Coercion
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
CoercionWrit by Jesse Lee aka Oregonleatherboy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coercion and control are often correlated because they both involve the exercise of power over another person or group. Coercion refers to the use of force or threats to compel someone to do something against their will, while control refers to the ability to influence or direct someone's behavior. The relationship between coercion and control can be seen in a number of different contexts, including;:
For example, an abusive partner may use coercion to control their partner's behavior, while a manager may use their position of authority to exert control over their employees. One way in which coercion and control are related is that they both involve the use of power to influence or manipulate others. In some cases, coercion may be used as a means of gaining control over another person or group. For example, a dictator may use violence and intimidation to coerce the population into submission, thereby gaining complete control over the country. Another way in which coercion and control are related is that they both involve the restriction of freedom. When someone is coerced or controlled, they are not able to act according to their own desires or interests. Instead, they are forced to comply with the wishes of another person or group. Finally, coercion and control are related in that they both have negative consequences for the people who are subjected to them. Coercion can lead to physical harm, emotional trauma, and loss of autonomy, while excessive control can lead to feelings of helplessness, frustration, and resentment. "Coercion and Control" by David Garland - This article provides an overview of the relationship between coercion and control in criminal justice systems. "Coercion and Control: The Paradoxical Nature of Domestic Violence" by Evan Stark - This book explores the ways in which domestic violence involves both coercion and control. "Coercion and Control in Mental Health" by Pat Bracken and Phil Thomas - This article discusses the use of coercion and control in mental health treatment, and argues that these practices are often counterproductive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coercion and submission are two concepts that are closely related to each other. Coercion refers to the use of force or threats to make someone do something against their will, while submission refers to the act of yielding to authority or control. The relationship between coercion and submission can be seen in situations where one person or group has power over another. In such cases, the more powerful party may use coercion to force the weaker party to submit to their will. This can take many forms, such as:
At the same time, submission can also be a form of coercion. When someone submits to another's authority, they are often doing so because they fear the consequences of not doing so. This fear may be based on a real threat of harm, or it may be a result of social conditioning or psychological manipulation. Overall, the relationship between coercion and submission is complex and multifaceted. While coercion can lead to submission, it is not always effective in achieving this goal. Similarly, submission can sometimes be a form of resistance rather than compliance. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - "Coercion": https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/coercion/ The International Encyclopedia of Ethics - "Submission": https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee309 The Journal of Social Psychology - "Coercion and Submission: A Study of Interpersonal Influence": https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1966.9919077 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coercion and dominance are often correlated because they both involve one person or group exerting control over another. Coercion refers to the use of force or threats to make someone do something against their will, while dominance refers to the exercise of power or control over others. One way in which coercion and dominance are related is that they both involve an imbalance of power. The person or group that is coercing or dominant has more power than the person or group being coerced or dominated. This power imbalance can lead to feelings of fear, anxiety, and helplessness in the person being controlled. Another way in which coercion and dominance are related is that they both can be used to maintain social hierarchies. In many societies, there are people or groups who hold more power than others, and coercion and dominance can be used to reinforce these power structures. For example, a boss may use coercion to make an employee work longer hours, while a government may use dominance to suppress dissenting voices. Finally, coercion and dominance can both be harmful to individuals and society as a whole. Coercion can lead to feelings of resentment and anger, while dominance can create a sense of injustice and inequality. Both can also lead to social unrest and conflict. "Coercion and Dominance: A Social Psychological Perspective" by Susan T. Fiske - This article explores how coercion and dominance are related from a social psychological perspective. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2786998) "The Relationship Between Coercion and Dominance: An Analysis of Domestic Violence" by Laura E. Agnich - This article examines how coercion and dominance are related in the context of domestic violence. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/20621521) "The Coercive Power of Dominance: Understanding Employment Discrimination in the United States" by Lauren A. Rivera - This article explores how coercion and dominance are related in the context of employment discrimination. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/684269) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The desire to control others is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that can have various underlying motivations. Some people may seek control over others due to personal insecurities, a need for power or dominance, a desire for validation or attention, or a lack of empathy or concern for others' wellbeing. Additionally, societal and cultural factors may contribute to the development of controlling behaviors. One possible explanation for the desire to control others is related to attachment theory, which suggests that early childhood experiences with caregivers can shape individuals' attachment styles and interpersonal behaviors. For example, individuals who experienced inconsistent or unpredictable caregiving may develop an anxious attachment style characterized by a fear of abandonment and a need for control in relationships. Similarly, individuals who experienced neglect or abuse may develop an avoidant attachment style characterized by emotional detachment and a tendency to avoid close relationships. Another potential explanation for controlling behaviors is related to personality traits such as narcissism or psychopathy. Narcissistic individuals may seek control over others as a means of validating their own self-worth and maintaining a sense of superiority. Psychopathic individuals may manipulate and control others in order to achieve their own goals without regard for others' wellbeing. Finally, societal and cultural factors may contribute to the development of controlling behaviors. For example, patriarchal societies may reinforce gender roles that encourage men to be dominant and women to be submissive. Similarly, authoritarian political systems may promote a culture of control and obedience. Psychology Today - "Why Do People Want Power?" - This article explores some of the psychological motivations behind the desire for power and control over others: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201307/why-do-people-want-power Harvard Business Review - "Why Some People Want to Control Everyone" - This article examines how personality traits such as narcissism and Machiavellianism can contribute to controlling behaviors: https://hbr.org/2017/08/why-some-people-want-to-control-everyone American Psychological Association - "Attachment and Control Issues in Intimate Relationships" - This article discusses how attachment styles can influence controlling behaviors in romantic relationships: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/amp-a0032296.pdf | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The desire to be controlled by others is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that has been studied by psychologists, sociologists, and other experts in human behavior. There are several theories and explanations for why some people enjoy being controlled by others, including psychological, social, and cultural factors. One psychological explanation is that some individuals have a deep-seated need for security and structure in their lives. They may feel overwhelmed or anxious when faced with too many choices or decisions, and prefer to have someone else take charge. This need for control can manifest in different ways, such as seeking out dominant partners or engaging in submissive behaviors. Another theory suggests that the desire to be controlled is related to childhood experiences of trauma or abuse. Individuals who have experienced abuse or neglect may develop a coping mechanism of surrendering control to others as a way of avoiding further harm. Social and cultural factors can also play a role in the desire for control. For example, some subcultures or communities may place a high value on obedience and submission, while others may glorify dominance and power. These cultural norms can shape individuals' beliefs and preferences regarding control. Psychology Today: "The Appeal of Being Dominated" - This article explores the psychological motivations behind the desire to be controlled by others, including the influence of childhood experiences and personality traits. The Conversation: "Why Some People Like Being Told What To Do" - This article discusses the social and cultural factors that contribute to the appeal of control, such as gender roles and power dynamics. Journal of Sex Research: "The Desire to Be Controlled: Personality and Motivational Correlates" - This academic study examines the personality traits and motivations associated with submissive behaviors in sexual contexts. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coercion is the use of force or threats to make someone do something against their will. The human anatomy of coercion involves several parts of the brain that are responsible for decision-making, emotion regulation, and social interaction. Here are the key brain regions involved in coercion: Prefrontal Cortex: The prefrontal cortex is the part of the brain responsible for decision-making, planning, and impulse control. It is involved in regulating behavior and inhibiting inappropriate responses. Coercion can affect the prefrontal cortex by impairing its ability to inhibit unwanted behaviors or by overriding its normal decision-making processes. The prefrontal cortex, which is located at the front of the brain, just behind the forehead. Prefrontal Cortex helps regulate behavior by integrating information from other brain regions and applying executive control over actions. This region is also responsible for self-awareness and introspection, allowing individuals to monitor and modify their own behavior. Another important region involved in controlling and being controlled is the limbic system, which includes structures such as the amygdala, hippocampus, and hypothalamus. The limbic system plays a key role in regulating emotions, motivation, and instinctual behaviors. The amygdala, in particular, is responsible for processing emotional responses and triggering the "fight or flight" response when faced with perceived threats. The hypothalamus helps regulate basic physiological functions such as hunger, thirst, sleep, and sexual behavior. Amygdala: The amygdala is a small almond-shaped structure located deep within the temporal lobe of the brain. It is involved in processing emotions such as fear, anger, and aggression. Coercion can activate the amygdala, leading to an emotional response that may override rational thinking and decision-making. Anterior Cingulate Cortex: The anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) is a region of the brain that plays a role in regulating emotional responses and social behavior. It is involved in detecting errors and conflicts between competing goals or actions. Coercion can affect the ACC by creating conflicting goals or motivations that lead to stress and anxiety. Additionally, the basal ganglia is another region involved in controlling movement and behavior. It consists of several interconnected nuclei deep within the brain and works in conjunction with other brain regions to initiate and modulate voluntary movements. Dysfunction in the basal ganglia can lead to movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease or Huntington's disease. It is important to note that while these regions are involved in controlling behavior, they are also subject to influence and modulation by other parts of the brain. The brain operates through a complex network of interconnected regions that communicate with each other through electrical and chemical signals. This allows for dynamic regulation and adaptation of behavior in response to internal and external stimuli. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) - https://www.ninds.nih.gov Harvard Medical School - https://www.health.harvard.edu Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - https://www.plato.stanford.edu "The Neuroscience of Coercion: How Brain Science Can Inform Policy" - This article from the Harvard Law Review discusses how advances in neuroscience can help policymakers understand how coercion works and develop more effective strategies for preventing it. "The Neural Basis of Coercion: Brain Circuits That Determine Whether We Will Resist or Comply" - This research paper published in Trends in Cognitive Sciences provides an overview of the neural circuits involved in coercion and how they interact with each other. "The Role of Emotion Regulation in Coercion and Its Implications for Mental Health Treatment" - This article from the Journal of Interpersonal Violence discusses how emotion regulation plays a role in coercion and how it can be targeted in mental health treatment to prevent or mitigate the effects of coercion. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coercion refers to the use of force or threats to make someone do something against their will, while charm refers to the ability to attract, please, or persuade someone through one's personality or behavior. While coercion and charm may seem like opposite approaches to getting what one wants, they can both be used as tools of manipulation. For example, a person may use coercion to get someone to comply with their demands, while another person may use charm to manipulate someone into doing what they want without resorting to overt threats or force. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy provides an in-depth analysis of coercion, including its definition, different types of coercion, and ethical considerations. The article also discusses the relationship between coercion and other related concepts such as force and manipulation. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/coercion/ Psychology Today offers an article on the science behind charm and how it can be used for good or bad purposes. The article explains the psychology behind charm and how it can be used as a tool for persuasion and influence. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-social-thinker/201802/the-science-charm The Journal of Social Psychology published a study on the relationship between coercion and charm in romantic relationships. The study found that individuals who used more coercive tactics were less likely to use charm in their relationships, suggesting that these two approaches may be inversely related. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224545.2018.1469474 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Commonality differences and comparison of censorship and coercion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Censorship and coercion are two concepts that have been around for centuries. They both involve the restriction of certain types of speech or expression, but they differ in their purpose and application. Censorship is the suppression of ideas or information that is deemed to be offensive, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to a particular group or individual. Coercion is the use of threats or force to compel someone to do something against their will. While censorship and coercion are related in that they both involve restricting freedom of expression, there are important differences between them. Censorship is typically used as a form of control by governments or other powerful entities while coercion is more often used by individuals as a means of manipulation. The correlation between censorship and coercion lies in the fact that both can be used to limit freedom of expression and impose one's will on another person. — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Censorship in the Dark Ages Leads To Philosophy In the first century AD, Roman emperors used censorship as a way to suppress free thought and promote Christianity. This was done by banning philosophers from cities, which was seen as a form of censorship. This banishment of philosophers was seen as an attempt to control the spread of ideas that were not in line with the emperor's beliefs. Censorship also served to limit access to knowledge and information that could potentially challenge the emperor's authority. The banishment of philosophers from cities was a form of censorship that had far-reaching implications for free thought and Christianity in the Roman Empire. Some consider this the beginning of the dark ages. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dominators often use mind control tactics to manipulate and control their partners or other individuals in their lives. These tactics can be subtle or overt, and often involve isolating the victim, controlling their behavior and thoughts, and creating a sense of dependency. Here are some common mind control tactics used by abusive men: 1. Isolation: Dominators often try to isolate their victims from friends and family members, making them feel more dependent on the abuser for emotional support. This can involve limiting access to phones, computers, or transportation, or simply discouraging the victim from spending time with others. 2. Gaslighting: Gaslighting is a form of emotional abuse that involves manipulating someone into doubting their own perceptions and memories. Abusive men may use gaslighting to make their victims question their own sanity, making it easier for the abuser to control them. 3. Intimidation: Dominators may use threats of physical violence or other forms of intimidation to control their victims. This can include making threats against the victim's safety or well-being, or using physical force to intimidate them. The National Domestic Violence Hotline provides information on warning signs of abusive behavior and resources for those who are experiencing domestic violence: https://www.thehotline.org/is-this-abuse/ The American Psychological Association provides information on the psychology of abusive relationships and how to break free from them: https://www.apa.org/topics/trauma/mind-control The National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma & Mental Health provides information on how trauma can impact survivors of domestic violence and how to provide effective support: https://www.nationalcenterdvtraumamh.org/resources/domestic-violence-and-trauma/ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dominators often use mental coercion tactics to control others and establish dominance. These tactics can be subtle or overt, and may involve emotional manipulation, gaslighting, isolation, and other forms of psychological abuse. Here are some of the ways that abusive men use mental coercion tactics to control others: 1. Emotional Manipulation: Dominators often use emotional manipulation to control their partners. They may use guilt, shame, or fear to make their partners feel like they are responsible for the abuse or that they are somehow to blame for the abuser's behavior. They may also use love bombing, which involves showering their partner with affection and attention in order to create a sense of dependence. 2. Gaslighting: Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse in which the abuser manipulates their partner's perception of reality. This can involve denying events or experiences that actually happened, or insisting that their partner is crazy or delusional when they express concerns about the abuse. Gaslighting can be extremely damaging to the victim's mental health and can make it difficult for them to trust their own perceptions. 3. Isolation: Dominators often try to isolate their partners from friends and family members in order to maintain control over them. They may discourage their partner from spending time with loved ones, or they may actively interfere with their relationships by spreading rumors or making false accusations about them. The National Domestic Violence Hotline: https://www.thehotline.org/2014/05/what-is-gaslighting/ This website provides information on gaslighting and other forms of psychological abuse. Psychology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/anger-in-the-age-entitlement/201901/the-psychological-effects-abuse This article discusses the psychological effects of Dominators and how Dominators use mental coercion tactics to control their partners. HelpGuide.org: https://www.helpguide.org/articles/abuse/domestic-violence-and-abuse.htm This website provides information on domestic violence and abuse, including the ways that abusers use mental coercion tactics to maintain control over their partners. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
People may use hypnotic suggestion powers to control others by manipulating their thoughts and behaviors through the use of hypnosis. Hypnosis is a state of focused attention and suggestibility that can be induced through various techniques, such as guided imagery, relaxation, and suggestion. Here are some ways in which abusive men may use hypnotic suggestion powers to control others: 1. Gaslighting: Dominators may use hypnosis to make their victims doubt their own perceptions and memories. This technique is known as gaslighting, and it involves making the victim question their own sanity or reality. By repeatedly suggesting that their victim is mistaken or imagining things, the abuser can make them more vulnerable to suggestion and control. 2. Covert hypnosis: Dominators may also use covert hypnosis techniques to influence their victim's thoughts and behaviors without their knowledge or consent. This can involve using embedded commands, subtle gestures, and other nonverbal cues to plant suggestions in the victim's subconscious mind. 3. Love bombing: Another way in which abusive men may use hypnosis is through love bombing. This technique involves overwhelming the victim with affection, attention, and gifts in order to create a sense of dependency and loyalty. By using hypnosis to intensify these feelings, the abuser can make it harder for the victim to leave or resist their control. "The Hypnotic Power of Abuse" by Dr. Joe Carver (https://www.drjoecarver.com/clients/49355/File/Power%20of%20Abuse.html) - This article explains how abusers may use hypnosis to manipulate their victims and offers tips for recognizing and breaking free from this type of control. "Hypnotic Influence: A Primer for Abusers" by Steven Hassan (https://freedomofmind.com/hypnotic-influence-a-primer-for-abusers/) - This article provides an in-depth analysis of how abusers may use hypnosis to control their victims and offers strategies for protecting oneself from this type of manipulation. "The Abusive Use of Hypnosis in Intimate Relationships" by Dr. Brian Weiss (https://www.brianweiss.com/the-abusive-use-of-hypnosis-in-intimate-relationships/) - This article explores how abusers may use hypnosis to control their partners and offers advice for recognizing and ending this type of abuse. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abusive men may use hypnosis tactics to control others and assert dominance in a variety of ways. Some of the most common tactics include: 1. Gaslighting: This is a form of psychological manipulation in which the abuser makes the victim doubt their own perception of reality. The abuser may use hypnosis techniques to make the victim more suggestible and then use this suggestibility to implant false memories or beliefs that support their abusive behavior. 2. Covert hypnosis: This is a technique in which the abuser uses subtle language patterns and nonverbal cues to influence the victim's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors without their knowledge or consent. The abuser may use this technique to convince the victim that they are powerless, unworthy, or deserving of abuse. 3. Trance induction: This is a technique in which the abuser induces a hypnotic trance in the victim to make them more suggestible and compliant. The abuser may use this technique to implant suggestions that support their abusive behavior or to erase memories of abuse. "Hypnosis and Domestic Violence" by Dr. Michael Yapko: This article explores how hypnosis can be used as a tool for both perpetrating and healing from domestic violence. It discusses how abusers may use hypnosis tactics to manipulate their victims and how victims can use self-hypnosis to heal from trauma. "The Use of Hypnosis in Abusive Relationships" by Dr. Mark Goulston: This article discusses how abusers may use hypnosis tactics such as gaslighting, covert hypnosis, and trance induction to control their victims. It also provides tips for recognizing these tactics and breaking free from abusive relationships. "Hypnotic Influence and Emotional Abuse" by Dr. Richard Bandler: This article explores how abusers may use hypnosis tactics to emotionally abuse their victims. It discusses how abusers may use language patterns, body language, and other hypnotic techniques to manipulate their victims and maintain power and control over them. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1FSq9crNsXPbK0mYFJq2cOOjdJLt_gl0k Coercion https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GX2a9ELQ-i0gwBqzjPgotUoETbFXaE0U8ytfGITYt1Y/edit?usp=drivesdk | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Biderman's Power and Control Wheel is a model that explains the tactics used by abusers to gain and maintain control over their victims. Abusive men can use Biderman's powers to control others by using various tactics such as coercion, intimidation, isolation, and emotional abuse. 1. Coercion: Abusive men may use coercion to control their victims by threatening them with physical violence, financial ruin, or other consequences if they do not comply with their demands. This can include threats to harm the victim or their loved ones, or threats to take away their children. 2. Intimidation: Abusive men may use intimidation to control their victims by making them feel afraid or powerless. This can include verbal threats, physical aggression, or using weapons to intimidate the victim. 3. Isolation: Abusive men may use isolation to control their victims by cutting them off from friends and family members. This can include controlling who the victim talks to, where they go, and what they do. 4. Emotional Abuse: Abusive men may use emotional abuse to control their victims by manipulating their emotions and making them feel guilty or ashamed. This can include belittling the victim, calling them names, or using gaslighting tactics to make them doubt their own perceptions. 5. The Silent Treatment: Abusive men may use the silent treatment to control their victims by refusing to communicate with them or ignoring them for extended periods of time. This can be used as a form of punishment or to make the victim feel isolated and alone. 6. Financial Control: Abusive men may use financial control to control their victims by limiting their access to money or controlling how it is spent. This can include preventing the victim from working outside the home, taking away their credit cards or bank accounts, or forcing them to account for every penny spent. 7. Sexual Abuse: Abusive men may use sexual abuse to control their victims by forcing them to engage in sexual acts against their will. This can include rape, sexual assault, or other forms of sexual coercion. 8. Using Children: Abusive men may use children to control their victims by threatening to harm them or take them away if the victim does not comply with their demands. This can include using the children as pawns in custody battles or using them to manipulate the victim's emotions. National Domestic Violence Hotline: https://www.thehotline.org/resources/power-and-control-wheel/ Psychology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/anger-in-the-age-entitlement/201307/the-biderman-report National Coalition Against Domestic Violence: https://ncadv.org/blog/posts/the-power-and-control-wheel-an-explanation
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It’s like you go to abuse school’: how domestic violence always follows the same script How is it that men from vastly different cultures know to use the same basic techniques of oppression | Jesse Hill | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Document a Day: Old Torture Made New | Larry Siems, The Torture Report Share This Page June 14, 2010 | https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/document-day-old-torture-made-new | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressures Training, January 15, 2002 Report on Physical Pressures Training, January 15, 2002 15 Jan 2003 | From: John F. Rankin, SERE Training Specialist Christopher Ross, SERE Coordinator To: Officer in Charge, FASUTRAGRULANT Det Brunswick | https://humanrights.ucdavis.edu/projects/the-guantanamo-testimonials-project/testimonies/testimonies-of-the-defense-department/sere-training-report | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Differential Influence of Drinking, Sensation Seeking, and Impulsivity on the Perpetration of Unwanted Sexual Advances and Sexual Coercion Emily R. Wilhite and Kim Fromme Introduction There are staggering rates of sexual assault on college campuses, with 23% of women and 19% of men reporting being a victim of unwanted sexual experiences during college (Conley et al., 2017). These numbers affirm the necessity of early detection of risk factors that may lead to perpetration of sexual coercion during college. Identifying risk factors among certain individuals before entry to college allows for the opportunity to intervene to prevent sexual coercion. Furthermore, some men will perpetrate once, while others will become repeat offenders, and being able to decipher unique risk factors for these categories of perpetrators could augment current prevention efforts (Abbey & McAuslan, 2002). Thus, this longitudinal study examined three potential risk factors measured among men at the end of high school (i.e., alcohol use, impulsivity, and sensation seeking) and their prospective association with different levels of sexual coercion perpetration across the course of college. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chadwick, S. B., & van Anders, S. M. (2017). Do women’s orgasms function as a masculinity achievement for men? Journal of Sex Research, 54, 1141–1152. | Attwood, F. (2005). What do people do with porn? Qualitative research into the consumption, use, and experience of pornography and other sexually explicit media. Sexuality and Culture, 9, 65–86. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chadwick, S. B., Francisco, M., & van Anders, S. M. (2019). When orgasms do not equal pleasure: Accounts of “bad” orgasm experiences during consensual sexual encounters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48, 2435–2459. | Braun, V., Gavey, N., & McPhillips, K. (2003). The `fair deal’? Unpacking accounts of reciprocity in heterosex. Sexualities, 6, 237–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460703006002005 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Catalan, J. (1993). Primary male anorgasmia and its treatment: Three case reports. Sexual and Marital Therapy, 8, 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/02674659308404974 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dunkley, C. R., & Brotto, L. A. (2020). The role of consent in the context of BDSM. Sexual Abuse, 32, 657–678. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063219842847 | Eaton, A. A., & Matamala, A. (2014). The relationship between heteronormative beliefs and verbal sexual coercion in college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1443–1457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0284-4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fahs, B. (2014a). ‘Freedom to’ and ‘freedom from’: A new vision for sex-positive politics. Sexualities, 17, 267–290. | Fahs, B. (2014b). Coming to power: Women’s fake orgasms and best orgasm experiences illuminate the failures of (hetero)sex and the pleasures of connection. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 16, 974–988. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
References. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1980's | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(1986) Enhancing relationships: Understanding the feminine mystique of pretending orgasm. | Darling, C. A., & Davidson, J. K. | Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 12, 182–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926238608415405 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(1988) Intention and coercion. | Wall, E. | Journal of Applied Philosophy, 5, 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.1988.tb00230.x | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1990's | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1998 Sexual coercion: Men victimized by women. | Fiebert, M. S., & Tucci, L. M. ( | Journal of Men’s Studies, 6, 127–133. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(1992) Sex, organs and audiotape: A discourse analytic approach to talking about heterosexual sex and relationships. | Gilfoyle, J., Wilson, J., & Own, B. . | Feminism & Psychology, 2, 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/095935359222010 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(1999) Sexual satisfaction and sexual self-disclosure within dating relationships | Byers, E. S., & Demmons, S. | Journal of Sex Research, 36, 180–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499909551983 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(1990) Risk factors, self-attributions, and adjustment problems among victims of sexual coercion | Mynatt, C. R., & Allgeier, E. R.. | Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 130–153. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(1998) Feigning sexual desire: Consenting to unwanted sexual activity in heterosexual dating relationships. | .O'Sullivan, L. F., & Allgeier, E. R | Journal of Sex Research, 35, 234–243. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(1990) Men’s heterosocial skill and attitudes toward women as predictors of verbal sexual coercion and forceful rape. | Muehlenhard, C. L., & Falcon, P. L. | Sex Roles, 23, 241–259. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(1999) A longitudinal examination of the consequences of sexual victimization for rural young adult women | Zweig, J. M., Crockett, L. J., Sayer, A., & Vicary, J. R. | Journal of Sex Research, 36, 396–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499909552012 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(1997) Sexual coercion and well-being in young adulthood: Comparisons by gender and college status. | Zweig, J. M., Barber, B. L., & Eccles, J. S. | Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626097012002009 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(2000) Coming, coming, gone: A feminist deconstruction of heterosexual orgasm. | Potts, A. | Sexualities, 3, 55–76. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rhodes, M. R. (2000). The nature of coercion. In J. Narveson & S. Dimock (Eds.), Liberalism: New essays on liberal themes (pp. 221–233). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9440-0_15 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health, 23, 334–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4%3c334::AID-NUR9%3e3.0.CO;2-G | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2002 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(2002) The normative functions of coercion claims | Berman, M. N.. | Legal Theory, 8, 45–89. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325202081028 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2005 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(2005) Sexual experience of female partners of men with erectile dysfunction: The Female Experience of Men’s Attitudes to Life Events and Sexuality (FEMALES) study | Fisher, W. A., Rosen, R. C., Eardley, I., Sand, M., & Goldstein, I. | Journal of Sexual Medicine, 2, 675–684. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2008 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(2008) Factors influencing the sexual relationships of lesbians and gay men | Cohen, J. N., Byers, E. S., & Walsh, L. P. | International Journal of Sexual Health, 20, 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/19317610802240105 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(2008) The impact of erectile dysfunction on female partners: A qualitative investigation | Conaglen, H. M., & Conaglen, J. V. | Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 23, 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681990801918680 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(2009) Sexual coercion in men and women: Similar behaviors, different predictors | Schatzel-Murphy, E. A., Harris, D. A., Knight, R. A., & Milburn, M. A. | Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 974–986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9481-y | . | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2010 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(2010) Men’s and women’s reports of pretending orgasm | Muehlenhard, C. L., & Shippee, S. K.. | Journal of Sex Research, 47, 552–567. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(2010) Are all perpetrators alike? Comparing risk Factors for sexual coercion and aggression | DeGue, S., DiLillo, D., & Scalora, M. | Sexual Abuse, 22, 402–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063210372140 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2011 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(2011) The specific importance of communicating about sex to couples’ sexual and overall relationship satisfaction. | Montesi, J. L., Fauber, R. L., Gordon, E. A., & Heimberg, R. G. | Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 591–609. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2013 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(2013) Adventures with the “plastic man”: Sex toys, compulsory heterosexuality, and the politics of women’s sexual pleasure. | Fahs, B., & Swank, E. | Sexuality & Culture, 17, 666–685. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2015 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(2015) Race and reproductive coercion: A qualitative assessment | Nikolajski, C., Miller, E., McCauley, H. L., Akers, A., Schwarz, E. B., Freedman, L., Steinberg, J., Ibrahim, S., & Borrero, S.. | Women’s Health Issues, 25, 216–223. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(2015) Sexercising to orgasm: Embodied pedagogy and sexual labour in women’s magazines. | Frith, H. | Sexualities, 18, 310–328. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(2015) Beyond sexual orientation: Integrating gender/sex and diverse sexualities via sexual configurations theory. | van Anders, S. M. | Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1177–1213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0490-8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(2016) Sexual assault victimization among straight, gay/lesbian, and bisexual college students. | Ford, J., & Soto-Marquez, J. G | Violence and Gender, 3, 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2015.0030 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(2016) Defining pleasure: A focus group study of solitary and partnered sexual pleasure in queer and heterosexual women. | Goldey, K. L., Posh, A. R., Bell, S. N., & van Anders, S. M. | Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 2137–2154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0704-8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(2016) The complexities of sexual consent among college students: A conceptual and empirical review | Muehlenhard, C. L., Humphreys, T. P., Jozkowski, K. N., & Peterson, Z. D. | Journal of Sex Research, 53, 457–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1146651 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2017 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(2017) Coercion. In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). | Anderson, S. | Metaphysics Research Lab, Standford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/coercion/ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From Coercion to Physical Force: Aggressive Strategies Used by Women Against Men in “Forced-to-Penetrate” Cases in the UK Siobhan Weare https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6245084/ Abstract “Forced-to-penetrate” cases involve a man being forced-to-penetrate, with his penis and without his consent, a woman’s vagina, anus, or mouth. This article presents the first quantitative and qualitative research findings regarding such cases in the UK, exploring aggressive strategies used by women, as reported by 154 men who experienced them. The most frequently used strategies include coercion, taking advantage of men’s intoxication, and the use of force and threats of physical harm. Novel evidence is presented of women combining multiple strategies within the same incident. The article also argues that some of the strategies used by women are particularly “gendered,” with them taking advantage of their roles as women. The findings presented here raise questions for criminal justice professionals working in the area of sexual violence, as well as highlighting the need for future research. Keywords: Forced-to-penetrate, Sexual violence, Male victims, Female perpetrators, Gender | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Opperman, E., Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Rogers, C. (2014). “It feels so good it almost hurts”: Young adults’ experiences of orgasm and sexual pleasure. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 503–515. | Peterson, Z. D., & Buday, S. K. (2020). Sexual coercion in couples with infertility: Prevalence, gender differences, and associations with psychological outcomes. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 35, 30–45. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Salisbury, C. M. A., & Fisher, W. A. (2014). “Did you come?” A qualitative exploration of gender differences in beliefs, experiences, and concerns regarding female orgasm occurrence during heterosexual sexual interactions. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 616–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.838934 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Satinsky, S., & Jozkowski, K. (2014). Sexual coercion and behavior among a sample of sexual minority women. Women & Health, 54, 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/03630242.2013.876487 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson, D., & Anderson, P. B. (2003). Tactics of sexual coercion: When men and women won’t take no for an answer. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 76–86. | Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15, 398–405. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Willis, M., & Jozkowski, K. N. (2019). Sexual precedent’s effect on sexual consent communication. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48, 1723–1734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1348-7 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Willis, M., & Nelson-Gray, R. O. (2020). Setting a bad precedent: Sexual compliance in undergraduate women’s sexually coercive relationships. Journal of American College Health. | Wright, M. O., Norton, D. L., & Matusek, J. A. (2010). Predicting verbal coercion following sexual refusal during a hookup: Diverging gender patterns. Sex Roles, 62, 647–660. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FrancisDEFINITIONALViolence and coercionBoth situated couple violence and intimate terrorism are violent but only intimate terrorism is controllingCoercive control is more important than physical violence; physical violence is not always coerciveAll physical violence is controlling (instrumental)Violence and harmAll physical violence is harmful, but intimate terrorism is more harmful than situational couple violencePhysical violence is sometimes harmful; coercive control is always harmfulAll violent crimes are harmful – this is the definition of a crime; all domestic violent crime is harmfulRepetition Individual events are distinguished to identify different typologies of domestic violenceA course of conduct is one continuous eventEach event is a separate violent crimeSeriousness Intimate terrorism is more serious than situated couple violenceCoercive control is more serious than physical violenceSeriousness is dictated by the harm to the victim (typically the more injurious the more serious)SUSCEPTIBLE TO EMPIRICAL TESTINGMotivation and resilienceVariations in seriousness due to gendered motivations of the perpetratorVariations in seriousness due to gendered motivations of the perpetratorVariations likely to be linked to resilience (or vulnerability) of the victim/the situation of the victimDualism or escalationTypologies: escalation is important in intimate terrorism but not in situated couple violence; victims do not escalate from situated couple violence into intimate terrorismDoes not interrogate escalation; but decline in physical violence over time in societies matched by increase in non-physical coercive controlEscalation: domestic violent crime escalates in line with the vulnerability of the victim/their situationGender Situated couple violence not gendered; intimate terrorism by men against womenCoercive control of women by men in intimate partnershipsAll domestic violent crime is gendered; and becomes more asymmetrical (against women) the more serious and the more repeated Walby and Towers 19SeriousnessFor Stark, | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||