The Sexual Communication Scale (SeCS).

Many measures of comfort and frequency of sexual communication between partners are limited in gender/sex and sexual orientation inclusivity, how constructs are measured, and for whom. We conducted two studies to investigate a revised and extended version of the Female Partner's Communication During Sexual Activity Scale: the Sexual Communication Scale (SeCS). We revised the gender/sex language to improve inclusion and added items to assess frequency and comfort with sexual communication. In Study 1, an exploratory factor analysis (n = 578) supported a three-factor structure (Frequency of bidirectional communication, α = .96; Ease of own communication, α = .90; Ease of partner's communication, α = .83). In Study 2, a confirmatory factor analysis (n = 1479) further supported the three-factor structure. Specifically, the three-factor model provided a reasonably good fit (χ2 (44) = 511.35, p < .001, CFI = .97, GFI = .95, AGFI = .91, SRMR = .00, RMSEA = .08). In both studies, we found small or no differences in men and women's comfort and frequency of sexual communication. The results provide initial support that the SeCS is an internally consistent, multidimensional gender/sex inclusive tool for future research on sexual communication.

Young Adults' Qualitative Self-Reports of Their Outcomes of Online Sexual Activities.

Online sexual activities (OSA) refer to Internet-based activities, behaviours, and materials that are sexual in nature. Many young adults engage in OSA, but report doing so infrequently. Most OSA outcome research has focused on negative effects of only some types of OSA (e.g., viewing pornography online). The goal of this study was to enhance knowledge on the range of OSA outcomes by qualitatively exploring young adults' self-reported negative and positive outcomes from OSA experiences generally. University/College students from Canada (n = 246), Germany (n = 411), Sweden (n = 299), and the USA (n = 123) completed an online survey that included open-ended questions about "one of the most positive/negative effects that engaging in online sexual activities has had on your life". More participants provided positive outcome responses than negative outcome responses. Qualitative analysis of the responses suggested a wide range of positive and negative outcome content that fit into seven bi-polar, higher-order themes: No Outcomes, Relationship Outcomes, Sexual Experience, Emotional Outcomes, Knowledge, Personal Outcomes, and Security. We found no variations in themes or their respective codes across the four countries. The findings suggests that researchers, educators, health care and psychology providers need to include multiple dimensions of positive and negative, personal and interpersonal, sexual and non-sexual OSA outcomes in their work.

Unsolicited Pics and Sexual Scripts: Gender and Relationship Context of Compliant and Non-consensual Technology-Mediated Sexual Interactions.

Technology-mediated sexual interaction (TMSI) refers to any partnered interaction that involves sending or receiving self-created, sexually explicit content using communication technology (e. g., sexting, cybersex). Most research on TMSI assumes that experiences are desired and consensual. However, it is likely that some people do not desire all their TMSI experiences but consent to them anyways (compliance), or experience non-consensual TMSIs. People also engage in TMSIs with different types of partners. According to the traditional sexual script (TSS), other-gender attracted women and men's non-consensual TMSI experiences should differ overall and depending on the relationship context of the experience. The goal of this study was to examine the role of sexual scripts in other-gender attracted women and men's non-consensual and compliant TMSI experiences with committed romantic partners (CRPs), known non-partners (KNPs), and strangers (Ss). Women (n = 331) and men (n = 120) completed an online survey with questions about lifetime prevalence of experiencing seven types of compliant and non-consensual TMSIs in each relationship context. Results of mixed ANOVAs revealed significant interactions: overall, more participants reported compliant TMSI with CRPs. More women than men had received a non-consensual TMSI from someone they were not in a committed relationship with, and more men than women reported sending non-consensual TMSIs to a stranger. Tests of unpaired proportions suggested that the prevalence of sending and receiving non-consensual TMSIs was discordant in the KNP and S contexts: both women and men received more non-consensual TMSIs from KNPs and Ss than the other-gender reported sending. Our findings suggest that gendered sexual scripts are evident in some, but not all, aspect of other-gender attracted women and men's compliant and non-consensual TMSI experiences.

"That's not what was originally agreed to": Perceptions, outcomes, and legal contextualization of non-consensual condom removal in a Canadian sample.

Non-consensual condom removal (NCCR) is the removal of a condom before or during sexual intercourse without one's partner's consent. Despite considerable news and media attention devoted to the trend (as stealthing), little empirical research to date has examined people's views of the practice. The present study aimed to contribute toward generating empirical evidence to guide the discussion surrounding NCCR. We asked participants about whether or not they felt NCCR is wrong, whether there should be consequences for its perpetration, and contextualized responses within legal context. A total of 592 undergraduate students took part in an online survey inquiring about their experiences with and views of NCCR. We used descriptive statistics to determine sample prevalence and outcomes of NCCR and qualitatively analyzed responses to open-ended questions asking about perceptions of NCCR. Of participants who had engaged in penetrative sexual intercourse with a male partner using an external condom, 18.7%, 95% CI [14.4, 22.7] reported that they had NCCR perpetrated against them. The majority of these participants reported that they experienced NCCR negatively and encountered related consequences; several reported contracting an STI, experiencing an unplanned pregnancy, or both. Nearly all participants expressed that NCCR is wrong, citing reasons that included the lack of consent, possibility of unplanned or unwanted outcomes, and a betrayal of trust. In this study, we found that there was agreement that NCCR is wrong, but variability in responses regarding the circumstances under which there should be consequences for the action. These perceptions reflect the current uncertainty in law. We recommend researchers refer to the phenomenon as NCCR (rather than stealthing) and discuss related issues to encourage future research to adopt consistent and accurate labels and definitions for NCCR. We hope that our findings will guide future research and spur public and legal discussion on NCCR.