4.4 Article

Why Women Engage in Anal Intercourse: Results from a Qualitative Study

期刊

ARCHIVES OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR
卷 44, 期 4, 页码 983-995

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10508-014-0367-2

关键词

Heterosexual anal intercourse; Anal sex; Women; Qualitative methods

资金

  1. California HIV/AIDS Research Program, University of California Office of the President [ID10-CSULB-008]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used qualitative methods to assess why women engage in heterosexual anal (receptive) intercourse (AI) with a male partner. Four focus groups which comprised women from diverse ethnicities were conducted. All groups were digitally recorded for transcription; transcripts were analyzed using the methods of grounded theory to determine themes. Women's reasons for engaging in anal intercourse with a male partner can be described in broad categories including that the women wanted to have anal intercourse, either because of their own desire, to please a male partner, or they were responding to a quid pro quo situation. The riskiness of AT was assessed within relationship contexts. Past experience with AT including emotional and physical reactions was identified. Among the negative physical experiences of AT were pain and disliking the sensation, and uncomfortable side effects, such as bleeding of the rectum. Negative emotional experiences of AT included feelings of shame, disgust, and being offended by something her male partner did, such as spitting on his penis for lubrication. Positive physical experiences included liking the sensation. Many of the women also endorsed positive emotional experiences of AI, including that it was more intimate than vaginal sex, and that it was something they reserved only for special partners. The majority of AT episodes were unplanned and not discussed prior to initiation. Pain during AT was mitigated by the use of lubricants or illicit drugs. Even those women who found pleasure in AT expressed a preference for vaginal intercourse.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据