867149

Original Research

“When You’re in a Journal of Interpersonal Violence

1–24

Relationship, You Say No, © The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

but Your Partner sagepub.com/journals-

permissions DOI:
10.1177/0886260519867149
Insists”: Sexual Dating journals.sagepub.com/home/jiv

Violence and Ambiguity

Among Girls and Young
Women

Mylène Fernet,1 Martine Hébert,1

Geneviève Brodeur,1 and Valérie Théorêt1

Abstract
Sexual dating violence (DV) is highly prevalent and associated with
deleterious outcomes. Unfortunately, this form of violence remains poorly
understood. Furthermore, the measures used to assess sexual DV may not
account for the various manifestations of sexual DV, which limits our
understanding of this problem. This study aimed to (a) explore how girls
and young women describe their experiences of sexual DV and (b) explore
whether the taxonomy on intimate partner sexual violence developed by
Bagwell-Gray and colleagues could be applicable to girls and young
women’s experiences of sexual DV. A total of 71 adolescent girls and
young women who identified themselves as heterosexual were recruited.
Sexual DV was assessed using an adapted version of the Sexual
Experiences Survey, followed by a semistructured interview. Findings
revealed that 29.6% of participants reported sexual DV victimization in the
past 12 months. A direct content analysis was performed based on the
taxonomy of Bagwell- Gray and colleagues. Four manifestations of sexual
DV were illustrated from

1Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada

Corresponding Author:
Mylène Fernet, Department of sexology, Université du Québec à Montréal, C.P. 8888,
Succursale Centre-Ville, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3C 3P8.
Email: fernet.mylene@uqam.ca
2 Journal of Interpersonal Violence
00(0)
the youth’s narratives: (a) sexual coercion, (b) sexual assault, (c) sexual
abuse, and (d) forced sexual activities. Our results underscore the ambiguity
of sexual consent and definition of sexual DV among adolescent girls and
young women. This research further supports the necessity to develop and
implement prevention programs that specifically target sexual DV in this
population.

Keywords
dating violence, date rape, perception of domestic violence, youth violence

A recent meta-analysis revealed that approximately one out of 10 adoles-

cents aged between 13 and 18 years reports sexual dating violence (DV)
victimization, girls being at significantly higher risk to be victims than boys
(14% compared with 8%, respectively; Wincentak, Connolly, & Card,
2017). This is particularly concerning given that youth victims of sexual DV
report more psychological distress, posttraumatic stress disorders,
depressive symptoms, and suicidal ideation or attempts than nonvictims
(Devries et al., 2013; Eshelman & Levendosky, 2012; Sears & Byers, 2010).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines sexual violence as
“[. . .] a sex- ual act that is committed or attempted by another person
without freely given consent of the victim or against someone who is unable
to consent or refuse” (Breiding, Basile, Smith, Black, & Mahendra, 2015, p.
11). Sexual DV implies that the perpetrator is a current or former intimate
partner (e.g., dating or sexual partners, boyfriend/girlfriend). Compared
with other forms of DV, sexual DV remains understudied. Most studies
either do not measure sexual DV or consider it within the broader spectrum
of DV, which leads to a fragmentary understanding of the phenomenon
(Logan, Walker, & Cole, 2015). The scarcity of research on sexual DV
could be due to the fact that sexual DV lies at the intersection between two
distinct scientific domains, namely, intimate partner violence and sexual
violence (Bagwell-Gray, Messing, & Baldwin-White, 2015). Furthermore,
most studies that have documented sexual victimization focus on adults,
leading to an incomplete understanding of sexual DV in younger
populations.

Current Issues in the Assessment of Sexual DV

Victimization and Sexual Consent
The past decades have seen great advances in the assessment of sexual DV.
However, defining and measuring sexual DV has been challenging
(Woodin,
Sotskova, & O’Leary, 2013). Consequently, it is difficult to assess the
precise prevalence and consequences of sexual DV because the terminology
and instruments used to assess this problem differs greatly across studies.
For example, a literature review by Bagwell-Gray and colleagues (2015)
revealed that “14 different terms defined in 29 different ways have been
used to describe adult intimate partner sexual violence.” Moreover, it is
estimated that the prevalence of sexual DV among adolescents varies
between less than 1% and 54% depending on the study (Wincentak et al.,
2017). According to the authors, this great disparity is partly explained by
the fact that most stud- ies rely solely on the legal definition of rape to
assess sexual violence (e.g., forced penetrative sex) and do not consider
other coercive tactics (e.g., verbal pressure, blackmail, use of substance,
etc.) or acts (e.g., oral sex, fondling, kissing, etc.).
Assessing sexual consent is a complex issue, particularly in the context
of an intimate relationship (Logan et al., 2015; Muehlenhard, Humphreys,
Jozkowski, & Peterson, 2016). Some acts of sexual violence can be subtle
and the line, between what sexual violence is or is not, can be blurred. For
example, in most self-report measures, participants are asked if their
partners have ever used pressure or arguments to have sex with them when
they did not consent. Definitions of sexual violence or coercive behaviors
may thus fluctuate depending on whether the use of arguments or pressure
is consid- ered as sexual violence or whether an individual regards the use
of arguments or pressure as sexual violence (Muehlenhard et al., 2016). A
meta-analysis revealed that 60% of woman victims of sexual violence (not
necessarily from a romantic partner) do not label their experiences as rape
(Wilson & Miller, 2016). Instead, most report that they did not feel like they
were victimized or use labels such as “bad sex” or “miscommunication” to
describe their experi- ences. Noteworthy, the prevalence of
unacknowledged rape is even higher among college women (Wilson &
Miller, 2016). Furthermore, one study found that the more a young woman
is acquainted with the perpetrator, the less likely she is to label her
experience as sexual violence (Orchowski, Untied, & Gidycz, 2013).
Numerous factors can explain why young women do not label their
experiences as sexual violence: the tactic used by the per- petrator, the
intrusiveness of the act, prior sexual activity with the perpetrator, victim and
perpetrator substance use, stereotypical rape script beliefs, victim resistance,
uncertainties about the perpetrator’s intentions, and not wanting to label the
perpetrator as a “bad guy” or to admit that a loved one had hurt them on
purpose (Dardis, Kraft, & Gidycz, 2017; Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2011).
More importantly, this ambiguity could be greater among youth because of
their inexperience in romantic relationships, their wish to preserve their
rela- tionship ideals and the “cultural messages that trivialize certain
situations
[sexual DV] as normal or as an inevitable part of youth” (Toscano, 2007;
Weiss, 2013, p. 299). Indeed, a qualitative study by Weiss (2013) revealed
that adolescents report more ambivalence toward peer-perpetrated sexual
violence when the perpetrator is another youth or a friend/dating partner.
This ambivalence could be exacerbated by the fact that young people have
diffi- culty identifying the different forms of sexual violence in a romantic
relation- ship (Toscano, 2007).
The many challenges associated with assessing sexual violence and
sexual consent, and the inconsistencies found across the literature, are likely
to impair our understanding of the prevalence, consequences, and
manifesta- tions of this particular form of violence. Inadequate recognition
of sexual violence and its various forms, by youth, investigators, and
practitioners, may have several implications. Girls may be ambivalent to
disclose because of doubts about the severity of violence they have
experienced, which can increase feelings of isolation (Sabina & Ho, 2014;
Weisz, Tolman, Callahan, Saunders, & Black, 2007) and impair help-
seeking strategies regarding sex- ual DV (Fernet, Hébert, Couture &
Brodeur, 2019).

Taxonomy of Sexual Dating Violence

To thoroughly investigate the different forms of sexual DV, it is important to
rely on a rigorous conceptual model. Due to the lack of common
terminology in the literature, Bagwell-Gray and colleagues (2015)
performed a review and synthesis of the United States literature on adult
male-to-female sexual violence in intimate relationships. They derived a
taxonomy of sexual vio- lence in intimate relationships from 43 resources,
including peer-reviewed and nonacademic articles, and practice guidelines.
As summarized in Table 1, four clusters were identified: (a) intimate partner
coercion, (b) intimate part- ner sexual assault, (c) intimate partner sexual
abuse, and (d) intimate partner forced sexual activity. The taxonomy
considers two dimensions, namely, the invasiveness (penetration or not) and
the forcefulness (physical or nonphysi- cal) of the acts experienced. More
recently, Bagwell-Gray (2019) published an article to investigate the
applicability of the taxonomy to the descriptions of sexual violence
experienced by 28 adult women recruited mainly from organizations
specialized in domestic violence. The results provided new insights on the
manifestation of sexual violence and confirmed the utility of using the
taxonomy. However, the author noted that more research is needed to
confirm if the taxonomy is also applicable to other populations such as girls
and young women from community samples. As previously mentioned,
most studies have documented sexual victimization among adults, leading
to an incomplete understanding of sexual DV in younger populations
(Foshee, Bauman, Linder, Rice, & Wilcher, 2007).
Table 1. Taxonomy.
Sexual Intimate
Partner Violence Forcefulness/
Term Invasiveness Definition Example
Intimate partner
coercion Low force An attempt to have Manipulatio
High sexual intercourse n Insistence
invasiveness (oral, anal, or Controlling
vaginal) by using
nonphysical tactics
Intimate partner
sexual assault An attempt to have Physical violence
High force sexual intercourse Physical threat
High (oral, anal, or Drugs and alcohol
invasiveness vaginal) using
force, violence, or
threat of physical
violence
Sexual act when the
partner is asleep, or
the use of alcohol or
Intimate partner
drugs Sexual degradation
sexual abuse
Use of psychological Reproductive
Low force violence to maintain control
Low power and keep the Sexual control
invasiveness partner submissive
Not necessary to have
Intimate partner
sexual intercourse Unwanted physical
forced sexual
activity Sexual acts without violence during
penetration, by intercourse
High force touching in a sexual Strangulatio
Low way n
invasiveness Masturbation
Kissing

Note. Bagwell-Gray, Messing, and Baldwin-White (2015).

To address the identified gaps in the scientific literature, this mixed-

method study aimed to (a) explore how girls and young women describe
their experiences of sexual DV and (b) explore whether the taxonomy on
intimate partner sexual violence developed by Bagwell-Gray and colleagues
(2015) could be applicable to girls and young women’s experiences of
sexual DV.

Method
The data of the present study were drawn from a broader mixed-methods
study, based on an embedded design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011), which
focused on romantic and sexual experiences of heterosexual-identified ado-
lescents and young adult males and females. The study aimed to explore the
challenges pertaining to communication and conflict resolution, in relation
to the youth’s profile of victimization (child sexual abuse, exposure to
domestic violence, dating violence) and to document their sexual health. To
be eligible, participants had to be aged between 14 and 25 years. They had
to be sexually active and have had at least one dating relationship, at
enrollment. Being responsible for a child was an exclusion criterion because
their reality may differ from typical adolescents. The data were collected
from March 2015 to December 2017 in Quebec (Canada).

Recruitment and Procedures

Participants were recruited through an email list of individuals from a
former study (the Youths’ Romantic Relationships Project), community
organizations that offer services to youth in the Greater Montreal area, and
by direct solicita- tions via flyer distribution, information booths, and word
of mouth. Potential participants were first screened for eligibility by phone.
The research coordina- tor asked a series of questions to youth who were
interested, to determine whether they were eligible. If they met the inclusion
criteria, the study protocol was presented in detail to ensure adequate
comprehension of the study goals, procedures, risks and benefits. Ethical
considerations were also discussed (e.g., voluntary and confidential
participation, rights of the participant, mandatory reporting to authorities
when the safety of the participant is compromised).
Eligible participants came to the Laboratory of Violence and Sexuality
for a 2-hr session. The study protocol was presented in detail to ensure
adequate comprehension of the study goals, procedures, risks, and benefits.
Written consent from the participant was obtained by the research assistant
before data collection. Every participant first completed a self-administered
ques- tionnaire for 30 min. Then, they completed a one-to-one
semistructured inter- view that lasted on average 90 min. Research
assistants were trained for crisis management, so they could properly
respond to suicidal risk situations or whether participants were a danger to
themselves or others. Participants were given Can$25 as a financial
compensation for their time. This study received approval from the
institutional research ethics board of the Universtity of Quebec in Montreal.

Participants
A total of 104 females were screened to participate in the study. Of that
number, 10 did not meet the eligibility criteria. Also, 15 youths did not come
to their appointment or failed to keep communication with the research
team. The final
sample consisted of 71 female youths (Mean age = 19.30 years). More
specifi- cally, 28.2% (n = 20) were aged between 14 and 17 years and 71.8%
(n = 51) between 18 and 25 years. 10 participants (14%) were in high
school. The high- est level of education completed, as reported by the
participants, was college (junior college) for 44% of the sample, high school
for 35%, and university for 7% of the participants. At time of the study, 45
participants reported being involved in a romantic relationship (average
duration: 15.57 months), 15 were not in a romantic relationship and did not
report any current sexual partner, and seven were not involved in a romantic
relationship but had casual sexual part- ners. In this sample, the majority of
participants identifies as Canadians (67.6%), 16.2% as Caribbean, 9.5% as
North African/Middle East, and 6.7% as Other (Europeans, Afro-American,
Latino-American).

Data Collection and Analyses

The present analysis focuses on 71 girls and young women who participated
in the interview and completed the questionnaires. Quantitative and qualita-
tive measures are presented in the following sections.

Quantitative Component
To describe the sample and complement the qualitative results obtained,
descriptive analyses were performed on the variables of interest described
below.

Psychological and Physical Dating Violence

The prior 12-month DV prevalence was measured using the Conflicts in
Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI; Fernández-González,
Wekerle, & Goldstein, 2012; Wekerle et al., 2009). The questionnaire
includes nine items on psychological (6 items) and physical (3 items) acts of
DV. Participants were asked to report on a 4-point scale the occurrence of
the events from 1 = never to 4 = six times or more in the last 12 months. If
they were not in a romantic relationship at the time of the study, they were
asked to report whether the events had happened with their former partner.
The score was recoded into a dichotomous variable (0 = never and 1 = at
least once).

Sexual Dating Violence

Sexual DV in the prior 12 months was self-reported using nine items from
the revised version of the Sexual Experiences Survey (Koss et al., 2007;
Koss & Gidycz, 1985; Koss & Oros, 1982). If the participant was not in a
relationship
at the time of the study, they had to refer to their most recent relationship.
Every participant was told that the items referred to sexual DV in a context
of romantic relationships. Nine items that examined three invasiveness
levels of the acts experienced (kissing and touching, attempting to have
penetration, and sexual activities including penetration) and different tactics
used by the partner (pressure, alcohol or drugs, and physical strength) were
included. Participants reported on a 4-point scale the occurrence of the
events from 1 = never to 4 = six times or more in the last 12 months, or with
their former partner, if they were not in a romantic relationship at the time
of the study. The scores ranged between 0 and 36. In the present study, the
internal consis- tency of the scale was high ( = .91). The score was
recoded into a dichoto- mous variable (0 = never and 1 = at least once).

Qualitative Component
Each participant met one research assistant to complete the interview. With
the participant’s consent, interviews were recorded and transcribed verba-
tim. To guide the semistructured interviews, specific questions were asked;
they addressed the following themes: (a) dating relationships and sexual
health, (b) conflict resolution and dating violence, and (c) help-seeking and
use of services. The present analysis focuses on sexual dating violence.
Data related to help-seeking and sexual DV were published elsewhere
(Fernet, Hébert, Couture & Brodeur, 2019). Direct content analysis (Hsieh
& Shannon, 2005) was then performed based on the Bagwell-Gray and col-
league’s taxonomy presented previously (See Table 1). Direct analysis
involves three steps: (a) coding, which consists of dividing the material,
using a coding grid based on dimensions drawn from the scientific litera-
ture, the theoretical framework, and the empirical material; (b) categoriz-
ing, during which all the codified extracts are summarized and assigned
themes to make sense of the narratives and subsequently create conceptual
categories; and (c) linking, which consists of identifying links between the
conceptual categories. This schematization process allows analysis to tran-
sition from a description to an explanation of the studied phenomenon. The
analyses were performed in French, then translated for publication. The
quality and accuracy of analyses were maintained by a variety of processes
specific to qualitative research. For example, team coding procedures
(Weston et al., 2001) were used to ensure intercoder reliability, and the
entire analysis was periodically revised independently by two researchers
throughout the categorization process, which also contributed to validating
the results. The software Atlas.ti 7.0 (Scientific Software Development,
2013) was used to support coding operations.
Results
Results will be presented in two sections. First, the prevalence of sexual DV
experienced by participants will be presented. Girls and young women’s
experiences of sexual DV will then be described.

Sexual Dating Violence Victimization

In this sample, 59.2% reported having sustained a form of dating violence
(physical, psychological, or sexual) in the past 12 months or with their most
recent partner. More than half (57.7%) reported having sustained
psychological violence, almost a fifth (18.3%) reported physical violence,
and close to one in three (29.6%) had experienced sexual violence. More
specifically, 22.5% were kissed and/or touched by an intimate partner with
the use of pressure, 1.4% with alcohol or drugs, and 7.0% by a partner
relying on physical strength. Also, 16.9% of youth’s partner attempted to
have penetration by using pressure, 2.8% gave alcohol or drugs, and 5.6%
used physical strength. Finally, 14.1% of par- ticipants sustained sexual
activities including penetration, without having con- sented, after being
feeling pressured by a partner, 2.8% after consuming alcohol or drugs, and
5.6% after the use of physical strength by a partner.

Experiences of Sexual Dating Violence From the

Perspective of Adolescent Girls and Young Women
A total of 35 (49.2%) participants described a form of sexual DV during the
interview. The analysis was guided by the taxonomy of Bagwell-Gray et al.
(2015). Each conceptual category encompassed subcategories summarized
in Table 2 and other excerpts are proposed. They will be illustrated with
verba- tim excerpts of the participants’ interviews. Pseudonyms are used to
preserve the participants’ identity.

Intimate Partner Coercion (20)

More than one girl out of four (20) revealed in their narratives to have been
sexually coerced by a dating partner. They described many situations where
they were forced to have sexual intercourse (oral, vaginal, anal) by the use
of nonphysical, but invasive tactics such as manipulation, insistence, and
con- trolling behaviors.

Being pressured to engage in sexual activity (14). The majority of

participants who reported intimate partner coercion (13) said their partner
insisted and
Table 2. List of Conceptual Categories.
1. Intimate partner coercion (20)
a. Being pressured to engage in sexual activity (14)
“I was not comfortable with the fact that he was with me just to lose his virginity. We was
putting pressure on me to have (sexual activity with) penetration.” (Aurélie, 16 years old)
b. Being manipulated to have sexual intercourse (6)
“I was manipulated. He was someone that I loved a lot. I was ready to do anything for him.
He was telling me that he loves me. I told my-self: ‘OMG, it is true!’ He told me, I told you
what you wanted to hear, so.” (Julie, 21 years old)
c. Being controlled by a partner to fulfill his sexual needs (5)
“It sounded a bit like threats . . . He was a little exasperated and told me that he had needs
too. He respected mine but he thinks it was a little exasperating. He had the impression
that we never made love and he did not want it to break up.” (Raphy, 22 years old)
2. Intimate partner sexual assault (10)
a. Having sexual contact under threat of violence (5)
“I wanted to stop and he was angry and I did not want him to get angry and stuff like that.”
(Catherine, 20 years old)
b. Being physically forced to have sexual intercourse (7)
“He held me by force because he had the fantasy to be a rapist. I just made him realize that
‘it’s not fun and then when I say no, it’s no, no, no’. And then after that I better understand
why he did that and I was like, poor him to believe things like that.” (Sophie, 15 years old)
c. Having sexual contact under the influence of substances (3)
“At first, I was not sober. He always made me drink and everything. I would say it is sexual
violence because when you say no, and it does it anyway, there is no consent.” (Véronique,
21 years old)
3. Intimate partner sexual abuse (9)
a. Being a victim of reproductive control (3)
“We have sex and at some point, we had a penetration and I was like, ‘You have to put on a
condom’. And it was like: ‘Yes’. And there he went on, you know? So finally, we did not
put a condom and then that is it, he did not put a condom.” (Sophia, 21 years old)
b. Being the target of sexual degradation (2)
“Well, for example, he sends me a text-message and he told me, ‘Ah, I want to spit on you’. I
do not see where the excitement is in all of this. It’s small things like that but he never spits
on me, so I never understood why he told me that.” (Annie, 20 years old)
c. Being instrumentalized and objectified (1)
I was feeling, it did not help me not feeling as a vagina [her boyfriend telling and bragging
to everyone about their sexual activities]. (Lili, 19 years old)
4. Intimate partner forced sexual activity (5)
a. Being sexually hurt during sexual activity (5)
He is pulling my hair and choking me But you know, he does not do it too hard anyway.
And then he told me he was aggressive in his sexual relations. It’s something I already knew.
(Annie, 20 years old)
b. Being sexually touched (4)
“I will accept moments when he wants to touch me even if I’m not really excited. I would find
that dull. It’s not a crazy problem.” (Jeanne, 22 years old)

Note. The numbers in brackets indicate the number of participants in the categories.

used pressure to have sexual contacts. Girls reported having conceded to or

convinced themselves that they wanted to have sexual intercourse, whereas
others were able to set their limits. Participants justified partner pressure by
differences between partners’ sexual needs and preferences and their diffi-
culty dealing with the sexual desire differences:

There is also the fact that there he wanted to have anal sex and I told him that
I did not want it. He told me that he would like it to anal. He insisted and had
pestered me with that for a while. He took out a case like, “Well, I’m sure you
would like that.” In this case it’s for his pleasure, not for mine. (Danielle, 19
years old)

Five participants felt incompetent in meeting their partners’ sexual needs

or complying with their sexual preferences. Ophélie stressed that the line
between what is consensual or not is blurred in the context of dating
relation- ships. For her, the interpretation of a sexual act depends on who is
performing it. She mentioned that, if an intimate partner exerts pressure, it
is more accept- able than if a stranger does. This suggests the minimization
of sexual pressure in the context of dating relationships:

He did want it [to have sex]. When you are in a relationship, you say no, but
the partner insists. It seems like it’s easier to let it go [the pressure] when
you’re in love compared to when it’s someone you don’t know. As a couple,
you are like: “Yeah, but we don’t see each other often blah blah blah and
yeah, ok finally [you agree to have sex].” But, I didn’t really want to [to have
sex], but I ended up saying yes. I did not want to, but I did it anyway.
(Ophélie, 19 years old)

Being manipulated to have sexual intercourse (6). In total, six participants

described situations where their partner used manipulation to have sexual
intercourse. For instance, Nirlie reported her partner sulking and rejecting
her, if she refused to have sex, whereas another reported that her partner
claimed he had the right to some sexual practices because she had engaged
in them in past relationships:

On the sexual level too, I owed him [sexual] things because he did not see
why he would not have the right to something [sexual practices], if I had been
able to have someone other in my life before him....I would say that in the
majority of cases a refusal brought negative consequences and made it a form
of violence. (Nirlie, 20 years old)

Two girls revealed that their boyfriends would use psychological persua-
sion to have sexual intercourse. To do so, boys said they loved them and
toyed with their feelings, as reported by Julia:
 Well, I was manipulated. You know, I really liked that person. You know, I
was ready to do everything [sexually], but not that [a sexual practice in
particular]. Then, um . . . the fact that he told me he loved me, then I was like
OMG, ok, it’s true. Then, in reality, no, he did not love me. Then, you know,
he told me: “well I told you what you wanted to hear, then blah blah blah.”
(Julie, 21 years old)

Karina’s partner did not respect her wish to wait until marriage to have
sexual intercourse. She stated that he told her that having sexual intercourse
was the only way to show her that he really loved and cared about her:

I did not want to have sex before marriage. I guess it happened [sexual
intercourse] because he told me so much that “it’s the only way to show you
that I love you, so you’re stopping me from fully experiencing my love for
you.” (Karina, 24 years old)

Being controlled by a partner to fulfill his sexual needs (5). Two girls
mentioned being blackmailed to have sex with threats of their partner
meeting his sexual needs outside of the relationship. This behavior was
justified by beliefs that men’s sexual needs are uncontrollable and must be
answered, otherwise they are allowed to go elsewhere. As Lili described,
her boyfriend made her bear responsibility for the sexual pressure he was
exerting, accusing her of sexual provocation:

“Stop teasing me, stop wearing tank tops and showing off your boobs,” but I
did not do anything that he blamed me for. Let’s say we were kissing each
other, he would say to me “oh that’s it, you do it on purpose, you stop it
there.” It was always like that. (Lili, 19 years old)

Marie talked about the power difference between her and her partner that
she associated with their age gap. She mentioned feeling coerced into
having sex with him because he was older, and his sexual needs were
perceived as legitimate:

My partner was already 23 years old and I was 17. I felt maybe I had to do
this [sexual intercourse] because it was in the order of things [to have sexual
intercourse with him], we could say. It was his expectation. (Marie, 22 years
old)

Intimate Partner Sexual Assault (10)

In total, 10 adolescent girls reported sexual events with a high usage of
force- fulness and invasiveness, such as physical violence and threats of
harm.
Participants said they had sexual intercourse because they were threatened
with violence, physically forced, or under the influence of substances like
alcohol or drugs.

Having sexual contact under threat of violence (5). Five participants said
they were threatened by their partner when they refused to have sexual
contact. They explained that saying “no” could be dangerous and lead to
negative consequences, such as verbal or physical violence: “I almost never
say no [to have sexual intercourse] when I don’t feel like it . . . I find it
dangerous to refuse. Generally, it will happen [sexual intercourse] anyway.”
(Britney, 21 years old)
Two girls related that the violence was unpredictable. Sometimes, their
boyfriends would become angry and violent after a refusal of sexual inter-
course, and at other times, remain calm, leaving girls in a state of hypervigi-
lance: “When I refused [to have sexual intercourse] it made him angry, but
sometimes he was very calm. I never managed to predict because,
otherwise, I could have avoided things.” (Nirlie, 20 years old)

Be physically forced to have sexual intercourse (5). Five participants

reported being physically forced to engage in sexual activities, including
oral, vaginal, or anal intercourse. For example, Carolanne said it was
useless to defend herself because she felt powerless:

It would have been considered a rape because I was not consenting. He forced
me. I did not move and he did what he wanted to do. There were times when
it was like that and I just gave up because when I struggled and said no, it was
useless, so I let it happen. (Carolanne, 25 years old)

Lili reported being gang raped by her partner’s friends because he did not
have enough money to pay for his drug debts:

When his friends came, and he had a hard time paying for drugs, he said, “I
can lend her to you, she can pay my debt”...When he had no money to pay for
his cocaine, he paid “in kind” with my body........I was being assaulted, a gang
rape......so you know it happened. (Lili, 19 years old)

Having sexual contact under the influence of substances (3). Some

participants said they could not make enlightened choices when they had
sexual contact with their partners because they were under the influence of
substances, such as drugs or alcohol: “It was not a hyper-informed choice,
in the sense that there was alcohol, etc.” (Marie, 22 years old).
Intimate Partner Sexual Abuse (9)
Intimate partner sexual abuse referred to situations where dating partners
used psychological violence not necessarily to engage in a specific sexual
act. Instead, it served as a show of power over their partner and to keep her
in a submissive position, with low force and low invasiveness tactics, such
as verbal sexual degradation and acts of control, particularly, over
protection and contraception. These acts cannot be prosecuted legally but
remain dam- aging, as reported by many participants.

Being a victim of reproductive control (3). In total, three participants

reported situations of reproductive control. Two girls said their partner
refused to use a condom. They had had unprotected sexual intercourse
because it was impossible to negotiate condom use, as Josiane explains:

I told him, “Wait, we need to put on a condom.” It was the first time we did it
together [sexual intercourse]. And then he said to me: “Oh no, everything is
fine. I know how. I’ll stop before (withdrawal).” You know? And there I was
like: “No, but put it on [condom] anyways. I don’t want to do it [sexual
intercourse] without it [condom].” And then he was like, “Ah, but are you
sure? I’ll do it. I know how. Don’t worry.” He reassured me and everything,
and I was ok. It was like ok. And after that, we just didn’t do it with it [a
condom] anymore. I’ve just let him do it [without condoms]. (Josiane, 17
years old)

Nirlie said that her partner forced her to have an abortion, following an
unplanned pregnancy: “After [he forced her to have an abortion] it was dif-
ficult. I did not want to do anything with him [sexually] anymore” (Nirlie,
20 years old).

Being the target of sexual degradation (2). Two participants revealed that
they felt like their partner denigrated their body. They also reported that
their part- ner made sexually obscene remarks that made them
uncomfortable.
Remarks were made on the sexual attributes following a picture on social
media. These sexual insults were made in front of family or friends. Lili
said she felt diminished and hurt: “Of course, when you get treated like a
little slut, telling me that I will never be normal, and that I will never be able
to have sex, and that I am a little whore, it hurts” (Lili, 19 years old).

Being intrumentalized and objectified (2). Two participants said their

partner told them they were just sexual objects that were only useful for
satisfying their needs. Danielle emphasized her ambivalence, describing her
partner as valuing her, at times, while, at other times, treating her like a
sexual object:
 The fact that sometimes he spoke to me and I felt wanted. I felt that I was
important. Other times, he spoke to me and I told myself that I was only a
sexual object, that I was not used for anything else. (Danielle, 19 years old)

Intimate Partner Forced Sexual Activity (6)

Intimate partner forced sexual activity included behaviors with high
forceful- ness and low invasiveness. Although less frequently reported, girls
expressed that some behaviors could be forced but did not involve
penetration.

Being sexually hurt during sexual activity (6). One participant said her
boyfriend could not control his strength and would hurt her when smacking
her but- tocks. Four other participants reported being victims of behaviors
that could result in physical injury, as Ophélie revealed: “It just hurt. It
wasn’t fun. I had bruises. He did not hit me with a fist, a black eye but you
could see traces” (Ophélie, 19 years old).

Being sexually touched (4). Two girls said their boyfriends sexually touched
them when they did not want it in an intimate context. Both minimized the
behaviors by explaining it was not physically violent: “You know, just coun-
ter-argument, it was not physical, it was not . . . You know, he was not
neces- sarily trying [to have sexual intercourse], you know how it could be
just a little bit of fondling” (Jasmine, 21 years old).
Two girls said their boyfriend used their body to masturbate but were not
fully willing: “Once, he said: well, you know, I’m doing nothing. I’m just
rubbing myself on you” (Alicia, 21 years old).

Discussion
This study followed recommendations from several studies to conduct quali-
tative research to better understand sexual DV (Bagwell-Gray et al., 2015)
and to refine its definition based on youth perspectives (Foshee et al., 2007).
To our knowledge, this is the first study that used the taxonomy of intimate
sexual violence developed by Bagwell-Gray and colleagues (2015) as a con-
ceptual framework to analyze manifestations of sexual DV and consider the
invasiveness and forcefulness of these experiences in adolescents and young
adult populations.
Our results confirm that sexual DV is highly prevalent in adolescent girl
and young adult relationships and should be systematically included in stud-
ies on DV (Wincentak et al., 2017). Both quantitative and qualitative results
revealed that the most commonly reported form of sexual DV is intimate
partner coercion, which involves attempting to have sexual intercourse (oral,
anal, or vaginal) by using nonphysical but invasive tactics, such as
manipula- tion, insistence, and controlling behaviors. Sexual coercion
differs from sex- ual abuse, which is the third most common form reported.
This form of sexual DV refers to the use of psychological tactics to
maintain a power position by degrading, instrumentalizing, or controlling
the partner, but not with the aim of having penetrative sex. These findings
support the fact that sexual DV is not limited to physical tactics, such as
penetration or the use of physical strength. When the sexual DV includes
low invasiveness or force, partici- pants tends to minimized or do not
recognized the behavior as sexual DV. These results are in line with a study
conducted among men who reported having perpetrated sexual DV
(Wegner, Pierce, & Abbey, 2014). It showed that this type of tactic (verbal
coercion) is more often reported by sexual DV perpetrators who are in a
relationship with the victim and with whom they have already had
consenting sexual intercourse. The authors referred to the term “sexual
entitlement beliefs” to explain the view, among male perpetra- tors, that if
they were previously sexually active with a woman, they were entitled to
sex and their partner should always be sexually available. This pressure may
be inflicted on girls.
As narratives illustrated, some girls are unsure about refusing sexual
activ- ity. In addition, some felt incompetent to fulfill their partner’s needs,
suggest- ing the persistence of traditional gender stereotypes about sexuality
(Humphreys, 2007) and the gendered expectations that men have sexual
needs and it is part of “womanly duties” (Bagwell-Gray, 2019). Other girls
felt like they owed sexual activities to their partner, conceding to have them
despite not really wanting to. They also feared negative consequences, espe-
cially, the fear of their partner having sex outside of the relationship and
eventually losing their partner. These forms of sexual coercion echo those
reported by adult women (Bagwell-Gray, 2019). Furthermore, some chal-
lenges seem to be unique to girls and young women. For example,
narratives suggest that youth feel pressured to have sexual intercourse with
an intimate partner even if they do not feel ready to become sexually active.
Manipulation for religious motives becomes an issue when it is time for
younger women to negotiate sexual activities. The wish to preserve their
relationship and the idea of an ideal relationship could explain why it is so
difficult, for many young women, to say no (Toscano, 2007). These results
underscore the rele- vance of addressing abilities to assert oneself and
communicate in a context of sexual interaction, in prevention programs for
adolescents and emerging adults. Also, it must be considered gender
socialization in universal preven- tion programs (Humphreys, 2007).
 Furthermore, in their narratives, some girls did not recognize sexual DV;
they minimized the acts committed, particularly when they were victims of
sexual coercion and their partner used psychological tactics to attempt pene-
tration. Many expressed difficulties drawing the line between what consti-
tuted sexual DV and what did not because there was no physical harm.
Some research has shown that young women are more likely to interpret
acts of sexual violence as “not being sexual violence” or the result of a “lack
of com- munication,” when the person involved is someone they know well
(Orchowski et al., 2013). This may partially explain the ambivalence
observed among the participants.
Intimate partner assault and forced sexual activity are the forms of sexual
violence that were the most often labeled as sexual DV by participants. As
Peterson and Muehlenhard (2011) suggest, many women label incidents as
sexual violence if they involve physical injuries, resistance from the victim,
and the use of physical strength to force the victim. This can relate to the
myth that sexual violence is often violent and girls as physical injuries fol-
lowing the events. Although intimate partner assault and forced sexual
activ- ity are concerning, the results confirmed the need to also focus on
sexual coercion and intimate forced sexual activities because they are more
insidi- ous and less recognized by adolescents and young women. In a
recent review, Moores and colleagues (2015) report that many adolescents
and young adults are particularly reluctant to describe acts of pressure,
coercion, and control as abusive and may confuse abusive behaviors (for
instance, jealousy and con- trolling behaviors) with demonstration of love
when they face conflicts with their dating partner (Martin, Houston, Mmari,
& Deker, 2012). Individuals respond to problems in a variety of ways
depending on how they define or label these situations and evaluate their
severity (Liang et al., 2005). Help- seeking requires self-awareness of a
problem, social norms that encourage such behavior, a willingness to seek
assistance (Rickwood, Deane, & Wilson, 2007) and must be translated into
some form of action aimed at resolving the situation to be considered as
help-seeking (Simmons, Farrar, Frazer & Thompson, 2011). Therefore, by
not labeling incidents as sexual DV, they do not seek help and they stays in
an abusive relationship. Although sexual cyberviolence was not the most
experience form of sexual DV in this study, studies suggests adolescents and
young adults are particularly at risk of expe- riencing it. In their systematic
literature review on cyberviolence in the con- text of intimate relationships,
Fernet and collegues (2019) found that sexual cyberviolence is prevalent
among adolescents (24.0%-82.2%; M = 48.8%) and young adults (3.3%-
36.6%; M = 28.8%). Sexual cyberviolence can be indirect or direct. Direct
sexual cyberviolence refers to the use of technology,
in a private context, against a current or previous intimate partner. In this
form of cyber, aggression is directly addressed to the partner via mobile,
instant messages service, or other devices (ask repeatedly nude picture,
force a person to talk about sexuality one). Indirect violence is the online
dissemi- nation of content (written, audio, photo, or video) about the partner
or ex- partner in a social or public setting (nude pictures of victims, video of
sexual intercourse). However, sexual cyberviolence is not included in
Bagwell-Gray et al.’s (2015) taxonomy. It could be an addition to their
work, considering technology has transformed the ways in which sexual
violence can be perpe- trated in intimate relationships (Fernet, Lapierre,
Hébert & Cousineau, 2019).

Strengths and Limitations

Within this mixed-methods design, the study sample of the qualitative com-
ponent was substantial. It gives a voice to the main stakeholders and a
deeper comprehension of sexual DV manifestations and challenges
regarding sexual consent, among adolescents and young adults. Indeed,
several authors have stressed the need to develop new approaches and tools
to document the vari- ous forms of sexual DV and to incorporate the
victim’s perspective into its definition (Bagwell-Gray et al., 2015; Hamby,
2014), and the present study is a step in that direction.
The present study has limitations that may offer paths for future research.
First, this is a secondary analysis of data; the original study did not focus
specifically on sexual DV but addressed more broadly the different forms of
victimization in the context of romantic relationships, and the challenges
experienced in dating and sexual life. In this study, it was not possible to
conduct gender-based analyses. Boys are confronted with particular chal-
lenges regarding sexual DV disclosure (Cleary, 2012) and further studies
are clearly needed to identify gender specificities. This study was also
limited to youth who self-identified as heterosexual. Studies are needed to
document sexual DV experiences of sexually diverse youth to better
understand their specific needs. Also, although youth identified themselves
as various ethno- cultural communities, the majority of participants
identifies as French Canadian. Studies on sexual DV including various
ethnicities may be impor- tant to better capture specificities of sexual
consent and sexual DV between different cultures.

Implications for Research and Practice

Several suggestions can be made in terms of research and practice. First, the
present results raise the relevance of broaching, with adolescents and young
adults, the notion of sexual consent, which, other authors have shown, has
very vague outlines, particularly in the context of romantic relationships
(Bagwell-Gray et al., 2015; Toscano, 2007). It is therefore important to sys-
tematically address sexual consent within romantic relationships in preven-
tion programs, to place a greater focus on verbal coercion and dispel myths
about sexual DV. Interventions must inform youth about their rights in the
context of romantic relationships, help them better identify their sexual
needs and limits, and support them in developing positive negotiation
strategies with their partner. To better prevent sexual DV in adolescents and
young adults, it is not only necessary to inform and raise awareness but also
to offer learning situations where they will have the opportunity to practice
commu- nication and negotiation skills with a romantic or sexual partner
(McElwain, McGill, & Savasuk-Luxton, 2017).
Understanding the multiple forms that sexual DV can take in the context
of romantic relationships means recognizing that they are not limited to acts
that involve penetration. As the present study reveals, manifestations of DV
are part of a continuum that goes from unwanted sexual touching to sexual
aggression, blackmailing, manipulation, sexual control, and degradation.
Making clear distinctions between forms of sexual DV will ultimately lead
to a more precise description of its prevalence and consequences, allowing
for aggregation and comparison across research studies. This will also assist
the development of tailored interventions for girls and women who have
experi- enced the various forms of sexual DV (Bagwell-Gray et al., 2015).
Understanding the different manifestations of sexual DV will surely lead
to a better estimation of its prevalence and impacts on victims and support
the relevance of addressing the issue and preventing it. By being aware,
youth will be better prepared to recognize sexual DV, especially sexual acts
that are less intrusive and do not involve physical tactics. Youth may engage
in more help- seeking behaviors when they are aware of the different sexual
DV manifesta- tions (Rothman, Edwards, Rizzo, Kearns, & Banyard, 2019).
Furthermore, the different manifestations of sexual DV identified in the
youth’s narratives could serve to contribute to the development of an
assessment tool to estimate the prevalence of sexual DV that is more
adapted to the experiences of youth. The integration of quantitative and
qualitative measures has several important advantages when assessing
sexual violence (convergent validity between qualitative and quantitative
measures, integration of the victim’s perspective, hypothesis generation, etc.;
Testa, Livingston, & VanZile-Tamsen, 2011). Further research could
highlight the differences between interviews and self- reported measures to
improve assessment of sexual DV and sexual consent.
As reported by Bagwell-Gray and colleagues (2015), to date, no research
has explored intimate partner forced sexual activity, as seen in the
taxonomy,
and it is interesting to examine its manifestations in younger populations.
The present study underlines that this type of sexual DV involves being
sexually hurt within the context of sexual activities and being sexually
touched. Further studies could explore other manifestations. To date, little is
known about sexual DV experienced in young adults through
communication tech- nologies (Stonard, Bowen, Lawrence, & Price, 2014).
As technology is increasingly present, future research should specifically
target sexual forms of cyberagression by a romantic partner and the
consequences for victims (Marganski & Melander, 2018).

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the adolescent girls and young women who participated in
this project and the community groups involved.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a grant
from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (435-2013-1683)
awarded to Mylène Fernet.

ORCID iDs
Martine Hébert https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4531-5124
Geneviève Brodeur https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7498-4872

References
Bagwell-Gray, M. E. (2019). Women’s experiences of sexual violence in intimate
relationships: Applying a new taxonomy. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0886260519827667
Bagwell-Gray, M. E., Messing, J. T., & Baldwin-White, A. (2015). Intimate part-
ner sexual violence: A review of terms, definitions, and prevalence. Trauma,
Violence, & Abuse, 16, 316-335. doi:10.1177/1524838014557290
Breiding, M., Basile, K. C., Smith, S. G., Black, M. C., & Mahendra, R. R. (2015).
Intimate partner violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended
data elements. Version 2.0. Retrieved from https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/31292
Cleary, A. (2012). Suicidal action, emotional expression, and the performance of
masculinities. Social Science & Medicine, 74, 498-505. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed
.2011.08.002
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Choosing a mixed methods design. In
J. W. Creswell & V. L. Plano Clark (Eds.), Designing and conducting mixed
methods research (2nd ed., pp. 53-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dardis, C. M., Kraft, K. M., & Gidycz, C. A. (2017). “Miscommunication” and
undergraduate women’s conceptualizations of sexual assault: A qualita-
tive analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1177/0886260517726412
Devries, K. M., Mak, J. Y., Garcia-Moreno, C., Petzold, M., Child, J. C., Falder, G.,
. . . Pallitto, C. (2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner violence
against women. Science, 340, 1527-1528. doi:10.1126/science.1240937
Eshelman, L., & Levendosky, A. A. (2012). Dating violence: Mental health conse-
quences based on type of abuse. Violence and Victims, 27, 215-228. doi:10.1891
/0886-6708.27.2.215
Fernández-González, L., Wekerle, C., & Goldstein, A. L. (2012). Measuring ado-
lescent dating violence: Development of Conflict in Adolescent Dating
Relationships Inventory (CADRI) Short Form. Advances in Mental Health, 11,
35-54. doi:10.5172/jamh.2012.2280
Fernet, M., Hébert, M., Couture, S., & Brodeur, G. (2019). Meeting the needs of
ado- lescent and emerging adult victims of sexual violence in their romantic
relation- ships: a mixed methods study exploring barriers to help-seeking. Child
abuse & neglect, 91, 41-51. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.01.019
Fernet, M., Lapierre, A., Hébert, M., & Cousineau, M. M. (2019). A Systematic
Review of Literature on Cyber Intimate Partner Victimization in Adolescent
Girls and Women. Computers in Human Behavior, 100. doi:10.1016/j.chb
.2019.06.005
Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Linder, F., Rice, J., & Wilcher, R. (2007). Typologies
of adolescent dating violence: Identifying typologies of adolescent dating vio-
lence perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 498-519. doi:10.
1177/0886260506298829
Hamby, S. (2014). Intimate partner and sexual violence research: Scientific prog-
ress, scientific challenges, and gender. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15, 149-158.
doi:10.1177/1524838014520723
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content
analysis.
Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277-1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687
Humphreys, C. (2007). A health inequalities perspective on violence against women.
Health & Social Care in the Community, 15. 120-127.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2524
.2006.00685.x
Koss, M. P., Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M., . . . White,
J. (2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of
sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 357-
370. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00385.x
Koss, M. P., & Gidycz, C. A. (1985). Sexual experiences survey: Reliability
and validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 422-423.
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.53.3.422
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. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.50.3.455
Liang, B., Goodman, L., Tummala-Narra, P., & Weintraub, S. (2005). A theoreti-
cal framework for understanding help-seekingprocesses among survivors of
inti- mate partner violence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 36,
71–84. doi:10.1007/s10464-005-6233-6
Logan, T. K., Walker, R., & Cole, J. (2015). Silenced suffering: The need for a
better understanding of partner sexual violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16,
111- 135. doi:10.1177/1524838013517560
Marganski, A., & Melander, L. (2018). Intimate partner violence victimization in the
cyber and real world: Examining the extent of cyber aggression experiences and
its association with in-person dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 33, 1071-1095. doi:10.1177/0886260515614283
Martin, C. E., Houston, A. M., Mmari, K. N., & Deker, M. R. (2012). Urban teens
and young adults describe drama, disrespect, dating violence and help-seeking
preferences. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 16(5), 957–966. doi:10.1007/
s10995-011-0819-4
McElwain, A., McGill, J., & Savasuk-Luxton, R. (2017). Youth relationship edu-
cation: A meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 82, 499-507.
doi:1016/j.childyouth.2017.09.036
Muehlenhard, C. L., Humphreys, T. P., Jozkowski, K. N., & Peterson, Z. D. (2016).
The complexities of sexual consent among college students: A conceptual and
empirical review. The Journal of Sex Research, 53, 457-487. doi:10.1080/00224
499.2016.1146651
Moore, A., Sargenton, K. M., Ferranti, D., & González-Guarda, R. M. (2015).
Adolescent dating violence: Supports and barriers in accessing services.
Journal of community health nursing, 32(1), 39-52. doi:10.1080/07370016.2
015.991668
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, 2005-2023.
doi:10.1177/0886260512471085
Peterson, Z. D., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (2011). A match-and-motivation model of
how women label their nonconsensual sexual experiences. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 35, 558-570. doi:10.1177/0361684311410210
Rickwood, D. J., Deane, F. P., & Wilson, C. J. (2007). When and how do young
people seek professional help for mental health problems?. Medical Journal of
Australia, 187(S7), S35-S39. doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb01334.x
Rothman, E. F., Edwards, K. M., Rizzo, A. J., Kearns, M., & Banyard, V. L. (2019).
Perceptions of community norms and youths’ reactive and proactive dating and
sexual violence bystander action. American Journal of Community Psychology,
63, 122-134. doi:10.1002/ajcp.12312
Sabina, C., & Ho, L. Y. (2014). Campus and college victim responses to sexual
assault and dating violence: Disclosure, service utilization, and service
provision. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15, 201-226.
doi:10.1177/1524838014521322
 Scientific Software Development. (2013). ATLAS. ti (Version 7.0) [Computer soft-
ware]. Berlin, Germany: Author.
Sears, H. A., & Byers, E. S. (2010). Adolescent girls’ and boys’ experiences of
psychologically, physically, and sexually aggressive behaviors in their dating
relationships: Co-occurrence and emotional reaction. Journal of Aggression,
Maltreatment & Trauma, 19, 517-539. doi:10.1080/10926771.2010.495035
Simmons, C. A., Farrar, M., Frazer, K., & Thompson, M. J. (2011). From the voices
of women: Facilitating survivor access to IPV services. Violence against
women, 17(10), 1226-1243. doi:10.1177/1077801211424476
Stonard, K. E., Bowen, E., Lawrence, T. R., & Price, S. A. (2014). The relevance of
technology to the nature, prevalence and impact of adolescent dating violence
and abuse: A research synthesis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 390-417.
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2014.06.005
Testa, M., Livingston, J. A., & VanZile-Tamsen, C. (2011). Advancing the study
of violence against women using mixed methods: Integrating qualitative meth-
ods into a quantitative research program. Violence Against Women, 17, 236-250.
doi:10.1177/1077801210397744
Toscano, S. E. (2007). A grounded theory of female adolescents’ dating experiences
and factors influencing safety: the dynamics of the Circle. BMC nursing, 6(1), 7.
doi:10.1186/1472-6955-6-7
Wegner, R., Pierce, J., & Abbey, A. (2014). Relationship type and sexual
precedence: Their associations with characteristics of sexual assault perpetrators
and inci- dents. Violence Against Women, 20, 1360-1382.
Weiss, K. G. (2013). “You just don’t report that kind of stuff”: Investigating teens’
ambivalence toward peer-perpetrated, unwanted sexual incidents. Violence and
Victims, 28, 288-302. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.11-061
Weisz, A. N., Tolman, R. M., Callahan, M. R., Saunders, D. G., & Black, B. M.
(2007). Informal helpers’ responses when adolescents tell them about dating
vio- lence or romantic relationship problems. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 853-
868. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.09.004
Wekerle, C., Leung, E., Wall, A.-M., MacMillan, H., Boyle, M., Trocme, N., &
Waechter, R. (2009). The contribution of childhood emotional abuse to teen
dating violence among child protective services-involved youth. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 33, 45-58. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.12.006
Weston, C., Gandell, T., Beauchamp, J., McAlpine, L., Wiseman, C., & Beauchamp,
C. (2001). Analyzing interview data: The development and evolution of a cod-
ing system. Qualitative Sociology, 24, 381-400. doi:10.1023/A:1010690908200
Wilson, L. C.,& Miller, K. E.(2016). Meta-analysisoftheprevalenceofunacknowledged
rape. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17, 149-159. doi:10.1177/1524838015576391
Wincentak, K., Connolly, J., & Card, N. (2017). Teen dating violence: A meta-ana-
lytic review of prevalence rates. Psychology of Violence, 7, 224-241. doi:10.1037/
a0040194
Woodin, E. M., Sotskova, A., & O’Leary, K. D. (2013). Intimate partner violence
assessment in an historical context: Divergent approaches and opportunities for
progress. Sex Roles, 69, 120-130. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0294-z
Author Biographies
Mylène Fernet (MA in sexology and PhD in public health) is a full professor in the
Department of Sexology at Université du Québec à Montréal. Her research interests
focus on romantic relationships and sexuality development during adolescence. Her
current research program is on adolescents and emerging adults who are vulnerable
to interpersonal violence.
Martine Hébert (PhD in psychology) is a full professor in the Department of
Sexology at Université du Québec à Montréal. Her research interests focus on the
diversity of outcomes in children and adolescents victims of interpersonal trauma
and trajectories of resilience. She has also conducted evaluative studies of both
interven- tion and prevention programs.
Geneviève Brodeur (MA in sexology) is a research coordinator in the Department
of Sexology at Université du Québec à Montréal. Her research interests focus on
sexual abuse and dating violence.
Valérie Théorêt (PhD candidate in psychology) is a full-time student in psychology
at Université du Québec à Montréal. Her research interests are on sexual violence
and sexual consent.