posted on 2010-10-28, 07:52authored byHannah Frith
Women's sexual refusals are central to both conservative and/or religious
campaigns to curb and control sexuality, and to feminist campaigns for sexual
freedom. While public health messages implore young women to 'Just Say No'
to premarital/teenage sex, the feminist 'No Means No' campaign tries to ensure
that women's refusals are not ignored or disregarded. Drawing on data from 15
focus groups with 58 female, heterosexual, school (age range 16-18) and
university student (age range 18-50; modal age 20:8) volunteers, I discuss
women's talk about saying 'no' in relation to three existing social scientific
theories: miscommunication theoiy, emotion work theory and sexual script
theory. Each of these theories suggests a different explanation for women's (lack
of) sexual refusals: women do not say 'no' clearly enough; women are reluctant
to say 'no' because they are protecting their male partner from feelings of
rejection; or cultural expectations dictate that women should refuse sex while
men should continue to initiate sex.
I provide two competing approaches to analysing these three theories. The first
(essentialist) approach treats women's talk as transparent evidence of real world
events or of psychological phenomenon (i.e. women miscommunicate or
women do perform emotion work). The second (constructed) approach treats
women's talk as produced in a particular interactional setting in order to serve
particular interactional functions. This thesis expands feminist debates about the
relative value of essentialism and social constructionism for understanding
women's lives and for advancing theory. The majority of feminists, including
those who identify their work as social constructionist, adopt an essentialist
approach to data analysis. This thesis contributes to the development of feminist
psychology both by investigating women's accounts of refusing sex, and by
critically evaluating these two different epistemological approaches to analysing
qualitative data.