"I Just Wasn't Thinking": Strategic Ambiguity and Women's Accounts of Unprotected Sex.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	"I Just Wasn't Thinking": Strategic Ambiguity and Women's Accounts of Unprotected Sex.
Authors:	James-Hawkinsl, Laurie, Jozkowski, Kristen N.
Source:	Journal of Sex Research. 2024, Vol. 61 Issue 5, p695-708. 14p.
Subjects:	Unsafe sex, Heterosexuals, Ambiguity, Sex research, Unplanned pregnancy, Contraception
Abstract:	Heterosexual university students continue to endorse sexual scripts that preference men's desire and sustain gendered power imbalances in sexual relationships and encounters, leading women to risk pregnancy by engaging in unprotected sex. Because young women also endorse norms encouraging them to protect themselves and their partners from unintended pregnancy, women are caught in a bind between two often competing norms. We conducted semi-structured individual interviews with university women (n = 45) to examine how they navigate these competing norms. We found that women explained risky contraceptive decisions by saying they "just weren't thinking," thus employing strategic ambiguity, or vague language used to maintain social status, to navigate between competing norms. Our findings suggest that women were actually thinking about risks and making calculated decisions in the moment which often privileged men, putting themselves at risk and sometimes causing distress. To save face, women presented the idea that they "just weren't thinking" in different ways that conformed to traditional notions of romance and sexuality: being in the moment, love and trust for their partner, and deferring to the perceived or actual wishes of men. We conclude that there is a need to promote and achieve affirmative sexuality which includes women feeling empowered to express their own sexual needs -- whether that be consent or refusal, contraception, pleasure, or all of these. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of Journal of Sex Research is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database:	Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection

Description
Abstract:	Heterosexual university students continue to endorse sexual scripts that preference men's desire and sustain gendered power imbalances in sexual relationships and encounters, leading women to risk pregnancy by engaging in unprotected sex. Because young women also endorse norms encouraging them to protect themselves and their partners from unintended pregnancy, women are caught in a bind between two often competing norms. We conducted semi-structured individual interviews with university women (n = 45) to examine how they navigate these competing norms. We found that women explained risky contraceptive decisions by saying they "just weren't thinking," thus employing strategic ambiguity, or vague language used to maintain social status, to navigate between competing norms. Our findings suggest that women were actually thinking about risks and making calculated decisions in the moment which often privileged men, putting themselves at risk and sometimes causing distress. To save face, women presented the idea that they "just weren't thinking" in different ways that conformed to traditional notions of romance and sexuality: being in the moment, love and trust for their partner, and deferring to the perceived or actual wishes of men. We conclude that there is a need to promote and achieve affirmative sexuality which includes women feeling empowered to express their own sexual needs -- whether that be consent or refusal, contraception, pleasure, or all of these. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	00224499
DOI:	10.1080/00224499.2023.2201252