Embodied Injustice: Comparing Lesbian, Bisexual, and Queer and Heterosexual Women’s Accounts of Unwanted Sex

IF 1.8 Q2 SOCIOLOGY Social Currents Pub Date : 2024-05-21 DOI:10.1177/23294965241254071
Jessie V. Ford, Aarushi Shah, Gloria Fortuna, Jennifer S. Hirsch
{"title":"Embodied Injustice: Comparing Lesbian, Bisexual, and Queer and Heterosexual Women’s Accounts of Unwanted Sex","authors":"Jessie V. Ford, Aarushi Shah, Gloria Fortuna, Jennifer S. Hirsch","doi":"10.1177/23294965241254071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Lesbian, bisexual, and queer (LBQ) women experience disproportionately high rates of unwanted sex, including sexual assault. The literature has noted LBQ women's elevated risk for sexual victimization compared to heterosexual women, but little research has compared LBQ women's processing of sexual violations to those of heterosexual women. To address this gap, this article examines accounts of unwanted sex among 20 LBQ and 38 heterosexual college women (57 cisgender; 1 transwoman). We use both studies of embodiment and queer theory to understand socially patterned differences between LBQ and heterosexual women’s accounts of unwanted sex. Our findings indicate that heterosexual women’s multiple experiences with men (violent and not) often lead to explanations of sexual violations focused on men’s individual characteristics, for example, certain men are better/worse than others. In contrast, LBQ women’s experiences with women/non-binary partners produce a broader critique of heterosexuality. We find suggestive evidence that this difference helps LBQ women move away from self-blame toward a position of naming injustice.","PeriodicalId":44139,"journal":{"name":"Social Currents","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Currents","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23294965241254071","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Lesbian, bisexual, and queer (LBQ) women experience disproportionately high rates of unwanted sex, including sexual assault. The literature has noted LBQ women's elevated risk for sexual victimization compared to heterosexual women, but little research has compared LBQ women's processing of sexual violations to those of heterosexual women. To address this gap, this article examines accounts of unwanted sex among 20 LBQ and 38 heterosexual college women (57 cisgender; 1 transwoman). We use both studies of embodiment and queer theory to understand socially patterned differences between LBQ and heterosexual women’s accounts of unwanted sex. Our findings indicate that heterosexual women’s multiple experiences with men (violent and not) often lead to explanations of sexual violations focused on men’s individual characteristics, for example, certain men are better/worse than others. In contrast, LBQ women’s experiences with women/non-binary partners produce a broader critique of heterosexuality. We find suggestive evidence that this difference helps LBQ women move away from self-blame toward a position of naming injustice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
体现的不公正:比较女同性恋、双性恋、同性恋和异性恋妇女对不受欢迎的性行为的描述
女同性恋者、双性恋者和同性恋者(LBQ)妇女遭受不受欢迎的性行为(包括性侵犯)的比例过高。有文献指出,与异性恋女性相比,女同性恋、双性恋和同性恋女性遭受性侵害的风险更高,但很少有研究将女同性恋、双性恋和同性恋女性处理性侵害的方式与异性恋女性进行比较。为了弥补这一空白,本文研究了 20 名 LBQ 和 38 名异性恋女大学生(57 名顺性;1 名变性)对不受欢迎的性行为的描述。我们利用体现研究和同性恋理论来理解 LBQ 女性和异性恋女性对意外性行为的描述之间的社会模式差异。我们的研究结果表明,异性恋女性与男性(暴力的和非暴力的)的多重经历往往导致她们对性侵犯的解释集中在男性的个体特征上,例如,某些男性比其他男性更好/更坏。相比之下,LBQ 女性与女性/非二元性伴侣的经历则对异性恋产生了更广泛的批判。我们发现,有暗示性的证据表明,这种差异有助于 LBQ 女性从自责转向为不公正行为正名的立场。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Social Currents
Social Currents SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Social Currents, the official journal of the Southern Sociological Society, is a broad-ranging social science journal that focuses on cutting-edge research from all methodological and theoretical orientations with implications for national and international sociological communities. The uniqueness of Social Currents lies in its format. The front end of every issue is devoted to short, theoretical, agenda-setting contributions and brief, empirical and policy-related pieces. The back end of every issue includes standard journal articles that cover topics within specific subfields of sociology, as well as across the social sciences more broadly.
期刊最新文献
Coming Out Queer: Sexual and Romantic Exploration and Identity Development of LGBQ+ College Students Returning from Prison to a Changed City: How Does Gentrification Shape the Employment and Housing Opportunities of Returning Citizens? Fight the Power? How Black Adults’ Racial Capital Associates With Their Political Activities Rent Burden and Demographic Change Among Veterans: A Research Brief “A Future for White Children”: Examining Family Ideologies of White Extremist Groups at the Intersection of Race and Gender
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1