Abstract
Introduction
Sexual violence (SV) perpetrated by women against men is socially dismissed and underrepresented in research. The aim of the current study was to explore the perspectives of university students (women and men) on women-perpetrated SV against men.
Methods
A total of 19 undergraduate students were presented with a vignette describing a hypothetical situation of SV and interviewed.
Results
A thematic analysis was performed, identifying four main themes: characters’ Features, sexual initiation Strategies, Consequences, and Motivations and Contexts. Participants endorsed gender stereotypes and victim-blaming narratives, but also challenged gender stereotypes and rape myths. Participants could identify violent sexual initiation strategies, could anticipate potential consequences of the abuse, and were able to imagine potential motivational and contextual factors that facilitated the abuse.
Conclusions
These results highlight the importance of providing adequate information regarding women-perpetrated SV and can inform preventative approaches targeting social norms that perpetuate the invisibility of this phenomenon. Recommendations for future research are discussed.
Policy Implications
Public policies that facilitate the training of professionals who contact with victims may help overcome the influence of rape myths that hinder appropriate intervention. Similarly, policies that support the prevention of SV in university contexts may contribute to translate the results from research into practice.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Background
Sexual violence (SV) perpetrated by women against men is poorly investigated and often dismissed in the political and societal scene (Brayford, 2012; Carvalho & Brazão, 2021; Turchik et al., 2016). SV is defined as any sexual activity committed against someone who is unwilling or unable to consent (Bagwell-Gray et al., 2015; Basile et al., 2014; Carvalho & Brazão, 2021). This includes sexual acts, attempts to obtain sexual acts, unwanted sexual comments or advances against a person’s sexuality using coercion (Jewkes et al., 2002). Coercive strategies may be hands-on (e.g., physical force) or hands-off (e.g., verbal pressure or blackmailing) (Carvalho & Brazão, 2021; Carvalho & Sá, 2017; Johansson-Love & Fremouw, 2006).
Social Scripts and Women Perpetrated SV
The literature on this topic often uses the term female and male when referring to the perpetration of violence and the myths that support it. In this work, we have chosen to use the terms “women” and “man” as we wish to highlight the social nature of these assertions and disengage from notions of biological essentialism, even though these were not those used in most previous research.
SV perpetrated by women against men is often under-represented in the official statistics and in the scientific literature, partially due to prescribed social scripts and the endorsement of stereotyped gender roles (Comartin et al., 2021; Fisher & Pina, 2013; Turchik et al., 2016). Social scripts are prescriptive cognitive structures which ascribe traditional gender roles according to an individual’s sex (Byers, 1996). Within these social scripts, rape myths (false beliefs about SV) are particularly relevant for this research, as they implicate the invisibility of offending by women and of victimization by men (Bohner et al., 2009; Carroll et al., 2019; Denov, 2003; Hayes & Carpenter, 2013). One of these rape myths has been described as the myth of women’s innocence, which concerns the invisibility of offending by women (Denov, 2003). This myth can in part be explained by the same gender stereotypes that associate women with passive, non-aggressive, caring, and nurturing roles (Christensen, 2018; Gakhal & Brown, 2011; Geppert, 2022; Loxton & Groves, 2022). In turn, this narrative would be incompatible with aggressive, violent, and criminal behavior. Similarly, men rape myths assume that men cannot be forced to have sex against their will, that they are always willing to have sex, and are able to defend themselves if confronted with SV (Carvalho & Brazão, 2021; Chapleau et al., 2008; Turchik & Edwards, 2012; Walfield, 2018). Additionally, these myths assume that only gay men are victims and/or perpetrators of men’s rape, that men are not impacted by rape, that men’s rape only happens in prisons, and that women cannot rape men (Lowe & Rogers, 2017; Turchik & Edwards, 2012; Walfield, 2018). Thus, being a victim seems incompatible with stereotypes about men, which obliterates men’s experiences of SV (Depraetere et al., 2020; Javaid, 2017, 2018; Loxton & Groves, 2022).
In addition, when men use coercive strategies (e.g., verbal pressure) to obtain sex, they are seen as aggressive, while women using the same strategies are seen as promiscuous (Oswald & Russell, 2006). Several studies have shown that women sex offenders are described more positively than men sex offenders, because their behavior is considered more acceptable, less dangerous, and interpreted as affective or romantic (Cain & Anderson, 2016; Carroll et al., 2019; Moore & Miller-Perrin, 2022; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1993). Consequently, in a scenario where women are seen as non-aggressive and men believed to have total control over sexual interactions, men are unlikely seen as victims and more often blamed for the acts they have suffered (Bohner et al., 2009; Catton & Dorahy, 2022; Loxton & Groves, 2022; Sleath & Bull, 2009).
The fact that earlier conceptualizations of sexual aggression assumed men as perpetrators and women as victims, such as the ones held in the early version of the widely used Sexual Experiences Survey (Koss & Oros, 1982), or by the FBI until 1992 (Larimer et al., 1999), created serious obstacles to the estimation of the prevalence of women-perpetrated SV against men (Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1994). The only victimization of men that was considered was the one perpetrated by other men (Busby & Compton, 1997). The interviews of Sarrel and Masters (1982) of 11 men who were sexually molested by women pioneered the research in this field by recognizing that men could also be coerced into sex by means of non-consented sexual stimulation, eliciting fear and anger, which resulted in traumatic responses.
Prevalence Rates
Research focusing on women-perpetrated SV is scarce, but findings concerning both community and criminal samples indicate that women use sexually violent behaviors in their intimate relationships with men, particularly hands-off strategies, such as verbal coercion, psychological manipulation, and blackmailing (Bates & Weare, 2020; Carvalho & Brazão, 2021; Carvalho & Nobre, 2015; Carvalho et al., 2018). These relate, respectively, to pressuring someone with verbal arguments, questioning someone’s sexuality, or threatening to use a position of power (Anderson, 1996). Despite this, men and women seem to use the same hands-on and hands-off coercive strategies (Carvalho et al., 2018; Weare, 2018), and to act similarly in terms of variety and frequency of these strategies, even if their use is prompt by different motivators (Schatzel-Murphy et al., 2009).
A review from Williams et al. (2008), which examined women-perpetrated intimate partner violence in university settings, found prevalence rates for women-perpetrated SV ranging from 1.2 to 46.2% in eight studies. A cross-sectional online survey of 260 women studying in college reported a prevalence of 35.8% of some form of sexual aggression against men (46.2% committed sexual coercion; 34.1% committed sexual abuse and 19.8% used physical violence) (Carvalho & Nobre, 2015). Similarly, in a sample of men seeking help for intimate partner violence, 48.6% reported being victims of women-perpetrated SV, among which 28% were victims of severe SV (involving the use of threats or physical force to have oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse; (Hines & Douglas, 2016). Finally, in a meta-analysis including data from 12 countries, women-perpetrated sex crimes accounted for 12% of the ones captured by victimization surveys and 2% of those reported in official statistics (Cortoni et al., 2016).
Relevance of the Research Topic
The literature highlights the real consequences for adult men who suffer SV from women, including guilt, anxiety, depression, sexual dysfunction, somatization, sleep disturbances, trauma, or even suicide (Jewkes et al., 2002; Lowe & Rogers, 2017; Peterson et al., 2011). Additionally, the impact of the stigma of being victimized by a women can exacerbate the trauma of the abuse, creating obstacles to help-seeking (Gambardella et al., 2020; Lowe & Rogers, 2017). Some male victims report fear of not being believed and being considered homosexual (Hlavka, 2016; Lowe & Rogers, 2017; Widanaralalage et al., 2022; Young et al., 2018).
In sum, social scripts, rape myths, and gender stereotypes seem to be contributing to the maintenance and invisibility of the sexual victimization of men by women (Carroll et al., 2019; Carvalho & Brazão, 2021; Fisher & Pina, 2013). Describing how individuals, and particularly university students, perceive the phenomenon of SV perpetrated by women against men seems paramount to initiate the process of challenging these social mechanisms. Thus, previous studies have examined these perceptions in groups such as university students (Catton & Dorahy, 2022; Mackelprang & Becker, 2015; Moore & Miller-Perrin, 2022).
Current Study
The current study gathers the perspectives of university students (women and men) on women-perpetrated SV against men. University students were interviewed after reading a description of a hypothetical situation of SV. The interviews conducted aimed to answer the following research question: How do university students perceive SV perpetrated by women against men?
Method
Participants
There were two waves of interviews, conducted by two researchers in 2020 and 2021—first to 9 young women, and then to 10 young men. In total, 19 interviews were collected and analyzed. Overall, interviewees had an average age of 21 years. All of them were undergraduate students at the host institution where the study was conducted. After the interviews were completed, they were transcribed and pseudonymized, in order to protect the privacy and identity of the research participants.
Procedures
The study was approved by the Ethics Committe of the School of Psychology and Life Sciences at Lusófona University. All participants were a priori informed of the topic and sensitive nature of the research, and that they could withdraw at any moment. The results presented below are based on thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021a, b, 2022). This methodological approach is anchored in a reflexive constructionist background, which seeks to understand and problematize the way respondents make sense of the world around them, rather than seeking to objectively describe phenomena “as they are.” Because of this, and considering the topic, special attention was paid to the interviewing process when it comes to making the participants feel criticized or afraid to express their positions and worldviews, regardless of how they might conflict, or not, with the extant literature on the topic. The interviews were not intended to ascertain whether participants had factually correct information about the topic, but how they made sense of it.
The methodological design for this study involved the creation of a short vignette as in Fig. 1 which portrayed a fictitious situation where a woman is on a date with a man, at his place, and resorts to both physical and psychological strategies to pressure him into having sex. The storyline was based on real perpetration episodes of women against men described by Sarrel and Masters (1982) and on other vignettes used in previous research (Moore & Miller-Perrin, 2022). The specific violent strategies included groping, pressuring, insulting, and threatening of posting on Facebook that the victim could not get and erection if he did not take off his pants, and were based on the items of the Sexually Aggressive Behaviors Scale (Anderson, 1996; Rosa et al., 2022). The vignette in this study was co-created by two of the authors ([blinded] and [blinded]), and informally discussed with a group of postgraduate students to ascertain whether the phrasing and language were understandable and context-appropriate for university undergraduate students. The vignette was used in the beginning of a face-to-face interview to spark interest, reflection and debate, and to act as an icebreaker, considering the sensitive nature of the topic at hand. It also allowed the respondents to be able to externalize or project any opinions or thoughts that they might consider to be socially undesirable to express as themselves, or any experiences (direct or indirect) they might have had, onto the characters in the vignette.
The interviewees were of the same gender of the interviewers, to prevent, within reason, any potential discomfort for either the researchers or the interviewees, considering the sensitive nature of the topic being covered by the interviewing process, and attentive interviewing practices were used. Furthermore, as stated above, the participants were duly informed of the topic of the research before the participation. The institution had psychology services available to the participants, and this information was provided to the participants before and after their participation in the study. No participants disclosed any discomfort during or after the interviews, and no participants disclosed any previous experience of perpetrating or having been victim of sexual violence.
Participants provided written informed consent for participation in the study and publication of the results before the interviews. All interviews were conducted in European Portuguese.
Data Analysis
Computer-assisted qualitative analysis was conducted through the deployment of NVivo 12 PRO. The procedure was followed as laid out by Braun and Clarke (2021c).This meant that interviews were first read to identify the main elements and characteristics that would stand out the most, and then a tentative coding scheme was formed from it.
The research team collaborated on the creation and discussion of the coding scheme. As per the steps described by Braun and Clarke (2021c), the interviews were read repeatedly for the researchers to become familiar with the data, and initial codes were generated, which represent basic units of meaning within the dataset, privileging explicit—or semantic—content and meaning, rather than implicit meaning. Each response was taken, in toto, as a unit of coding analysis, to better preserve the complexity and connectedness of those responses, especially considering that data collection was done through semi-structured interviewing.
An almost-final version was then tested for coding consistency using NVivo, and any issues identified were then clarified and discussed among the team. After that, the coding scheme was re-discussed to optimize it, by joining together thematically similar codes until there was no overlap between similar codes. The final coding scheme was thus the product of the authors’ iterative process. The discussion of the scheme was only complete when there was full agreement among the whole team about the themes, sub-themes and codes, their definitions, and what interview excerpts belonged (or not) to each code. As is typical with thematic analysis, the same excerpt could be coded in different codes simultaneously, as the same sentence can allude and refer to several ideas at the same time.
Results
This thematic analysis identified four main themes: Descriptions of Woman Aggressor and Man receiving Abuse, Identification of Sexual Violence Strategies used by Woman Aggressor, Gendered Consequences of Sexual Violence Perpetrated by a Woman, and Motivations and Contexts for Woman Perpetrating Sexual Violence. The first theme (characters’ Descriptions) included two sub-themes focused either on the Woman Aggressor (Martha) or on the Man receiving the abuse (John) described in the vignette presented. The theme Strategies was divided into two subthemes (physical and psychological) while the theme Motivations and Contexts was divided into three sub-themes (intrapersonal, interpersonal, and sociocultural). The Consequences theme was divided into the sub-themes Man receiving abuse and Woman Aggressor and included perceptions about the characters from the vignette but also about abstracted “men” and “women” in similar situations. Within each of the subthemes, we classified several codes. See Fig. 2 for a graphic representation of themes and subthemes.
Further down in Table 1, a description and verbatim examples of all codes are presented. We have not included frequencies per Braun and Clarke’s (2021c) recommendations, since these might be misinterpreted as proxies for the relevance or salience of the data presented—our objective here is to understand the breadth of ways in which participants make sense of the vignette and, by extension, the topic of woman-on-man sexual violence; we make no claim to statistical generalizability, but we do note on the salience and relevance of particular aspects of our data. The examples included correspond to translated extracts of our participants’ contributions in Portuguese. The translation was performed by L.O.
Descriptions of Woman Aggressor and Man Receiving Abuse
Participants tended to describe the Woman Aggressor in a mostly negative light, while describing the Man receiving abuse in a mostly positive light.
Both characters were seen as defying gender stereotypes. In the transcript below, the participant voiced the expectation that girls in a situation where they felt their partner was uncomfortable with engaging in sexual acts would give up on it, while boys in similar situations would pressure girls into it, a scenario opposed to the one described in the vignette:
I believe that there are many girls who, in situations like this, try to have something with boys, of course they do, but then they realize that they are not comfortable and will not force the situation. In the part of forcing the situation, I believe it is more frequently done by boys (…) No, I just found it curious because it is usually the opposite situation, but I think that maybe the girls in this interview might be the opposite situation. (LV, man)
Woman Aggressor
The depictions of the Woman Aggressor were mostly negative (childish, hostile, impulsive, and manipulative), as expressed in the participants lingo describing her as “childish,” “immature,” or in BC’s perspective, a man, “she is a bad person, so if she threatens John for not doing something he doesn’t want to do, I think, okay, she is bad” (hostile). Participants also described Martha as homophobic, as seen in this example: “The fact that she started calling him a faggot… that language means she is being homophobic, isn’t it? (ND, woman)”.
The woman was frequently described as being seductive, which entailed constructions from our participants that were somewhat neutral (“she was a more extroverted person (…) Maybe even sassy, not in a bad way…”) (DI, man), and others more negative and emotionally charged, as seen in the way some participants slut-shamed Martha (“she is a big slut”) (PF, woman).
Man Receiving Abuse
As for the depictions of the Man receiving abuse, these are mostly positive (assertive, normal, and thoughtful), present in the participants discourse in expressions such as “a normal person,” “concerned,” “a good person.”
Opinions regarding the man’s self-expression were split, as some believed his posture was assertive despite the woman’s sexual initiation strategies, and others believed he was introvert and submissive. As an example, the young man’s assertiveness is described in LV’s voice (a man):
…there at some point he starts being more secure and saying, “you know perfectly well I’m not that, I just want to finish watching the movie” and that’s it, I want to believe that he was going to keep the same stance, or even, okay, send her away or whatever. (…) I don’t believe he would submit to that.
On the other hand, views of John’s submission opposed, as in HB’s perspective, a young man, John is “… having a little bit of a passive attitude, in my opinion. I don’t think he should just say, «Oh, I want to see the movie». I think he should say «Stop! I don’t want to! Get off me!» I think you should be a little less passive.”
Finally, one participant hypothesized that “John might not be heterosexual. That information is not here, that he desired Martha. But he did get an erection, so it does not make a lot of sense, but ok.” (RF, man).
Identification of Sexual Violence Strategies Used by Woman Aggressor
The students described varied coercive tactics used to initiate sexual contact to describe Martha’s behavior, but also strategies used in other violent encounters.
Physical Strategies
Physical strategies were coded as genital stimulation, non-genital unwanted touching, physical coercion, and using an unconscious person or, in these students’ voices, “put her hand down his pants,” “gropes and grabs,” “forced the act,” or “when they catch extremely drunk people.” Furthermore, for several participants, the use of physical force or direct physical stimulation was where they drew the line of the abuse. For them, when these strategies were in place, it seemed clearer they were in the presence of a situation of SV. As one of our participants described:
Ok. I think this could be [sexual violence] … Because of this: because he says no, Martha continues to encourage the situation, John continues to say no, he just wants to see the movie and Martha goes so far as to take John’s pants in her hands, that is, there is already a sexual touch and already the attempt to initiate a sexual act. [...] Against John’s will. In other words, for me it is, it’s already sexual violence. (HB, man)
Psychological Strategies
Psychological strategies mentioned by participants included blackmailing, harassment, and humiliation. Most participants used the word “blackmail” to describe the actions of the woman, others mentioned strategies that were less specific, often named as “psychological pressure,” and others specifically focused on how the woman was degrading or pushed the man’s boundaries. One participant described:
It’s like that, I think the most objectionable part there is after he says two or three times no, she continues. That’s the worst, because there it is, everyone has their desires, and she had desires at first and there’s no harm in trying... After a while it starts to be too much, there it is, passes that barrier and it is already too much. For me it’s just that and the fact that she wants to put it on Facebook, that he didn’t get an erection. I think it’s the worst thing about her. (NB, woman)
However, it should be noted that not all participants would describe the situation portrayed as SV, some even employed commonly seen rhetoric blaming the victim for their situation: “I think sexual violence happens when one of the people ends up being forced. Here, John was not forced. Only when she said she was going to post on Facebook” (QA, man).
Gendered Consequences of Sexual Violence Perpetrated by a Woman
When participants discussed consequences of the situation presented in the vignette, they tended to focus on the aftermath of the potential Facebook post. The use of this strategy was described as surprising to many, and often seemed to overrun other aspects of violence. Participants considered the threat regarding the Facebook post the form of violence portrayed in the vignette that would be less likely to occur in the real world.
These consequences were coded under consequences for the Women Aggressor and for the Man receiving abuse.
Women Aggressor
In this context, individual consequences for the woman included personal distress or inconvenience and official charges. One participant described this distress like this: “John might look affected by the Facebook post, so she would still not get what she wanted, which would increase her frustration.” (ML, woman). Some participants described the possibility of a formal complaint: “His friends (…) would report it to an authority” (MN, woman). Within social consequences, some participants anticipated impunity and social support, while others anticipated a negative public image and retaliation. For instance, one participant justified Martha’s anticipated impunity as follows: “I think if I saw that on my feed, I would have thought it was a joke, so I would keep scrolling. I think maybe nothing would happen to Martha, because everyone would have the same reaction as me” (FM, woman). Several participants mentioned that social support would be given to both Martha and John, as exemplified here: “I think his friends would support him and her friends would support her, but his public image would always be affected” (CV, man). Regarding Martha’s public image, participants believed this violent incident would have a significant negative impact, as described: “I want to believe that most people would point the finger at Martha (…) and that they would have an attitude of rejection by saying «this is not correct»” (LV, man). One participant mentioned the possibility of retaliation: “Another possibility would be that John would turn to violence against her. I would not rule that out” (JE, man).
Man Receiving Abuse
Anticipated consequences for the man included impact for the self or negative emotions, including discomfort and anger.
Some participants thought that the man might have an attitude of devaluation of the abuse and that this might be inconsequential for him, as exemplified here: “If he had a clear conscience, because this does not define his personality, he would not mind that much that she posts about it on Facebook. Although it is a defamation, him and his friends know that it does not define his personality” (ML, woman).
Many participants believed that the man might give in to sex, eventually: “Maybe he really wants it, but now he is focused on the movie and then when the movie finishes… he accepts Martha’s pressure and does it in that moment” (JE, man).
Participants anticipated both social support and social stigma. As an example of a description of social stigma, one participant mentioned: “I think it would destroy John’s life a little. With social networks it is easy to expose someone and to be seen by millions of people. Even if it is a rumor, people believe it right away” (IR, man).
As an example of this stigma, some participants employed commonly seen rhetoric blaming the victim for their situation:
He should have considered the possibility that this could happen… When I bring a girl home, it is likely that it happens. […] I think it is sexual violence, however, they already knew each other, and this could happen between them hum… I think that in this case it isn’t, but if they were strangers or if they barely knew each other, it would be [sexual violence]. […] It depends on their relationship. (BC, man)
Finally, one participant mentions several of the aspects referred under this theme:
Probably John, if he used his head, would take Martha to court for having exposed such a situation because it is cyberbullying… Martha would be upset about this situation and the rest would depend on the people around her. If John had good friends, obviously they would defend him. If Martha had good friends, good people, they would say “Are you silly? This can’t be done!” or else there would be very bad people who would make fun of John, and he would start to be a victim of bullying, he would be humiliated, and he could kill himself. (PF, woman)
Motivations and Contexts for Woman Perpetrating Sexual Violence
Participants offered different levels of explanations for situations such as John and Martha’s, including intrapersonal, interpersonal, and sociocultural explanations.
Intrapersonal
Within Intrapersonal motivations/contexts they focused on individual facets of Martha as personality, inner beliefs of homophobia, higher sex drive, or ways of coping with rejection. The following quote summarizes some of these aspects: “Martha might have been a very insecure person and feel like she was not desired by John.” (RF, man). Some students reflected that Martha could have been a victim or a witness of SV, and that she may be re-enacting past abuse, as exemplified: “Maybe someone has done the same to her” (MN, woman).
Interpersonal
Interpersonal explanations included relationship imbalances in power (dominance), in sexual attraction or concerning a sex drive discrepancy. For instance: “John was extremely attractive, and she wanted to be with him because that was her desire. Maybe John did not want to be with her so much. Maybe when he was with her, he did not feel that connection. But Martha desired him a lot, sexually.” (RF, man) There seemed to be a split between those who felt Martha’s actions were due to her feelings for John of romanticism (“Because she apparently fancied him and wanted to be with him,” ON, woman), or, contrarily, due to her emotional detachment or their non-coupledom (“This was a first date and maybe, I don’t know, he wasn’t as interested in her as she was in him and it ended badly,” ED, man). Some students explained her action as acts of revenge against his seeming lack of interest in pursuing sex with Martha, as reported here: “Or maybe she did it out of revenge because she could not get what she wanted, so she will try to impose something bad on him, in this case, sharing these lies with the intent to embarrass him” (DI, man).
Sociocultural
Lastly, sociocultural explanations focused on the overarching context of abuse and the wider social norms, particularly on gender roles. As exemplified by this participant, some students approached SV using stereotypes regarding the sexual drive of each gender, among other gender stereotypes: “This situation seems uncommon to me. Men have more sexual and hormonal appetites than women and in this case, she is the one going after him, which is uncommon.” (DC, man). The students explained that disinformation, or the lack of education on consent and SV could be contributing to the phenomenon:
“First of all, education at home (…) and then at school. I think at school this is not talked about. Ok, a boy aged 7 or 8 knows it is wrong to touch a girl without her authorization, but that is about it. People are not informed enough.” (FM, woman).
Students also reasoned that SV could be a consequence of sexual objectification, as mentioned by this participant:
If I was in Martha’s position, I would see John as a person, not as a sexual object, although I might have felt extremely attracted to him. He is not a sexual object that needs to satisfy me. He is a person and has a person, I have to respect him. (FM, woman)
They also added that certain facilitating contexts may increase the risk of SV: “I think that these situations often occur in certain environments, at home, or sometimes in a bar or a night out, in which only one person wants it and starts provoking until the other one gives into it” (DO, woman). Many highlighted that the fact that SV is a recurrent situation, as exemplified here: “Unfortunately, I think this is a common situation, but in this case, we are seeing the other perspective. Normally, it is a man doing it toa woman, but it is true that it also happens the other way around” (AG, man).
In conclusion, although the situation depicted referred to the violence of a woman toward a man, the discourse often translated the standard narrative, that is, the victimization of women by men. One exception refers to changing times, when participants reflected on changes in societal values that might be responsible for a rise of women’s initiative. As one participant described:
In my time when I was younger (…) 6 or 7 years ago it would be... I’m aware that it would be like I’m saying: men either put much more pressure on women and that women had… ah... they felt much more pressured and manipulated than exactly in this moment now we live in because now women are having relationships at an earlier age and as I said also because of social pressure. It’s happening a lot more than it used to because, maybe, before, seeing women with 18 years old virgin was more normal than it is now. Without drawing any conclusion like that, because I can’t draw without a statistical basis… But drawing a conclusion like that theoretically I think that now there are more situations as described in the text and there is more and more balance. (IR, man)
Discussion
The aim of the current study was to explore in depth the perceptions of a group of university students (women and men) regarding SV perpetrated by women against men. This study provided a discussion focused on social scripts concerning SV, namely men’s rape myths. This was the first study to evaluate perceptions regarding women-perpetrated SV against men in a community sample in Portugal.
When describing the woman’s features, participants attributed her characteristics such as childish, homophobic, hostile, impulsive, manipulative, and seductive, even calling her a “slut,” and mentioning that she defies gender stereotypes. Here, participants admitted that they would tend to attribute these characteristics or these behaviors to men and not to women. In fact, several studies have shown that perpetrators of SV tend to be described differently according to their gender, with women usually being described more leniently (Gakhal & Brown, 2011; Mackelprang & Becker, 2015; Oswald & Russell, 2006). Participants were aware of this counter-stereotypical pattern. Similarly, the man was also described as defying stereotypes, with some participants describing his behavior as normal, assertive, and thoughtful, while others described him as introvert, submissive, passive. The same behavior was interpreted by some participants as assertive and by others as submissive. The participants that described the man as passive and submissive expected him to act more proactively and assertively, revealing an attitude of blaming the victim for the violent situation he was in, which has been previously reported (Bohner et al., 2009; Davies & Rogers, 2006; Hlavka, 2016; Kassing & Prieto, 2003; Sleath & Bull, 2009; Sommer et al., 2016). A few participants argued that the man could have acted differently (for instance, being more vocal in his refusal or using humor) while simultaneously declaring that he could not be blamed for what had happened, revealing an ambiguity in their evaluations of this situation. These statements mirror men’s rape myths that assume that men cannot be coerced into sex, and that they should be able to act proactively in order to defend themselves from violence (Catton & Dorahy, 2022; Chapleau et al., 2008; Huitema & Vanwesenbeeck, 2016; Sleath & Bull, 2009; Turchik & Edwards, 2012; Walfield, 2018). Additionally, participants associated the victim’s behavior with the possibility that he might not be heterosexual. In the vignette, when the victim refuses the woman’s attempt at sexual contact, she uses a homophobic insult to coerce him. Thus, she expresses the men’s rape myth that “real men” are always ready to have sexual contact with a woman and that those who are not, must be gay (Davies & Rogers, 2006; Doherty & Anderson, 2004; Loxton & Groves, 2022; Turchik & Edwards, 2012; Walfield, 2018). Some participants agreed with this interpretation, although some did not endorse the violent reaction to the victim’s lack of consent. Thus, by acting in a way that defies gender stereotypes, the man was assumed to be gay, and not necessarily a victim. This is a clear example of the definition of men’s rape myth and of the impact that these myths can have on silencing the victimization experiences of men, as reported in previous studies (Catton & Dorahy, 2022; Chapleau et al., 2008; Loxton & Groves, 2022; Turchik & Edwards, 2012; Walfield, 2018). A qualitative thematic synthesis described the impact that sexual assault can have on men’s perceptions regarding their gender identity and sexual orientation, which highlights the real impact of men’s rape myths (Pettyjohn et al., 2022). The participants of the current study expressed other gender stereotypes such as the idea that men have higher libido than women and more difficulty inhibiting sexual impulses. These stereotypes were used in some instances to justify the higher prevalence of SV perpetrated by men against women. This highlights again the influence of social scripts on perceptions regarding what is expected in sexual encounters and how SV takes place (Depraetere et al., 2020; Kiefer & Sanchez, 2007; Loxton & Groves, 2022; McCormick, 2010; Wiederman, 2005). In this case, according to some participants, the man would not fit the stereotype because he would have low libido and/or high impulse control. Nonetheless, some participants expressed awareness of the invisibility of sexual victimization by men, referring the impact of stigma on social perceptions regarding its prevalence. The experiences of stigma in men survivors of SV have been explored in previous qualitative studies (Hlavka, 2016; Widanaralalage et al., 2022).
Most participants identified the different SV strategies used in the vignette. Some participants recognized psychological abuse (including blackmail, harassment, and humiliation) as SV strategies. Some were particularly surprised with the threat regarding the Facebook post, which seemed to be more impactful than other violent strategies. Participants assumed that this strategy would be less frequent than the other ones. These beliefs were anchored on the idea that this online post would be a form of public humiliation that could have adverse consequences for both the victim and the offender, as people might criticize and sanction the publisher’s behavior while mocking and stigmatizing the victim. Violent physical strategies to initiate sexual interactions were also identified, namely genital stimulation, non-genital unwanted touching, physical coercion and using an unconscious person. Some participants only identified the situation as SV when abusive physical touch was involved. This mirrors the stereotype of SV as equivalent to hands-on abusive touch, particularly when the victim is a man, overshadowing other forms of violence (Bates & Weare, 2020; Jenkins et al., 2021). A higher likelihood of labeling abuse as SV when physically abusive touch is involved (as opposed to situations of verbal coercion, for instance) has been reported in previous studies, among various samples (Huitema & Vanwesenbeeck, 2016; Jenkins et al., 2021; Struckman-Johnson et al., 2003). However, not every participant would describe the situation presented as SV. A participant that explicitly verbalized that he would not consider this situation an SV incident justified that based on the relationship between the woman and the man. As they knew each other and there was an expectation regarding that interaction, the participant thought that the behavior of the woman could not be classified as violence. The influence of the relationship between the victim and the offender on the perceptions of seriousness of the abuse as also been described in previous studies (Gravelin et al., 2019; Grubb & Harrower, 2008; Sleath & Bull, 2017).
Participants could imagine different consequences of the abuse. When asked whether they thought the man would give in to sex with the woman, most participants thought he would not, as they believed he would be able to deal with the situation. A few participants expressed that the man would be “weak” if he did give in to sex after being abused. Others thought that he might, if he felt attracted to the woman, which could be a possibility, as he showed signs of arousal (an erection). Thus, some participants were not aware that physical arousal can happen in SV situations due to physiological mechanisms that do not reflect the individual’s consent (Bullock & Beckson, 2011; McLean, 2013). This has been reported in previous studies, namely with samples of men SV victims (Pettyjohn et al., 2022). In this context, the current data shows that some participants placed the responsibility of the impact of the abuse on the victim, assuming that by having more control over the violent situation, the impact could have been diminished. Again, blaming the victim narratives were at play here, as described in previous studies (Catton & Dorahy, 2022; Kassing & Prieto, 2003; Sleath & Bull, 2009).
Some participants could anticipate adverse consequences of the abuse for the victim on an individual level, including anger and discomfort, and on a social level, namely social stigma. However, others thought that the abuse could have no consequences and that the victim could devaluate its impact. The underestimation of the impact of SV on men, especially in instances where physical SV did not take place, has been reported previously (Hlavka, 2016; Loxton & Groves, 2022; Moore & Miller-Perrin, 2022). For instance, in a study by Moore and Miller-Perrin (2022), university students thought that the woman victim portrayed in the vignette experienced less feelings of enjoyment and greater feelings of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and trauma compared to the men victim. The anticipated consequences of the abuse for the woman reported by the participants of the current study were a negative public image, official charges, distress, and retaliation from the victim. Some participants were aware of the criminal framing of these behaviors and of the need for social sanctioning of such conduct. It was assumed by participants that the woman’s behavior may be answered with impunity, because of her gender. This is a clear reflection of the myth of women’s innocence. Indeed, several studies have been raising the issue of a gender gap in sentencing, proposing that a leniency effect toward women might benefit them (Embry & Lyons, 2012; Geppert, 2022; Mackelprang & Becker, 2015; Shields & Cochran, 2020). This is also in line with the results of the study by Moore and Miller-Perrin (2022) in which university students perceived the woman vignette offender as less guilty than the man perpetrator. In sum, the participants of the current study showed an understanding of the possible practical implications of gender stereotypes in this situation.
Participants were also aware that some people might support the victim while others might support the offender. Thus, participants could picture several scenarios, some more in line with the ideal approach of supporting the victim and sanctioning the offender (while offering rehabilitation) while others expected perpetrator’s behavior to be devalued and the victim to be stigmatized due to their genders. The impact of stigma and social support (both formal and informal) in the recovery process of victims and survivors of SV has been widely documented (Donne et al., 2017; Hawn et al., 2018; Hirai et al., 2020; Hlavka, 2016; Littleton, 2010; Orchowski et al., 2013; Rapsey et al., 2020; Schönbucher et al., 2014; Wachter et al., 2018). For instance, several men victims have reported being explicitly told by professionals or members of their support network that as men they could not be victims of SV, which exacerbated the negative consequences of the abuse (Pettyjohn et al., 2022).
When discussing potential motivations, students mentioned both intrapersonal, interpersonal, and sociocultural factors that could help explain the occurrence of the abuse. They argued that the woman could have acted the way she did to cope with rejection, due to homophobia, due to her personality, to her sex drive or because she was re-enacting past abuse. The motivations mentioned by participants are mostly in line with the etiology of SV described in the literature, which involves a complex interplay of trauma, mental health and personality difficulties, and particular psychosexual characteristics (such as higher levels of sociosexuality and sexual compulsivity; Carvalho et al., 2018; Christopher et al., 2007; Elliott et al., 2010; Nathan & Ward, 2002; Pereira, 2016; Schatzel-Murphy et al., 2009; Wijkman et al., 2010). In particular, participants mentioned the re-enactment of past abuse, which shows a mature understanding of victimization and offending dynamics, as the literature reports a significant proportion of women sex offenders with histories of childhood abuse (Christopher et al., 2007; Elliott et al., 2010; Levenson et al., 2014; Neofytou, 2022).
Within interpersonal factors, participants mentioned a need for dominance, wanting revenge, emotional detachment, non-coupledom, romanticism, sex drive discrepancy, and sexual attraction. Thus, participants could explain this violent incident with both negatively charged dynamics such as dominance and revenge and with a disruption of expected positive dynamics such as romanticism and sexual attraction (i.e., there was an expectation of a sexual encounter that did not happen). This is in line with results from previous studies where participants attributed sexually violent behavior perpetrated by women to romanticism (Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1991). Additionally, the feelings of the woman toward the victim were used to explain the abuse in two opposing ways: some participants thought the perpetrator was violent because she had feelings for the victim and felt rejected, while others thought she could do that because there was no emotional or romantic attachment. Most participants mentioned a feeling of rejection, with some resorting to stereotypes such as the idea that women tend to get all the men they want, so they do not know how to deal with rejection.
Finally, on a sociocultural level, participants identified several facilitating factors including: gender roles, homophobic assumptions, disinformation regarding sexual education, facilitating contexts, sexual objectification, an evolution in societal values, and the fact that this would be a recurrent situation. These findings are in line with reports from previous research which highlight gender roles and homophobia as inescapable sociocultural factors involved in perceptions regarding women-perpetrated SV against men (Davies & Rogers, 2006). Men’s gendered experiences with SV were analyzed in a qualitative thematic synthesis which underlined the influence of gender stereotypes in violent strategies used against men, in their processing of victimization experiences, and in their behavioral and help-seeking responses to victimization (Pettyjohn et al., 2022). According to these authors, the social construction of gender and masculinity create a specific risk for the sexual victimization of men associated with the pressure to always be ready to engage in sexual activity. Alongside these, the fear of homophobic stigma seems to be an ever-present threat for men (Pettyjohn et al., 2022; Widanaralalage et al., 2022). Participants in the current study also pointed out disinformation regarding sexual education as a potential facilitating factor. Indeed, previous literature has advocated for the potential role of sexuality education in the prevention of SV (Santelli et al., 2018; Schneider & Hirsch, 2020). Within facilitating contexts, participants mentioned the influence of alcohol or drugs, in line with previous reports, as these are typically interpreted as facilitating factors (Budd & Bierie, 2018; Pica et al., 2021). Finally, participants were aware of the association between sexual objectification and SV, which has been widely researched (Awasthi, 2017; Gervais & Eagan, 2017; Gervais et al., 2014).
The results of this study highlight the presence of gender stereotypes in the participants’ accounts, although some did reflect on the need to challenge these and on an increasing tendency for these to be less endorsed and impactful.
Limitations
The results of this study should be interpreted in light of its limitations. A selection bias and a social desirability effect may have influenced the results of this study. In other words, students who participated in this study may have been more aware of SV and, in particular, of women-perpetrated SV, providing answers which were in line with their expectations of what a desirable answer would be.
This study used a single vignette, which did not allow the exploration of participants’ perceptions of SV in other scenarios, namely with different gender combinations. For instance, a vignette where the gender of the perpetrator was not specified but where the gender of the victim was explicitly of a men’s, might have induced different responses. Thus, no interpretations can be drawn regarding participants’ perceptions of SV in other contexts or offender-victim pairs. Nonetheless, we highlight that the vignette was designed according to reports of women-perpetrated SV against men shared in previous literature; hence, the scenario in the vignette should be realistic enough to elicit reactions comparable to those elicited by actual cases.
Finally, no questions were asked regarding participants’ perceptions of their willingness to intervene in similar situations, so practical implications from this qualitative data cannot be drawn. In other words, despite recognizing the situation as violence, it is not known whether participants would act as bystanders in similar situations in order to prevent them or intervene, for instance, calling out the offender or reporting to the police. Future studies are needed to further clarify the link between these perceptions and the willingness to intervene in SV situations.
Recommendations
Previous research has identified differences in the attribution of seriousness of women-perpetrated SV according to several factors, including gender and professional occupation (Fávero et al., 2022; Gakhal & Brown, 2011; Higgins & Ireland, 2009; Kim & Santiago, 2020; Mellor & Deering, 2010; Parratt & Pina, 2017). An interesting avenue for research would be the exploration of the associations between individual factors (e.g., gender, age sexual orientation, and personality) and perceptions regarding women-perpetrated SV, including men’s rape myths (Fávero et al., 2022; Mellor & Deering, 2010; Moore & Miller-Perrin, 2022).
This line of research could also be enriched by exploring the intersections between the victim’s gender and other situations which may increase their risk of stigmatization, such as belonging to the LGBTQ + community, having addiction or mental health issues, being involved in sex work, having a disability, being an immigrant, migrant or refugee, or being in a situation of homelessness, among others (Donne et al., 2017; Du Mont et al., 2013; Harrison & Parekh, 2022; Heerde & Hemphill, 2015; Kanefsky et al., 2022; Miles et al., 2022; Peterson et al., 2011; Sprankle et al., 2018; Tyler, 2008; Tyler et al., 2004; Wachter et al., 2018). Some participants in this study brought up the sexual orientation of the victim, questioning whether he might not be heterosexual. Thus, sexual orientation seemed to impact the participants’ perceptions, which further justifies the exploration of these intersections. Thus, future studies could evaluate whether men victims are further stigmatized when they belong to other minority or vulnerable groups and whether blaming the victim narratives contribute to maintaining that stigmatization.
Policy Implications
This study highlights the impact of social scripts and of men’s rape myths in the perceptions of university students regarding women-perpetrated SV against men. Rape myths have been identified in other research samples, including groups of professionals who contact with potential victims daily, such as police officers, health care professionals, and judicial professionals (Dellinger Page, 2010; Fávero et al., 2022; Fehler-Cabral et al., 2011; Kassing & Prieto, 2003; Sleath & Bull, 2017; Strunk, 2017). Challenging rape myths among these groups is imperative to offering appropriate care and intervention. Thus, offering SV specialized training to these groups of professionals may be crucial to avoid the invisibility of victims and the impunity of offenders (Bullock & Beckson, 2011; Davies & Rogers, 2006; Widanaralalage et al., 2022). Thus, future research could test specialized training interventions for these professional groups. Public policy initiatives are needed to facilitate this specialized training.
Finally, up-to-date evidence-based SV prevention programs targeting university students could be further refined in order to challenge men’s rape myths and social scripts regarding women-perpetrated SV (Bohner et al., 2009; Coker et al., 2014; DeGue et al., 2014; Huitema & Vanwesenbeeck, 2016; Jouriles et al., 2018). Having a holistic approach that, while acknowledging the gender imbalance of SV, also raises awareness for victimization of men and offending by women seems paramount for ensuring the prevention of SV against all genders (Hlavka, 2016; Moore & Miller-Perrin, 2022; Turchik et al., 2016). The inclusion of these contents in prevention programs must be tested with rigorous methodologies, ideally in the context of randomized controlled trials. Public policies that foster the application of such prevention programs in university settings, such as the 2013 Campus Sexual Violence Elimination (Campus SaVE) Act applied in the USA, may have an important role in ensuring the translation of this research into practice (Brush & Miller, 2022; Griffin et al., 2017).
Conclusions
This study provides and in-depth exploration of the perceptions of university students regarding women-perpetrated SV, showing that gender stereotypes and rape myths play a significant role in the narratives of participants. Participants endorsed some gender stereotypes and used blaming the victim narratives, while also being able to challenge other gender stereotypes and rape myths. Participants could identify violent sexual initiation strategies, could anticipate potential consequences of the abuse and were able to imagine potential motivational and contextual factors that facilitated the abuse. These results highlight the importance of providing adequate information regarding women-perpetrated SV to challenge the invisibility of offending by women and victimization of men. Qualitative data on the general public’s perceptions regarding women-perpetrated SV against men can inform preventative approaches targeting social norms that perpetuate the invisibility of this phenomenon.
References
Anderson, P. B. (1996). Correlates of college women’s self-reports of heterosexual aggression. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 8(2), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02258005
Awasthi, B. (2017). From Attire to Assault: Clothing, Objectification, and De-humanization - A Possible Prelude to Sexual Violence? Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 338. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00338
Bagwell-Gray, M. E., Messing, J. T., & Baldwin-White, A. (2015). Intimate partner sexual violence: A review of terms, definitions, and prevalence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16(3), 316–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014557290
Basile, K. C., Smith, S. G., Breiding, M., Black, M. C., & Mahendra, R. R. (2014). Sexual violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements. Version 2.0 [Report]. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/26326
Bates, E. A., & Weare, S. (2020). Sexual violence as a form of abuse in men’s experiences of female-perpetrated intimate partner violence. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 36(4), 582–595. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986220936115
Bohner, G., Eyssel, F., Pina, A., Siebler, F., & Viki, G. T. (2009). Rape myth acceptance: Cognitive, affective and behavioural effects of beliefs that blame the victim and exonerate the perpetrator. In Rape: Challenging contemporary thinking, 17–45. Willan Publishing.
Braun, V. Clarke, V. (2021a). Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research Journal, 21, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12360
Braun, V. & Clarke V. (2021b). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021c). Thematic analysis : A practical guide. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://digital.casalini.it/9781526417305. https://digital.casalini.it/5282292
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychology, 9(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000196
Brayford, J. (2012). Female sexual offending: An impermissible crime. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 14(3), 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1057/cpcs.2012.5
Brush, L., & Miller, E. (2022). Re-envisioning bystander programs for campus sexual violence prevention. Journal of Family Violence. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-022-00458-7
Budd, K. M., & Bierie, D. M. (2018). Victims of sexual assault perpetrated by female youth: An exploratory study of gender differences. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 24(3), 274–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2018.1528793
Bullock, C. M., & Beckson, M. (2011). Male victims of sexual assault: Phenomenology, psychology, physiology. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 39(2), 197–205.
Busby, D. M., & Compton, S. V. (1997). Patterns of sexual coercion in adult heterosexual relationships: An exploration of male victimization. Family Process, 36(1), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1997.00081.x
Byers, E. S. (1996). How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 8(1–2), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v08n01_02
Cain, C. M., & Anderson, A. L. (2016). Female sex offenders: Public awareness and attributions. Violence and Victims, (6), 1044–1063. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-14-00197
Carroll, M. H., Korenman, L. M., & Rosenstein, J. E. (2019). Does sex of the victim matter? A comparison of rape scripts involving a male or female victim. Violence and Gender, 6(3), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2018.0040
Carvalho, J., & Brazão, N. (2021). Women’s sexual violence of male intimate partners. In T. K. Shackelford (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence, 1, 241–254. SAGE Publications.
Carvalho, J., & Nobre, P. J. (2015). Psychosexual characteristics of women reporting sexual aggression against men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(15), 2539–2555. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515579504
Carvalho, J., Rosa, P. J., & Pereira, B. (2018). Dynamic risk factors characterizing aggressive sexual initiation by female college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(5–6), 2455–2477. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518760010
Carvalho, J., & Sá, A. (2017). Male college students using sexually aggressive strategies: Findings on the interpersonal relationship profile. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(3–4), 646–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516689779
Catton, A. K. H., & Dorahy, M. J. (2022). Blame attributions against heterosexual male victims of sexual coercion: effects of gender, social influence, and perceptions of distress. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(9–10), Np7014-np7033. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520967153
Chapleau, K. M., Oswald, D. L., & Russell, B. L. (2008). Male rape myths: The role of gender, violence, and sexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(5), 600–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507313529
Christensen, L. S. (2018). Professionals’ perceptions of female child sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(7–8), NP4115-NP4138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518785377
Christopher, K., Lutz-Zois, C. J., & Reinhardt, A. R. (2007). Female sexual-offenders: Personality pathology as a mediator of the relationship between childhood sexual abuse history and sexual abuse perpetration against others. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(8), 871–883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.02.006
Coker, A. L., Fisher, B. S., Bush, H. M., Swan, S. C., Williams, C. M., Clear, E. R., & DeGue, S. (2014). Evaluation of the Green Dot bystander intervention to reduce interpersonal violence among college students across three campuses. Violence against Women, 21(12), 1507–1527. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214545284
Comartin, E. B., Burgess-Proctor, A., Kubiak, S., Bender, K. A., & Kernsmith, P. (2021). Comparing women’s and men’s sexual offending using a statewide incarcerated sample: A two-study design. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(7–8), 3093–3116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518772110
Cortoni, F., Babchishin, K. M., & Rat, C. (2016). The proportion of sexual offenders who are female is higher than thought: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816658923
Davies, M., & Rogers, P. (2006). Perceptions of male victims in depicted sexual assaults: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(4), 367–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2006.01.002
DeGue, S., Valle, L. A., Holt, M. K., Massetti, G. M., Matjasko, J. L., & Tharp, A. T. (2014). A systematic review of primary prevention strategies for sexual violence perpetration. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(4), 346–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.05.004
Dellinger Page, A. (2010). True colors: Police officers and rape myth acceptance. Feminist Criminology, 5(4), 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085110384108
Denov, M. S. (2003). The myth of innocence: Sexual scripts and the recognition of child sexual abuse by female perpetrators. The Journal of Sex Research, 40(3), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552195
Depraetere, J., Vandeviver, C., Beken, T. V., & Keygnaert, I. (2020). Big boys don’t cry: A critical interpretive synthesis of male sexual victimization. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(5), 991–1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018816979
Doherty, K., & Anderson, I. (2004). Making sense of male rape: Constructions of gender, sexuality and experience of rape victims. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14(2), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.765
Donne, M., DeLuca, J., Pleskach, P., Bromson, C., Mosley, M., Perez, E., Mathews, S., Stephenson, R., & Frye, V. (2017). Barriers to and facilitators of help-seeking behavior among men who experience sexual violence. American Journal of Men’s Health, 12, 155798831774066. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988317740665
Du Mont, J., Macdonald, S., White, M., & Turner, L. (2013). Male victims of adult sexual assault: A descriptive study of survivors’ use of sexual assault treatment services. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(13), 2676–2694. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513487993
Elliott, I. A., Eldridge, H. J., Ashfield, S., & Beech, A. R. (2010). Exploring risk: Potential static, dynamic, protective and treatment factors in the clinical histories of female sex offenders. Journal of Family Violence, 25(6), 595–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-010-9322-8
Embry, R., & Lyons, P. M. (2012). Sex-based sentencing: Sentencing discrepancies between male and female sex offenders. Feminist Criminology, 7(2), 146–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085111430214
Fávero, M., Del Campo, A., Faria, S., Moreira, D., Ribeiro, F., & Sousa-Gomes, V. (2022). Rape myth acceptance of police officers in Portugal. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(1–2), 659–680. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520916282
Fehler-Cabral, G., Campbell, R., & Patterson, D. (2011). Adult sexual assault survivors’ experiences with sexual assault nurse examiners (SANEs). Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(18), 3618–3639. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511403761
Fisher, N. L., & Pina, A. (2013). An overview of the literature on female-perpetrated adult male sexual victimization. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.10.001
Gakhal, B. K., & Brown, S. J. (2011). A comparison of the general public’s, forensic professionals’ and students’ attitudes towards female sex offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17(1), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2010.540678
Gambardella, G., Benz, M., Hines, D. A., & Palm Reed, K. M. (2020). A descriptive analysis of college students’ experiences of female-perpetrated sexual assault. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 36(4), 520–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986220936077
Geppert, K. (2022). Explaining the gender gap in the criminal justice system: How family-based gender roles shape perceptions of defendants in criminal court. Inquiries Journal, 14(02). http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1936
Gervais, S. J., DiLillo, D., & McChargue, D. (2014). Understanding the link between men’s alcohol use and sexual violence perpetration: The mediating role of sexual objectification. Psychology of Violence, 4, 156–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033840
Gervais, S. J., & Eagan, S. (2017). Sexual objectification: The common thread connecting myriad forms of sexual violence against women. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 87, 226–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000257
Gravelin, C. R., Biernat, M., & Bucher, C. E. (2019). Blaming the victim of acquaintance rape: Individual, situational, and sociocultural factors [Review]. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02422
Griffin, V. W., Pelletier, D., Griffin Iii, O. H., & Sloan Iii, J. J. (2017). Campus sexual violence elimination act: SaVing lives or SaVing face? American Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 401–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-016-9356-4
Grubb, A., & Harrower, J. (2008). Attribution of blame in cases of rape: An analysis of participant gender, type of rape and perceived similarity to the victim. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13(5), 396–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2008.06.006
Harrison, C., & Parekh, V. (2022). Sexual violence in patients with psychiatric conditions: Factors for consideration in case management. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 86, 102303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2022.102303
Hawn, S. E., Lind, M. J., Conley, A., Overstreet, C. M., Kendler, K. S., Dick, D. M., & Amstadter, A. B. (2018). Effects of social support on the association between precollege sexual assault and college-onset victimization. Journal of American College Health, 66(6), 467–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1431911
Hayes, S., & Carpenter, B. (2013). Social moralities and discursive constructions of female sex offenders. Sexualities, 16(1–2), 159–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460712471112
Heerde, J. A., & Hemphill, S. A. (2015). Sexual risk behaviors, sexual offenses, and sexual victimization among homeless youth: A systematic review of associations with substance use. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(5), 468–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015584371
Higgins, C., & Ireland, C. (2009). Attitudes towards male and female sex offenders: A comparison of forensic staff, prison officers and the general public in Northern Ireland. The British Journal of Forensic Practice, 11(1), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636646200900004
Hines, D. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2016). Sexual aggression experiences among male victims of physical partner violence: Prevalence, severity, and health correlates for male victims and their children. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(5), 1133–1151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0393-0
Hirai, M., Charak, R., Seligman, L. D., Hovey, J. D., Ruiz, J. M., & Smith, T. W. (2020). An association between perceived social support and posttraumatic stress symptom severity among women with lifetime sexual victimization: The serial mediating role of resilience and coping. Violence against Women, 26(15–16), 1966–1986. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219892645
Hlavka, H. (2016). Speaking of stigma and the silence of shame: Young men and sexual victimization. Men and Masculinities, 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X16652656
Huitema, A., & Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2016). Attitudes of Dutch citizens towards male victims of sexual coercion by a female perpetrator. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 22(3), 308–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2016.1159343
Javaid, A. (2018). Male rape, masculinities, and sexualities. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 52, 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2017.12.003
Javaid, A. (2017). Making the invisible visible: (un)meeting male rape victims’ needs in the third sector. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 9(2), 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1108/jacpr-08-2016-0248
Jenkins, B. D., Le Grand, A. M., Golding, J. M., Lynch, K. R., & Wolbert, G. (2021). The impact of threat type and prior abuse history on perceptions of intimate partner sexual coercion. Violence against Women, 27(10), 1566–1585. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220952169
Jewkes, R., Sen, P., & Garcia-Moreno, C. (2002). Sexual violence (World report on violence and health Issue.
Johansson-Love, J., & Fremouw, W. (2006). A critique of the female sexual perpetrator research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 12–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2005.05.001
Jouriles, E. N., Krauss, A., Vu, N. L., Banyard, V. L., & McDonald, R. (2018). Bystander programs addressing sexual violence on college campuses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of program outcomes and delivery methods. Journal of American College Health, 66(6), 457–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1431906
Kanefsky, R. Z., Newins, A. R., & Necaise, A. (2022). Sexual assault disclosure among sexual minority individuals: Associations with “outness”, perceived stigma, community belonging, and perceptions of police. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, No Pagination Specified-No Pagination Specified. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000611
Kassing, L. R., & Prieto, L. R. (2003). The rape myth and blame-based beliefs of counselors-in-training toward male victims of rape. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81(4), 455–461. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2003.tb00272.x
Kiefer, A. K., & Sanchez, D. T. (2007). Scripting sexual passivity: A gender role perspective. Personal Relationships, 14, 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00154.x
Kim, B., & Santiago, H. (2020). Rape myth acceptance among prospective criminal justice professionals. Women & Criminal Justice, 30(6), 462–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2019.1664969
Koss, M. P., & Oros, C. J. (1982). Sexual experiences survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 455–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.50.3.455
Larimer, M. E., Lydum, A. R., Anderson, B. K., & Turner, A. P. (1999). Male and female recipients of unwanted sexual contact in a college student sample: Prevalence rates, alcohol use, and depression symptoms. Sex Roles, 40(3), 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018807223378
Levenson, J. S., Willis, G. M., & Prescott, D. S. (2014). Adverse childhood experiences in the lives of female sex offenders. Sexual Abuse, 27(3), 258–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214544332
Littleton, H. L. (2010). The impact of social support and negative disclosure reactions on sexual assault victims: A cross-sectional and longitudinal investigation. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 11(2), 210–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299730903502946
Lowe, M., & Rogers, P. (2017). The scope of male rape: A selective review of research, policy and practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 35, 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.06.007
Loxton, A., & Groves, A. (2022). Adult male victims of female-perpetrated sexual violence: Australian social media responses, myths and flipped expectations. International Review of Victimology, 28(2), 191–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/02697580211048552
Mackelprang, E., & Becker, J. V. (2015). Beauty and the eye of the beholder: Gender and attractiveness affect judgments in teacher sex offense cases. Sexual Abuse, 29(4), 375–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215597646
McCormick, N. B. (2010). Sexual scripts: Social and therapeutic implications. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 25, 96–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681990903550167
McLean, I. A. (2013). The male victim of sexual assault. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 27(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.08.006
Mellor, D., & Deering, R. (2010). Professional response and attitudes toward female-perpetrated child sexual abuse: A study of psychologists, psychiatrists, probationary psychologists and child protection workers. Psychology, Crime & Law, 16(5), 415–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160902776850
Miles, L., Valentine, J. L., Mabey, L., & Downing, N. R. (2022). Mental illness as a vulnerability for sexual assault: A retrospective study of 7,455 sexual assault forensic medical examinations. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 18(3). https://journals.lww.com/forensicnursing/Fulltext/2022/09000/Mental_Illness_as_a_Vulnerability_for_Sexual.2.aspx
Moore, M. V., & Miller-Perrin, C. (2022). Exploring the effects of perpetrator, victim, and participant gender on perceptions related to sexual assault. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 31(9), 1129–1147. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2021.2019157
Nathan, P., & Ward, T. (2002). Female sex offenders: Clinical and demographic features. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 8(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600208413329
Neofytou, E. (2022). Childhood trauma history of female sex offenders: A systematic review. Sexologies, 31(2), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sexol.2021.10.003
Orchowski, L. M., Untied, A. S., & Gidycz, C. A. (2013). Social reactions to disclosure of sexual victimization and adjustment among survivors of sexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(10), 2005–2023. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512471085
Oswald, D. L., & Russell, B. L. (2006). Perceptions of sexual coercion in heterosexual dating relationships: The role of aggressor gender and tactics. The Journal of Sex Research, 43(1), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490609552302
Parratt, K. A., & Pina, A. (2017). From “real rape” to real justice: A systematic review of police officers' rape myth beliefs. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 68–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.03.005
Pereira, B. (2016). Estrutura psicológica em mulheres sexualmente agressivas University of Porto. https://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/bitstream/10216/85837/2/145181.pdf
Peterson, Z. D., Voller, E. K., Polusny, M. A., & Murdoch, M. (2011). Prevalence and consequences of adult sexual assault of men: Review of empirical findings and state of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.08.006
Pettyjohn, M., Reid, T., Cary, K., Greer, K., Nason, J., Agundez, J., Graves, C., & McCauley, H. (2022). “I don’t know what the hell you’d call it”: A qualitative thematic synthesis of men’s experiences with sexual violence in adulthood as contextualized by hegemonic masculinity. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000410
Pica, E., Sheahan, C. L., & Pozzulo, J. (2021). Mock jurors’ perceptions of sexual assault on a university campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(9–10), NP5447-NP5465. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518800316
Rapsey, C., Campbell, A., Clearwater, K., & Patterson, T. (2020). Listening to the therapeutic needs of male survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(9–10), 2033–2054. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517701453
Rosa, P. J., Brazão, N., & Carvalho, J. (2022). Psychometric properties of the sexually aggressive behaviors scale: Factor structure, reliability, and construct validity in a sample of portuguese female college students. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 0306624X221113535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X221113535
Santelli, J. S., Grilo, S. A., Choo, T.-H., Diaz, G., Walsh, K., Wall, M., Hirsch, J. S., Wilson, P. A., Gilbert, L., Khan, S., & Mellins, C. A. (2018). Does sex education before college protect students from sexual assault in college? PLOS ONE, 13(11), e0205951. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205951
Sarrel, P. M., & Masters, W. H. (1982). Sexual molestation of men by women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 11(2), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01541979
Schatzel-Murphy, E. A., Harris, D. A., Knight, R. A., & Milburn, M. A. (2009). Sexual coercion in men and women: Similar behaviors, different predictors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(6), 974–986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9481-y
Schneider, M., & Hirsch, J. S. (2020). Comprehensive sexuality education as a primary prevention strategy for sexual violence perpetration. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 21(3), 439–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018772855
Schönbucher, V., Maier, T., Mohler-Kuo, M., Schnyder, U., & Landolt, M. A. (2014). Adolescent perspectives on social support received in the aftermath of sexual abuse: A qualitative study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(3), 571–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0230-x
Shields, R. T., & Cochran, J. C. (2020). The gender gap in sex offender punishment. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 36(1), 95–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-019-09416-x
Sleath, E., & Bull, R. (2017). Police perceptions of rape victims and the impact on case decision making: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.02.003
Sleath, E., & Bull, R. (2009). Male Rape Victim and Perpetrator Blaming. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(6), 969–988. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509340534
Sommer, S., Reynolds, J. J., & Kehn, A. (2016). Mock juror perceptions of rape victims:Impact of case characteristics and individual differences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(17), 2847–2866. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515581907
Sprankle, E., Bloomquist, K., Butcher, C., Gleason, N., & Schaefer, Z. (2018). The role of sex work stigma in victim blaming and empathy of sexual assault survivors. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 15(3), 242–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-017-0282-0
Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (1993). College men’s and women’s reactions to hypothetical sexual touch varied by initiator gender and coercion level. Sex Roles, 29(5), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289430
Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (1994). Men pressured and forced into sexual experience. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23(1), 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01541620
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552168
Struckman-Johnson, D., & Struckman-Johnson, C. (1991). Men and women’s acceptance of coercive sexual strategies varied by initiator gender and couple intimacy. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 25, 661–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289570
Strunk, J. L. (2017). Knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of prenursing and nursing students about sexual assault. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 13(2). https://journals.lww.com/forensicnursing/Fulltext/2017/06000/Knowledge,_Attitudes,_and_Beliefs_of_Prenursing.5.aspx
Turchik, J. A., & Edwards, K. M. (2012). Myths about male rape: A literature review. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13, 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023207
Turchik, J. A., Hebenstreit, C. L., & Judson, S. S. (2016). An examination of the gender inclusiveness of current theories of sexual violence in adulthood:Recognizing male victims, female perpetrators, and same-sex violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014566721
Tyler, K. A. (2008). A Comparison of risk factors for sexual victimization among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual homeless young adults. Violence and Victims, (5), 586–602. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.23.5.586
Tyler, K. A., Whitbeck, L. B., Hoyt, D. R., & Cauce, A. M. (2004). Risk factors for sexual victimization among male and female homeless and runaway youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(5), 503–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260504262961
Wachter, K., Murray, S. M., Hall, B. J., Annan, J., Bolton, P., & Bass, J. (2018). Stigma modifies the association between social support and mental health among sexual violence survivors in the Democratic Republic of Congo: Implications for practice. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 31(4), 459–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2018.1460662
Walfield, S. (2018). “Men cannot be raped”: Correlates of male rape myth acceptance. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36, 088626051881777. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518817777
Weare, S. (2018). From coercion to physical force: Aggressive strategies used by women against men in “forced-to-penetrate” cases in the UK. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(8), 2191–2205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1232-5
Widanaralalage, B. K., Hine, B. A., Murphy, A. D., & Murji, K. (2022). “I didn’t feel i was a victim”: A phenomenological analysis of the experiences of male-on-male survivors of rape and sexual abuse. Victims & Offenders, 17(8), 1147–1172. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2022.2069898
Wiederman, M. W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. The Family Journal, 13(4), 496–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480705278729
Williams, J. R., Ghandour, R. M., & Kub, J. E. (2008). Female perpetration of violence in heterosexual intimate relationships: Adolescence through adulthood. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 9(4), 227–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838008324418
Wijkman, M., Bijleveld, C., & Hendriks, J. (2010). Women don’t do such things! Characteristics of female sex offenders and offender types. Sex Abuse, 22(2), 135–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063210363826
Young, S. M., Pruett, J. A., & Colvin, M. L. (2018). Comparing help-seeking bBehavior of male and female survivors of sexual assault: A content analysis of a hotline. Sexual Abuse, 30(4), 454–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063216677785
Funding
Open access funding provided by FCT|FCCN (b-on). This study is part of the project FEMOFFENCE—The myth of innocence: A mixed methods approach toward the understanding of female sexual offending behavior (PTDC/PSI-GER/28097/2017), supported by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) through national funds granted to the Principal Investigator Joana Carvalho.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Joana Carvalho, Daniel Cardoso, and Nélio Brazão contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation was performed by Joana Carvalho and Daniel Cardoso, data collection by Nélio Brazão, Mária Viegas, and Rita Vespasiano, analysis by Leonor de Oliveira and Daniel Cardoso, and interpretation by Leonor de Oliveira, Daniel Cardoso, Joana Carvalho, and Nélio Brazão. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Leonor de Oliveira, Eunice Carmo, and Daniel Cardoso and all authors commented/reviewed on previous versions of the manuscript. Project administration and supervision were performed by Joana Carvalho. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics Approval
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Lusófona University. This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants provided written informed consent for participation in the study and publication of the results before the interviews.
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
de Oliveira, L., Carmo, E., Cardoso, D. et al. A Qualitative Study on University Students’ Perceptions Regarding Sexual Violence Perpetrated by Women Against Men. Sex Res Soc Policy 21, 446–464 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-023-00880-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-023-00880-6