harm. Most significantly, for the first time, the findings highlight that some women use multiple aggressive strategies within one incident of compelled penetration, and that some women use particularly “gendered” strategies of threatening to make false rape accusations and exploiting their roles as mothers to threaten negative interference in the father–child relationship.

While being both novel and significant as the first study in the UK to specifically explore FTP cases, this research does have limitations. The participants self-reported their experiences, and thus there is a risk of reporting bias. Indeed, it was not possible, for example, to ascertain whether there had been bidirectional violence. In addition, the self-selecting nature of participants meant that the participant group was not representative, and, for example, ethnicity, religion, and socioeconomic background were not considered. Thus, future research would benefit from considering issues around intersectionality. Furthermore, due to the method of data collection, i.e., an online survey, the issues of data subjectivity, reliability and validity could be raised, with the possibility that some participants did not in fact experience compelled penetration, but instead completed the survey for “entertainment purposes.” This limitation, while perhaps more likely to occur in the context of an online survey, is not confined to this method of data collection and can plague any method, including face-to-face interviews. The justifications for using this data collection method (noted earlier) overrode this particular limitation and where it was clear that participants were “hoaxers” these surveys were removed. Despite these limitations, the findings presented here can usefully be considered by practitioners within the criminal justice system in relation to developing education, understanding, and responses to this under-reported form of sexual violence.

It is clear that future research is necessary in relation to FTP cases to maximize understanding and to develop a larger evidence base in this area. More research on the aggressive strategies of female perpetrators, especially in relation to the novel “gendered” strategies identified here, would be helpful to develop better understanding around their use. It would be helpful for future studies to explore predictors of use in relation to the aggressive strategies discussed in this article. Potentially interesting predictors could relate to female perpetrators’ experiences of non-consensual sexual activity themselves, their attitudes about gender roles, and their cultural, religious, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Interviews with male victims and with female aggressors would also allow fuller understanding of the complexities of this form of sexual violence.

As noted at the beginning of the article, FTP cases cannot be prosecuted under the offense of rape within the UK, instead being prosecuted under other “less serious” offenses. Justification for this approach has been based on the premise that compelled penetration is less harmful or detrimental to men than rape (see, e.g., Cowan, 2010; Home Office, 2000; Weare, 2018). Therefore, future research on the consequences of compelled penetration for men who experience it would be helpful in considering the need for legal reform. Similarly, consideration of the legal implications of, and challenges posed by, FTP cases, while outside of the scope of this article, could helpfully form the basis of the future research agenda in this area. Finally, future studies involving representative sampling would be useful for determining valid prevalence rates in the UK for this form of sexual violence.

This, and any future research around FTP cases, should not be viewed “as an attempt to upend a women’s rights agenda focused on male-perpetrated sexual victimization. [Nor should it] negate concern about other forms of abuse” (Stemple et al., 2016, p. 2). Indeed, it is clear that women are disproportionately affected by sexual violence perpetrated by men. However, this study highlights a need for women’s sexual aggression to be incorporated into the mainstream of research on sexual violence, as well as feminist criminological and legal research. In doing so, gender as a variable in cases of sexual violence should not be ignored, not least because “sexual aggression is not gender-neutral in its prevalence…or in its meanings and consequences” (Muehlenhard, 1998, p. 43). Rather, “feminist imperatives to undertake intersectional analyses, to take into account power relations, and to question gender-based stereotypes” (Stemple et al., 2016, p. 2) are needed, as well as analyses that go “beyond gender alone and look at other variables that may interact with gender” (Muehlenhard, 1998, p. 43). This will allow a multifaceted analysis of FTP cases as a specific form of sexual violence to be undertaken, in a way that does not undermine the experiences of women as victims of sexual violence.