DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HETEROSEXUAL AND LESBIAN WOMEN IN ACCEPTABILITY AND RISK PERCEPTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SEXUAL PERMISSIVENESS

Differences between heterosexual and lesbian women in acceptability and risk perceptions associated with sexual permissiveness In many countries, homosexuality is a crime with varying de

Differences between heterosexual and lesbian women in

acceptability and risk perceptions associated with sexual

permissiveness

In many countries, homosexuality is a crime with varying degrees of severity of punishment In Saudi Arabia and Iran, it is punishable by death In Jamaica, those convicted are sentenced to 10 years hard labor In Malaysia, a jail sentence awaits The United Nations General Assembly, which heard two

opposing statements on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, and intersex (LGBTI) rights on December 18, 2008, shed some light on prevalent global sentiment It was argued that discrimination, violence, criminal sanctions, and abuse based on sexual or gender identity violate LGBTI human rights Navanethem Pillay, the

United Nations High Commissioner for human rights, commented that laws against homosexuality “are increasingly becoming recognized

as anachronistic and as inconsistent both with international law and with traditional values of dignity, inclusion and respect for all” (Macfarquhar, 2008) The response to LGBTI rights among

member countries, however, was mixed Sixty-six nations supported such rights, 57 were against them, and 69 abstained However, on closer examination, the picture for Asia was more consistent In Asia, only Armenia, Japan, Nepal, and Timor-Leste supported LGBTI rights Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei opposed The rest of the South East Asian countries, including Singapore, abstained

Therefore, by their abstinence, the majority of countries in Asia showed a sense of ambivalence towards LGBTI rights

The stance taken by Singapore in the recent UN General

Assembly is reflective of its population’s mixed response to the gay and lesbian community An unsuccessful attempt to

decriminalize sex acts between two men (section 377A in the penal code) in 2007 brought this issue to the forefront Under section 377A, it is stated, “penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section” Opponents of the repeal of section 377A had spoken

against the decriminalization of sex between men In response to the fierce debate on both sides, the government opted to remain with the status quo (Ramesh, 2007, September 22) Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said, “the tone of society, the public, and

society as a whole, should be really set by the heterosexuals and that’s the way many Singaporeans feel… what people do in private

is their own business; in public, certain norms apply” (Ramesh,

2007, September 22) Therefore, sex acts between males continue

to be criminalized, even though there remain strong feelings

among both camps

Unlike their gay counterparts, lesbian women were left out

of the penal code and newspaper articles related to the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) This did not mean, however, that they were spared from being portrayed in a negative light Some religious groups, for instance, warned that living a lesbian lifestyle would end in misery because of greater promiscuity in the lesbian community (e.g., Harley, 2003) In a brochure

entitled “Straight Talk”, given out to secondary school students

in Singapore, significant numbers of lesbian women were said to exchange sex for money and drugs (Harley, 2003) It was also

written that “lesbian relationships are equally unhealthy and just as life-threatening as gay male relationships” The sexual health consequences of lesbian activities were emphasized

Promiscuity has been defined as irresponsible sexuality, such as having unprotected sex with multiple sexual partners, with adverse health consequences such as sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and unwanted pregnancy (Gershman, 1997; Markey

& Markey, 2007; Widom & Kuhms, 1996) Sexual permissiveness

appears to cover any sexual behavior that falls outside of a

committed marriage Examples of sexual permissiveness are night stands and having threesomes Certain behaviors are more ambiguous however For instance, some people perceive premarital sex within committed dating partners as acceptable, but there are others who view the same as sexual permissiveness Therefore, promiscuity appears to be broadly captured by the concept of

one-sexual permissiveness coupled with irresponsibility and adverse health consequences The chief emphasis of many current safe sex campaigns is on responsible sex While safe sex campaigners

advocate being faithful to one sexual partner, their work among female sex workers stresses protective measures so that adverse consequences can be avoided Thus, while promiscuity includes sexual permissiveness, sexual permissiveness can be meaningfully distinguished from promiscuity in that the latter implies both irresponsibility and adverse health consequences, while sexual permissiveness can exist with responsibility (i.e., having

multiple partners but always practicing safe sex) that eliminates

or at least minimizes adverse health consequences

Are lesbian women sexually permissive? While there is a paucity of research studies on sexual behaviors and attitudes of lesbian women in Asia, research conducted outside of Asian

countries suggests that lesbian women can be sexually permissive

In Morrow and Allsworth’s (2000) survey study on sexual risks in

lesbian women and bisexual women, 13% of their lesbian sample (total lesbian sample size was 436) were then sexually inactive, 70% had a single sexual partner, and 17% had multiple partners

Of those who had been sexually active in the previous year, 30%

of their lesbian participants ever had multiple female sexual partners In Montcalm and Myers’ (2000) study, lesbian

participants reported between none to 110 sexual partners in the previous year, with 72% having had only one sexual partner

Therefore, while the majority of lesbian women in these two

samples prefer monogamy, approximately a quarter of them do

engage in sex with multiple partners

Perceived risk influences the use of safe sex methods

Lesbian women who had a history of STIs, had a friend with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), or perceived greater risk for the self were more likely to be concerned about STIs and practice safe sex (Diamant, Lever & Schuster, 2000; Montcalm & Myer,

2000) However, it is likely that Singaporean lesbian women think that they are impervious to the effects of STIs Newspapers

frequently allude to HIV and AIDS as a gay man’s illness (e.g., Wong, 2008) Reporting on infected heterosexuals tends to be

male-centric, such as a focus on males who participate in the Batam (Indonesia) sex trade In such instances, married women are portrayed as victims, being infected as a result of and without knowledge of their husbands’ extramarital sexual stints HIV and AIDS are not typically associated with lesbian women in local news reporting, possibly contributing to the perception that

lesbian women are invulnerable This perception, where many

lesbian women see themselves as “safe” from STIs, has been termed

“lesbian immunity” (Montcalm & Myer, 2000), which is a perception

of low or no sexual risk when the sexual partner is a fellow

female Studies conducted in other countries showed that many health practitioners subscribed to this misconception as well (Dworkin, 2005)

Local HIV and AIDS infection statistics may also contribute

to this perception of lesbian immunity From Singapore’s Ministry

of Health’s statistics on HIV infections or AIDS (Ministry of Health, 2008), the trend, from 1985 to 2007, showed that infected females were increasingly outnumbered by infected males The

number of women who were infected made up approximately 10% of the number of infected men over the last three years In the year

2007, 31 women were affected as compared to 392 men In the year

2006, 32 women were affected as compared to 325 men In 2005, the figures were 30 and 287 for females and males, respectively

Between 2005 and 2007, the odds of married heterosexual women being infected were more than twice that of single women (the statistics for single women do not distinguish between

heterosexual and lesbian women) These small numbers of female infections may lead Singaporean lesbian women to perceive

themselves as not at risk, since they are female and

predominantly unmarried (as same-sex marriage is not allowed in Singapore)

Because of this general perception of invulnerability,

lesbian women who are aware of safer sexual behaviors may

therefore not utilize, even with multiple partners, protective measures (such as dental dams, which are rectangular sheets of latex placed over the genital region during oral stimulation of the genital, or rubber gloves, which are used during finger

penetration of the vagina) during risky sexual activities

(Fishman & Anderson, 2003; Richardson, 2000) Thus, the

perception of lesbian immunity may actually be a basis for

lesbian women not only being more permissive (having multiple partners) but also being irresponsibly permissive (having unsafe sex with multiple partners)

Contrary to this perception of immunity, the wide variety of sexual activities that lesbian women engage in may expose them to STIs In Montcalm and Myer’s (2000) sample of 248 lesbian

participants, the majority practiced receiving digital-vaginal sex (where a partner’s finger is inserted into one’s vagina)

(84.3%), giving digital-vaginal sex (where one inserts a finger into a partner’s vagina) (87.1%), receiving oral-vaginal sex

(where a partner orally stimulates one’s vagina) (79.0%) and

giving oral-vaginal sex (where one orally stimulates a partner’s vagina) (81.5%) Sharing of sex toys such as dildos (33.9%),

receiving digital-anal sex (where a partner’s finger is inserted into one’s anus) (23.4%), giving digital-anal sex (where one

inserts a finger into a partner’s anus) (24.2%) and fisting

(inserting a hand or all fingers into the vagina or anus) (less than 10% each for vaginal and anal fisting) were much less

popular About one-quarter of the women had sex involving genital contact during their partners’ menstruation A similar

preponderance of sexual activities was found in Morrow and

Allsworth’s (2000) sample of 504 lesbian women, with

approximately 90% of participants practicing oral-vaginal and digital-vaginal sex Although HIV infections and AIDS are much lower for unmarried females (which would include most lesbian women), exposure to mucous membranes, vaginal secretions, and menstrual blood increases the risk of acquiring STIs such as

herpes and chlamydia (Fishman & Anderson, 2003; Marrazzo, Coffey,

& Bingham, 2005) Some lesbian women acquire female bisexual

partners who have had multiple male sexual partners before, thus increasing their risk of STIs (Dworkin, 2005) such as

trichomoniasis and anogenital warts which can affect women who never had sex with men (Morrow & Allsworth, 2000) Once infected, complications are greater in women as compared to men, and women face a wider variety of problems, such as infertility and chronic pelvic pain (Diamant, Lever, & Schuster, 2000) Thus, even if the risk for women is indeed lower, it does not mean there is no risk

at all As mentioned earlier, sexual activities that involve

infected vaginal fluid and menstrual blood coming into contact with mucosal membranes, open sores, or cuts increase one’s

susceptibility to STIs Therefore, lesbian immunity is really an illusion; lesbian women do not possess immunity to STIs If

lesbian women are indeed more sexually permissive and

irresponsibly so because of the perception of immunity even

though they really are not immune, this can have important

implications for the sexual health of the lesbian community The main objective of this thesis was therefore to examine

perceptions associated with sexual permissiveness, focusing on acceptability (how acceptable) and risk (how risky) ratings

associated with such permissiveness among lesbian women, and to contrast these acceptability and risk perceptions against those

of heterosexual women

In many studies on lesbian women, lesbian women were

recruited on the basis of their self-identification as lesbian women (e.g., Montcalm & Myer, 2000; Morrow & Allsworth, 2000) This self-identification approach can be problematic because

self-identified lesbian women may not include only lesbian women but also those who are bisexual as well According to Diamond (2005b), women with attractions to both genders are more likely

to change their sexual identity over time because, after

acknowledging same-sex attractions, they have the additional step

of weighing how strongly they lean towards each gender Thus, some self-identified lesbian women may actually be bisexuals in the making Indeed, in Rust’s (1993) retrospective study, 75% of bisexual respondents once identified themselves as lesbian

Alternatively, there may be bisexual respondents who identify themselves as lesbian women because they have a predominant

interest in women even though they are attracted (to different extents) to both genders (Diamond, 2005b) Many self-identified lesbian women have also had sex with men (Champion, Wilford,

Shain, & Piper, 2005) Thus, self-identification as a lesbian women appears to function more as a tool for making sense of

current sexual attractions (Weinberg, Williams, & Proyer, 1994) Additionally, some women may maintain a lesbian identity for

reasons irrelevant to their sexuality For instance, one woman identified as herself as a lesbian simply because of a dislike for the heterosexual culture (Diamond, 2005b)

To enhance knowledge and understanding, it is meaningful to make distinctions between bisexual women and lesbian women

(Gangestad, Bailey, & Martin, 2000) Diamond’s (2005a) study on subgroups of sexual minority women involving “stable lesbians” (consistently identifying as lesbian), “fluid lesbians” (changing between sexual identities), and “stable nonlesbians” (never

adopted lesbian sexual identity, bisexual or unlabeled) is a step forward in this regard Such a distinction is useful in that it

was found that “stable lesbians” had the smallest fluctuations in their emotional and physical attraction to the same sex (Diamond, 2005a) In this light, studies that recruit lesbian women may not really have only lesbian women in their samples, which would

raise questions regarding the generalizability of their results

to lesbian women One solution to this problem, which would also enhance generalizability to lesbian women, is to flesh out the term “lesbian” in terms of specific criteria, so that potential participants are not left to their own interpretations of who a lesbian is This therefore was the approach adopted in this

thesis Specifically, lesbian women were defined as women who experienced emotional and physical attractions towards members of the same sex only Such an approach reduced the lesbian sample to only a subgroup of WSW (women who have sex with women) and helped

to sift out bisexual women as well as those who identified

themselves as lesbian for reasons irrelevant to their sexuality

In specifying the criteria associated with the term “lesbian” during recruitment, potential participants were therefore

provided with objective markers to determine their eligibility for participation

In many studies on lesbian women, heterosexual women were not included as a comparison group While this may be seen as an acknowledgement of or statement of intent that lesbian women are

a group worthy of study in and of themselves, there may be

inadvertent knowledge gaps that are created regarding what

actually differentiates heterosexual women and lesbian women From a pragmatic point of view, when comments are made about

lesbian women’s sexuality (such as those by religious groups), such comments typically pitch the perceived deviant (lesbian

women) against the socially acceptable (heterosexual women)

Although this may be perceived as biased or prejudiced,

heterosexual women do offer a familiar reference point for

understanding lesbian women By asking the same questions of both groups, it is then possible to accurately quantify both

differences and similarities between the two groups, and in so doing actually provide for a better understanding of lesbian

women This thesis therefore examined perceptions associated with sexual permissiveness in local lesbian women, with local

heterosexual women as a comparison group

Sexual permissiveness is often conceptualized in terms of actual behavior (the number of partners one has) However, such

an approach can be severely limiting in recruiting participants, especially in an Asian context where people tend to be more

conservative, such that fewer people may actually have multiple partners or are sufficiently bold to be forthcoming about the number of partners they have To circumvent this, this thesis assessed sexual permissiveness from an attitudinal (how

acceptable) perspective and a perceptual (how risky) perspective Cross-cultural studies have been done examining sexual attitudes

of French and American participants, where the French were found

to be more permissive (LeGall, Mullet, & Riviere-Shafighi, 2002) There were also gender comparative studies that found women to be less sexually permissive (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987) Risk

perceptions, as examined in this study, pertain to the level of perceived risk associated with sexual permissiveness It should

be noted that perceptions of risk need not correspond with actual risk levels It is perceived risk, however, that typically

influences behavior rather than actual risk levels As noted

previously, lesbian women who were conscious of sexual risks were more likely to utilize safe sex methods Therefore, risk

perceptions, not actual levels of risk, were of interest in this thesis

Overview of the Current Research This thesis covered 2 studies The first study examined terms relevant to sexual permissiveness Examining sexual

permissiveness encompassed understanding perceptions of

relationships, sex, and virginity Focus group discussions with heterosexual and lesbian women were employed towards this end The second study sought to tease out the nuances in acceptability and risk perceptions when different sexual orientations

(specifically heterosexual or lesbian), genders and sex types (such as penile-vaginal intercourse or kissing) come into play This attempt took the form of a survey questionnaire The terms

in the questionnaire were clarified using the results of study 1,

so as to maximize similar interpretation of questionnaire items

Study 1 Before examining differences between lesbian and

heterosexual women in how they perceived acceptability and risk

in sexual permissiveness, it is important first of all to

determine whether heterosexual and lesbian women perceive

relationships, sex, and virginity similarly This includes

definitions and purposes, such as what it means to be and the purposes of being in a relationship, having sex, as well as the importance of virginity (virginity was included because previous studies had linked it to sexual permissiveness (Pitts & Rahman, 2001) Such a first step is necessary to ensure that when

comparisons are subsequently made concerning perceptions, there

can be confidence that these perceptions apply to concepts and terms that are either interpreted similarly by both groups of women or are known to have different interpretations for the two groups of women

A key question for the two groups of women is the question

of what constitutes sex Answers here have the potential of

revealing common sexual activities that both groups of women are familiar with In doing so, the accompanying perceptions of

acceptability and risk of these common sexual activities can then

be assessed with confidence Eliciting responses on the purposes

of being in a relationship and having sex might also shed light

on differences between lesbian and heterosexual women that could contribute to the negative stereotype of promiscuity Knowing the purposes can also highlight the boundaries and expectations of being in a relationship for these two groups of women

Available literature suggests that there are possible

differences between heterosexual and lesbian women in how they view relationships, sex, and virginity Heterosexual and lesbian women, for instance, are likely to differ in their

characteristics of what a romantic relationship is There is

evidence that heterosexuals equate monogamy with commitment and non-monogamy with infidelity (Smart, 2006) On the other hand, those with same-sex attractions recognize sexual non-exclusivity, which is common among gay-men coupling (Smart, 2006) Therefore, lesbian women are likely to possess a broader definition of

“relationship”, recognizing non-monogamous relationships as

valid, as compared to their heterosexual counterparts Given such

a discrepancy, lesbian women may consider other forms of

relationships when responding to the term “relationship” This is

problematic because infidelity is a violation of boundary

agreements set between relationship partners For heterosexuals, these markers are likely to be fixed (non-monogamy equates

infidelity) For lesbian women, these markers are likely to be negotiable (non-monogamy may not be a sign of infidelity,

depending on prior agreements) Promiscuity, especially that

leading to truncated relationships, carries connotation of

violation of boundaries If such a difference in how

relationships are viewed surfaced among local lesbian and

heterosexual women, there would be a need to take this difference into account before any meaningful comparison could be made in terms of how acceptability of and risks associated with sexual permissiveness are perceived

Secondly, heterosexual and lesbian women may define sex and virginity differently according to different predominant sexual activities, different gender of partner, and presence of orgasm This has implications for use of the term “sex” for each group of women Lesbian women have been reported to engage in oral-vaginal sex, oral-anal sex, digital-vaginal sex, digital-anal sex and tribadism (rubbing of one’s genitals against partner’s body part) (Fishman & Anderson, 2003; Morrow & Allsworth, 2000) Penile-

vaginal intercourse is naturally absent from lesbian women’s

repertoire For heterosexual women, however, penile-vaginal

intercourse is possibly the gist of “having sex” In Pitts and Rahman’s (2001) study, an overwhelming percentage of female

participants rated penile-vaginal intercourse as sex, compared to kissing (less than 3%) or oral (less than 35%) or manual (less than 20%) genital stimulation Trotter and Alderson (2007) found similar results, with their female participants most in agreement

that penile-vaginal intercourse is sex (more than 87%), compared

to deep kissing (less than 4%) or oral (less than 49%) or manual (less than 28%) simulation

Some studies suggest that definitions of sex and virginity loss are defined according to one’s sexual experiences (Bersamin, Fisher, Walker, Hill, & Grube, 2007) For example, female and male heterosexuals were likely to define sex as penile-vaginal intercourse (Trotter & Alderson, 2007) However, other studies found no relationship between sexual experience and definitions

of sex Bersamin et al (2007), for instance, found among their predominantly heterosexual participants that it was other factors such as gender of partner, length of dating, and presence of

orgasm that affected definitions of sex Specifically, their

participants (a) defined a sexual partner as being of an

opposite-sex partner, (b) were also more likely to consider a larger number of activities as sex if they were in a dating

relationship with the partner for three months, compared to a partner on a single date, (c) were more likely to consider as sex oral sex with orgasm than oral sex without orgasm Interestingly, however, orgasm was not a criterion for sex when it came to

penile-vaginal or penile-anal intercourse Participants also

appeared to have different yardsticks for judgment for sex and same-sex partners For example, they were more likely to consider oral and manual genital stimulation as sex if the

opposite-partner was of the same-sex Thus, although sexual experience did not relate to definitions of sex here, it appeared that gender of partner was nonetheless an important consideration, as is the type of sexual activity being considered It should be noted that for these two studies, the number of lesbian participants were

not sufficiently large (less than 3% in Pitts & Rahman’s (2001) sample and less than 2% in Trotter & Alderson’s (2007) sample)

to allow for firm conclusions, so that it remains unclear if

lesbian and heterosexual women do differ in how they define sex and virginity

The relationship between sex and virginity is also ambiguous (Bersamin et al., 2007) Chambers (2007) showed from her sample

of female and male heterosexual college students from the

University of Georgia that perceptions towards what constitutes sex and virginity loss differed across the participants For

example, 41.7% of self-identified virgins had engaged oral sex and 39.1% of those who engaged in oral sex but not sexual

intercourse called themselves non-virgins This meant that

participants who had oral sex only may or may not classify

themselves as virgins, indicating disparate definitions of

virginity Participants often described virginity loss in the context of penile-vaginal intercourse, although some also

consider other types of sex as long as genitals were involved (Carpenter, 2001; Trotter & Alderson, 2007) Pitts and Rahman (2001) found that female participants, as compared to male

participants, had a narrower definition of sex and made mention

of the notion of “technical virginity” (such that one engaging in sexual activities other than penile-vaginal intercourse remains a virgin) There is likely to be more pressure on young unmarried women to retain their virginity Non-virgin status might be

construed as indicating sexual promiscuity

In sum, study 1 was done to examine and compare how lesbian and heterosexual women viewed relationships, sex, and virginity

Method

Participants

The participants consisted of 38 heterosexual and 38 lesbian women Participants were all English-speaking There were no pre-requisites set for participation regarding experience in

relationships and sex because views and opinions were the focus

of this study Heterosexual women were acquired from the Research Participants pool of the Department of Psychology at the National University of Singapore

Their ages ranged from 19 to 31 years (M = 21.40, SD =

2.30) Lesbian women were recruited via posters, from local

online portals such as Sayoni.com, and online mailing lists such

as Signel yahoogroups Their ages ranged from 21 to 34 years of

age (M = 25.40, SD = 3.70)

Lesbian participants were older than heterosexual

participants, t(74) = 5.67, p < 01 Participants were

predominantly Chinese, in the midst of acquiring or already

possessing a degree, and Christian/Catholic, Buddhist, or without religion Table 1 provides a summary of the demographics of the participants in this study

Table 1

Demographics Characteristics of Heterosexual (mean age = 21.40,

SD = 2.30) and Lesbian (mean age = 25.40, SD = 3.70) Participants

in Focus Group Discussions

No religion 15 39.5 15 39.5

Procedure

Focus group discussions were utilized to explore

participants’ opinions This method has an added advantage over one-to-one interviews because it allows group interaction and participants to clarify each other’s opinions by asking

questions, making comments, and exchanging stories This, in

turn, allows for the gathering of a potentially richer set of data

Permission was first sought from the NUS Institutional

Review Board (IRB) to conduct the study Upon obtaining IRB

approval, recruitment for the focus group discussions was done Heterosexual women and lesbian women were recruited to

participate in separate focus group discussions This was done to take into account the ambivalence towards homosexuality in

Singapore and to minimize any sense of discomfort that may arise from the different sexual orientations Participants signed up for sessions according to their availability

The discussion itself was semi-structured Specific

questions were asked in the same sequence in all sessions (see Appendix A) However, wherever needed, additional questions were asked for clarification or elaboration The present author

facilitated all sessions To prevent a minority from dominating a group discussion, each participant was given a chance to speak for each of the structured questions drawn up for discussion

These sessions took place in various locations, including tutorial rooms and quiet coffee places, according to the

convenience of participants Each focus group discussion lasted between 1 to 2 hours, with group sizes ranging from 4 to 10

Seven sessions were conducted for heterosexual women and 6 were conducted for lesbian women

Before each session, participants were briefed on the

purpose of the study, after which they signed the consent form (indicating voluntary participation) and then provided some

demographic data Participants were encouraged to speak freely and permission was obtained from participants for the session to

be audio-recorded The sensitive nature of the study was

acknowledged and participants were told that their responses were anonymous and their names would not be used in any report After each session, participants were thanked Heterosexual

participants were given participation points for partial

fulfillment of their course requirements and lesbian participants were given beverages as tokens of appreciation

Results

Analytic Approach

The present author tape-recorded the focus group discussions

to retain exact content Transcription of tapes to written text was then done That is, participants’ words were written

retaining its original form, including the use of colloquial

English, commonly known as “Singlish” in Singapore which is

characterized by non-words such as “la” and “lo”) These words did not alter the meanings of the sentences, which were

decipherable through the English words they accompanied For

transcription, ellipses (…) were used to indicate pauses

In defining a meaningful unit for analysis, the smallest text component is a full sentence and the biggest text component

is a paragraph (Laurenceau, Barrett, & Rovine, 2005; Sanderson, Keiter, Miles, & Yopyk, 2007) A full sentence is defined as an

expression of one idea, contained within one or a few phrases A paragraph is defined as a number of sentences that are of the same idea, such as elaboration of the same point in a continuous flow Questions were divided into distinct segments of the focus group discussions (Schilling, 2006), namely, relationship, sex, and virginity Responses were thus separated according to

segments Under each segment, responses were further separated according to sub-questions, such as definition and purpose

Categories from responses were then generated for each

sub-question

To generate categories, responses were first recoded to reduce material and yet retain the crux of the contents This included deleting unnecessary words and transforming sentences to short forms (Schilling, 2006) For example, a heterosexual

participant said this in response to expectations of a

relationship partner: “Someone you can completely be yourself with, like with your bestest bestest best friend, there will be some secrets you will not able to share, but you know you can tell him everything and everything is going to be okay… might fight or whatever… but at the end he will still be there for

you.” From this paragraph, the quality “best friend” was placed

as one category Subsequently, responses that included “best

friend” defined as “someone you can share everything with” were placed together

Although numerical comparisons are at best tentative in focus group analysis, such comparisons can point to substantive issues As an extreme example, if all of the lesbian focus groups were to raise a particular point while none of the heterosexual groups were to raise that same point, such a difference in

numbers may be indicative of important differences between

lesbian and heterosexual women The use of numbers and numerical comparisons was thus adopted, although caution was exercised not

to over-interpret the numerical differences

Tapes were reviewed twice to check for consistency and to minimize errors A second heterosexual male Psychology student (not from the Research Participant pool) also coded one

heterosexual and one lesbian group discussion to ensure the

reliability of coding Inter-rater agreement was computed here as total number of agreements minus total number of disagreements, divided by total number of codes The inter-rater agreement was

Participants in both lesbian and heterosexual groups defined

a relationship as romantic involvement with a partner There

were, however, some differences between groups when discussing relationship characteristics Monogamy and commitment were

generated from all discussion groups, but 3 out of the 6 lesbian groups generated “not necessary monogamous” as a characteristic

of a relationship whereas none of the heterosexual groups did

The heterosexual and lesbian women groups also had slightly different ideas about commitment Heterosexual participants

explained commitment as monogamy For example, Pat (a

heterosexual participant) stated, “For me, being in a

relationship means… like ultimately commitment… you know… you

cannot be allowed to go on a date with some other girl… you know…

or be too close with some other girl… and for me as well.”

Lesbian participants, on the other hand, made a distinction

between commitment and monogamy Commitment was defined as

working problems out together and making time for each other Nic, a lesbian participant, illustrated this as follows,

“Commitment is like… like… I know this is our relationship, we are going to try it out… even if we have problems, we are going

to work it out between ourselves.”

The lesbian women also recognized open relationships (in which partners are allowed to be emotionally and/or sexually

involved with more persons outside of the relationship) as valid forms of romantic relationships but did not endorse such

relationships Sharon (a lesbian participant) shared as follows,

“Like for me, as long as you and her are on the same page it’s fine… it depends on the kind of partner you are bringing home… how many times you have sex with that person… whether that person

is healthy, clean Basically you have to lay all the cards on the table… not just having random sex, orgies… I am more into… well,

I believe in open relationships… but at the same time, I am more into monogamy That’s my personality.”

Purpose of Being in a Relationship

The question, “What is/are the purpose(s) of being in a relationship?” was asked Four reasons were generated here:

emotional intimacy (“best friend”), physical intimacy (“making love”), marriage, and companionship/support All groups generated

“emotional intimacy”, which they defined as “being able to share everything”, as a reason for being in a relationship and

frequently used the term “best friend” to describe this capacity

to share freely with one’s partner Nur, a lesbian participant, shared, “Because my soul mate is my very best friend… I am very sure of that To me it’s like… someone who knows you the most… someone who will be there for your whole life We know each other very very well.” Indeed, “best friend” was cited as a pre-

requisite quality for entering a relationship for 5 out of 7 of the heterosexual and 4 out of 6 of the lesbian groups

“Physical intimacy”, which participants defined as sexual activity with emotional attachment involved (“making love”), was commonly raised as a reason for being in a relationship This purpose of physical intimacy appeared more salient for the

lesbian participants Four of the 6 lesbian groups, compared to 3 out of 7 heterosexual groups, generated physical intimacy as a reason for being in a relationship Heterosexual participants expressed the notion that women were not as sexual as men One heterosexual participant, Kathleen, conveyed, “I don’t think that

a woman… sexually hungry as a man… I don’t think we have that kind of drive…”

On the other hand, the heterosexual groups were more likely

to cite marriage as a reason for entering a relationship, with 3 out of 7 groups raising this purpose compared to only 1 lesbian group Even here, it appears that lesbian women may differ in how they define marriage Ami, a lesbian participant, expressed, “You don’t have to be married to be married Canada is probably

different but in Singapore you wouldn’t be able to do that right… you can probably have your own ceremony and it will be as

meaningful…” Marriage in this context appears defined as going through some kind of traditional or customary marriage ceremony,

where parents receive cups of tea as respect, rather than

obtaining some legal document

There were suggested commonalities in the purpose for being

in a relationship Five of the 7 heterosexual groups and 4 out of the 6 lesbian groups raised “companionship/support” as a reason

A heterosexual participant, Lisa, communicated “I guess being in

a relationship means you are sharing your life with somebody… it’s like what’s happening in my life, then I share with you, then he knows what’s happening in my life… be like the supportive role for you.” A lesbian participant also spoke of support as follows, “someone to support me through my bad times and someone

to share my happiness la… literally la I need that person to be involved in my life… and I would like to be involved in that

person’s life.”

Defining Sex

The question “What is sex?” was asked and participants were likely to cite examples that were relevant to them For example, all 7 heterosexual groups brought up penile-vaginal intercourse

as sex compared to just 4 out of the 6 lesbian groups On the other hand, more lesbian groups than heterosexual groups brought

up oral sex (all of the lesbian groups vs none of the

heterosexual groups), digital sex (all lesbian groups vs 4 out

of 7 heterosexual groups) and external genital stimulation (4 out

of the 6 lesbian groups and none of the heterosexual groups) Only one heterosexual group and one lesbian group cited anal sex

All heterosexual groups and 5 out of the 6 lesbian groups mentioned that orgasm was not a necessary criterion for sex

However, 3 out of the 6 lesbian groups generated “yes, orgasm is

a criteria for sex”, compared to none of the heterosexual groups

These seemingly inconsistent numbers for the lesbian groups could reflect differing opinions among lesbian women

Purpose of Having Sex

The question “What is/are the purpose(s) of having sex?” and participants differentiated between having sex and making love when giving their reasons for having sex or making love Having sex was described as sexual activity without emotional

involvement Making love was described as sexual activity with emotional involvement (love) For having sex, all participants cited physical gratification as the main purpose and physical attraction as the pre-requisite quality Five out of the 7

heterosexual groups generated “thrill” or “fun” for purposes of having sex, while 5 out of the 6 lesbian groups did so For

making love, participants indicated that they would only sleep with their relationship partners, indicating that the qualities for a partner with whom they make love are the same as the

qualities they seek in a relationship partner All participants groups mentioned expression of love as a purpose here

Lesbian groups were more likely to cite “satisfy partner” as

a purpose of lovemaking as compared to heterosexual groups (5 out

of 6 lesbian groups and 3 out of 7 heterosexual groups) In their elaboration, they brought up the “prevalence of one-way sex”

among lesbians, where one party receives sexual pleasure and the other party gives sexual pleasure without reciprocation Jocie (a lesbian participant) spoke as such, “Especially when your partner wants it and you are having your menstruation, then you give your partner la and vice verse Or when I am very tired from work but she wants it… then do lo After that sleep.” Ying, another lesbian participant, said, “Low mood for the person who’s

performing the one-way Low mood means you don’t feel like having sex but you want to satisfy your partner.”

There appeared to be greater differences in purpose for having sex for the reasons of “bring relationship to next level” and “to procreate” Three of the 7 heterosexual participant

groups brought up “bring relationship to next level” but none of lesbian groups did so This may be attributed to more prolonged dating periods and later marriages nowadays as compared to older times, such that heterosexual couples use sex (traditionally

reserved for marriage) as a marker of greater intimacy

(Carpenter, 1998) For lesbian couples, this boundary between the dating period and a more committed period such as marriage is likely to be less clear, as marriage was not an option until

recent days As for “to procreate”, 3 out of the 7 heterosexual groups brought this up but none of the lesbian groups did so This is most likely because lesbian women cannot procreate with their partners

Three out of the 6 lesbian groups indicated that they would need to know if their sex partner was “clean” (i.e., free from STIs) when participating in sex without emotional involvement In contrast, only 2 out of the 7 heterosexual groups brought this

up This could be a result of the recent promotion of AIDS

awareness program by AFA’s WSW branch (Action for Aids, Women who have sex with women)

Defining Virginity

Participants were asked: “What is virginity?” and “Is

virginity important?” Participants defined virginity loss in a few ways: presence of a partner as pre-requisite, tearing of the hymen, and sexual experience All groups generated these

definitions Definitions that were very stringent included sexual experience of any nature, such as masturbation and sexual

fantasies

It was unanimously agreed by all participants that vaginal intercourse would render someone a non-virgin Some

penile-lesbian participants claimed that they did not endorse the

medical definition for virginity (which is having one’s hymen intact) Heterosexual participants mentioned the importance of mutual genital involvement, including penile-vaginal intercourse, for transition to non-virgin status

Participants perceived virginity as “important”,

“unimportant”, or “not relevant at all” Some heterosexual

participants (found in 4 out of the 7 heterosexual groups) found virginity (on the part of both parties) to be important and

sacred, and expressed that sex should be reserved for marriage One heterosexual participant, Feng, shared, “If your boyfriend is

a virgin, I think it’s respect… This is the person who you want

to spend the rest of your life with… Giving your virginity is a good gift to your partner.” Other heterosexual participants

(found in 5 out of the 7 heterosexual groups) reported virginity

to be unimportant, indicating differing views among the

heterosexual participants On the other hand, only 2 out of the 6 lesbian groups found virginity important and none of the lesbian participants expressed that sex should be reserved for marriage

There appeared to be a differentiation between virginity loss and sexual permissiveness Sex within the context of a

relationship was considered acceptable among participants Aisha (a heterosexual participant) explained: “There is a difference between being a virgin and being promiscuous… I… I think…

basically, people tend to think that if you lost your virginity, you are promiscuous… you had a lot of sex with a lot of people I think it’s important (to differentiate) between the two… you

probably don’t want a very loose partner… but I don’t see why you should have a problem with having a non-virgin… probably she

really did love him.” For lesbian women who suggested that

virginity is important, their argument was linked to sexual

permissiveness as well, not virginity per se This is similar to that made by heterosexual women who perceived virginity to be unimportant Irene, a lesbian participant, stated, “I think it’s (virginity) important… in the sense as… how was their attitude towards it… when they you know… if it’s like anything anything

one… then I will be wa lao (a colloquial term to indicate

disapproval or displeasure) It’s important how they treat it at first Not like die die must be virgin, married then you can

Must still treat it as something sacred… for the right person.”

All lesbian groups suggested that the concept of virginity

is borne out of a patriarchal society A lesbian participant, Jer, said, “I think for me… like ya… Over-rated? Because I think virginity is a social construct It’s created by a patriarchal system to perpetrate certain norms I mean there is no

definition… to me… I don’t really have a definition.”

Discussion

On the whole, heterosexual and lesbian participants had similar as well as dissimilar views on relationships, sex, and virginity Even within similar views, however, there were nuances within the groups suggesting that terminologies may need to be better specified For instance, while both groups desired

commitment and monogamy in their relationships, they explained

these terms differently Heterosexual participants saw commitment

as monogamy, but lesbian participants saw commitment and monogamy

as distinct Lesbian participants were cognizant of

non-monogamous relationships as valid, presumably as long as the two parties agreed on it This, in turn, has implications for the term “relationship” Specifically, the term that provides a

common platform for both groups is “monogamous relationship”

Similarities between heterosexual and lesbian participants can be seen in their reasons for entering into a romantic

relationship Both groups cited emotional and physical intimacy

as reasons Intimacy has been found to be a goal of dating and relationships (Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004; McNulty &

Karney, 2004) and is often an experienced result of an

interpersonal process, which includes self-disclosure and

partner-responsiveness Other researchers have found

communication and partner’s responsiveness when sharing both good and bad news to be indicative of relationship longevity (2000) Similarly, in Mackey, Diemer, and O’Brien’s study (Dolan, 2005), lesbian women described their relationships as “psychologically intimate”, which they explained as having “a best friend”

(Mackey, Diemer & O’Brien, 2000, p 215) This suggests that

qualities that facilitate self-disclosure and minimize the

negative effects of conflicts are desired in relationship

partners, whether such partners are of the same or different sex Interestingly, more lesbian groups mentioned physical intimacy as

a reason for entering a romantic relationship Here, however, heterosexual participants could have been more restrained at

expressing sexual desires, as participants stated that women are less sexual than men

In terms of how relationships are viewed, the most salient group difference was marriage The small number of lesbian groups that brought up marriage could be due to factors such as parental disapproval, current lack of legal recognition for same-sex

pairings, and the use of different ways to indicate a deeper

level of commitment (e.g., purchase of matching “couple rings”) The political and social climate of Singapore may also have an impact on the lesbian women’s views of marriage Absent from the penal code of Singapore, lesbian women do not face legal

persecution for same-sex sexual activities However, unions

(civil unions or marriages) between same-sex partners are not recognized and child adoption is not extended to same-sex

partners Therefore, while lesbian women in Singapore have the liberty to date and form meaningful relationships without legal persecution, marriage and the prospects of having children would less likely be part of their considerations of relationships

For definitions of sex, participants were likely to cite examples that were relevant to them This is consistent with past findings where heterosexuals defined sex as penile-vaginal

intercourse (Berasmin & Fisher, 2007; Trotter & Alderson, 2007) Lesbian women were likely to engage in activities such as

cunninlingus (oral sex), digital sex, and tribadism (stimulation

of genitals via rubbing against body parts) (Edward S Herold & Mewhinney, 1993; Wallerstein, 1996) It should be noted although lesbian participants did not participate in penile-vaginal

intercourse, they did cite such intercourse as sex This points

to lesbian women knowing societal norms and definitions of sex This is not surprisingly so, as such norms and definitions are transmitted through peer gossip, confidences between friends, and

formal sex education that takes place in the schools A similar rationale can be applied to understand lesbian participants’

definitions of virginity Although lesbian participants did not find virginity useful as a concept, they were nevertheless able

to generate similar criteria for what constitutes virginity

Although there is some ambiguity here, it is interesting to note that lesbian participants from 3 of the 6 groups indicated that orgasm is important as a criterion for sex, whereas none of the heterosexual participant groups did so For lesbian women who sometimes participate mainly in external stimulation of the

genitals (such as oral or manual stimulation of genitals) during sexual activity, orgasm may be an important marker of when

foreplay stops and when the actual sex act (perhaps an equivalent

to penetration) begins Heterosexual and lesbian participants had similar purposes for sex, such as physical gratification and

making love Women have been found to engage in sexual activity for pleasure (Metz & McCarthy, 2007; Patrick, Sells, Giordano, & Tollerud, 2007) and for a physical expression of intimacy

(Carpenter, 1998) Lesbian participants, however, differed from heterosexual participants on the purpose of partner satisfaction This is seen in the prevalence of one-way sex being cited among lesbian women, which added to their purposes of sex

The primacy of penetration in virginity loss was found This

is similar to previous findings (Carpenter, 2001; Trotter &

Alderson, 2007) As with Chambers’ (2007) heterosexual

participants, in which those who had oral sex only may or may not classify themselves as virgins, some heterosexual participants in this study brought up the need for mutual genital involvement for virginity loss Therefore, some participants perceived that some

forms of sex would not take away one’s virginity Lesbian

participants, on the other hand, do not require involvement of both genitals to lose one’s virginity This is likely because lesbian women’s sex experiences do not usually contain mutual genital involvement Instead, they take turns to give and receive pleasure, or either receive or give pleasure (one-way sex)

None of the lesbian groups expressed that sex should be retained for marriage, probably because there is currently no such thing as same-sex marriages in the local context For

heterosexual groups, there were mixed opinions on virginity,

depending on whether it reflects sexual permissiveness This is consistent with the observed shift, which took place gradually over the last few decades, from a traditional to a relational orientation towards sexuality (Carpenter, 1998) People who hold

a traditional orientation to sexuality believe that sex should only take place within marriage and discourage all forms of

sexual activity that does not lead to procreation (Laumann,

Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994) People who hold a relational orientation to sexuality are in favor of sexual activity as long

as it takes place within monogamous, committed, and loving

relationships (Edward S Herold & Mewhinney, 1993) As a result, people are increasingly more accepting of pre-martial sex in the context of a loving relationship (Fishman & Anderson, 2003;

Montcalm & Myer, 2000) Regardless of whether sex should be

reserved for marriage, both heterosexual and lesbian participants were concerned about sexual permissiveness Virginity was deemed important if it served as an indicator of sexual permissiveness and perceived as unimportant if it was not This indicates that sexual permissiveness, not virginity, is of interest

The findings of the present study show that even though there are differences, the views and opinions put forth on

relationships, sex, and virginity by the lesbian and heterosexual participants are in many ways similar Indeed, there appears to

be a prevailing thread of sexual permissiveness among the

responses of both groups of participants, taking on the form of a distinction between monogamy versus commitment in how

relationships are viewed as well as the importance of virginity and how it is defined in the context of sex This primacy of

sexual permissiveness, as well as the sexual activities cited by (and therefore familiar to) both heterosexual and lesbian groups

in the present study, indicate the possibility of a common

framework for comparing lesbian and heterosexual women with

respect to different aspects of sexual permissiveness (such as how acceptable and how risky such permissiveness is)

Study 2 Study 2 was conducted to examine and compare sexual

permissiveness, in terms of acceptability and perceived risk, of heterosexual and lesbian women Drawing on the prevailing

environment (e.g., religious groups warning that lesbian women are sexually permissive and that significant numbers of lesbian women exchange sex for money or drugs), the documentation that lesbian women do participate in sexually permissive activities (in having multiple partners) (e.g., Morrow & Allsworth, 2000),

as well as the perception of lesbian immunity (Montcalm & Myer, 2000), it was thus expected that lesbian women are likely to be more accepting of sexual permissiveness (hypothesis 1a) and to perceive less risk in being sexually permissive (hypothesis 1b) than heterosexual women

Although researchers had examined self-perceived risk for HIV in lesbian women and the types of sexual activities that

lesbian women engage in, these studies did not identify the

specific perceived risk associated with each sexual activity

(Fishman & Anderson, 2003; Montcalm & Myer, 2000) Neither was the acceptability of these various sexual activities explored On the other hand, participants are likely to distinguish between different types of sexual activities and which activities would

be regarded as “sex” In Pitts and Rahman’s (2001) study on what constitutes sex with 190 UK female and 353 US female

undergraduate students (predominantly heterosexual), students differentiated between deep kissing (involving the tongue),

receiving and giving manual touch to genitals, receiving and

giving oral-genital contact, and penile-vaginal intercourse Less than 3% deemed kissing as sex For receiving manual touch to own genitals, 15.8% of UK participants and 12.2% of US women

considered it sex For giving manual touch to partner’s genitals, 15.3% of UK and 11.6% of US participants considered it sex For receiving and giving oral sex, 32.1% to 37.7% of the participants considered it sex The majority of participants (more than 98%) deemed penile-vaginal intercourse as sex The same hierarchy

appeared in Randell and Byers’ (2003) sample of 164 heterosexual university participants 1.9% of the female participants

considered tongue kissing as sex 11% considered receiving, and 15% considered giving, manual touch to the point of orgasm as sex Slightly less than 25% of the female participants regarded receiving and giving oral contact with genitals as sex More than 95% of participants regarded penile-vaginal intercourse as sex Hence, the hierarchy, from the least considered as sex to the

most, appeared to be as such: kissing, digital sex, oral sex, and finally penile-vaginal intercourse The mode (receiving and

giving) of sexual activities did not appear to make a major

difference Participants from Trotter and Alderson’s (2007) study also appeared to have different yardsticks for same-sex

activities, being more likely to consider oral and manual

stimulation as sex for same-sex partners Thus, any examination

of acceptability and risk perceptions would need to take into account the type of sexual activity as well as the gender of the partner involved

It should be noted that studies on sex-related issues, and not just those focusing on lesbian women, rarely specify what the relationship context surrounding the sex-related issues was, such that it is not clear whether the results apply to, for instance, sex in the context of a monogamous relationship Results from Study 1 indicate that relationship context is important and needs

to be taken into account when examining sex-related differences between lesbian and heterosexual women (e.g., while both lesbian and heterosexual women in Study 1 desired commitment and monogamy

in their relationships, lesbian women did not equate monogamy with commitment the way heterosexual women did) To accurately examine sexual permissiveness as applied to both groups of women,

it is thus imperative to specify the relationship context Since the focus of this thesis was on sexual permissiveness, the

relationship context was therefore restricted to only those

settings that are arguably considered as sexually permissive by both lesbian and heterosexual women Such settings of permissive sexual activities include engaging in various sexual activities

outside of a love relationship and/or with multiple partners and having one-night stands

It can be expected that lesbian women differ from

heterosexual women in how acceptable they see sex with same-sex partners in sexual situations that can be regarded as permissive (such as one-night stands) Heterosexual participants are less exposed to same-sex sexuality and possibly less accepting

therefore of such sexual expressions On the other hand, lesbian women who step forward to participate in research (i.e., make it known that they are lesbian) are typically those who have “come out” and are more accepting of same-sex sexuality than closeted lesbian and heterosexual women They are thus more likely to see sexual activities with female partners—even those that might be regarded as permissive—as a natural expression of sexuality

Thus, it was expected that lesbian participants are likely to be more accepting of permissive sexual activities involving a same-sex (female) partner than heterosexual women (hypothesis 2a)

Trotter and Alderson (2007) also found that their

heterosexual participants were more likely to judge an activity

as sex when the sexual partner is of the opposite sex Since

sexual permissiveness is generally not sanctioned, permissiveness

of activities that are classified as “sex” should be less

accepted than what is classified as “non-sex” This also implies that permissiveness with partners of the opposite sex is likely

to be something more greatly frowned upon among heterosexual

women, as seen in typical labels such as being “cheap” or being a

“slut” On the other hand, the current trend of “pseudo lesbian acts” among heterosexual women in mainstream media where non-

lesbian women behave intimately with other women (such as kissing

in music videos) may also increase the acceptability of same-sex activities among heterosexual women Thus, it was expected that both lesbian and heterosexual women see permissive sexual

activities involving a same-sex (female) partner as more

acceptable than those involving an opposite-sex (male) partner (hypothesis 2b)

In comparing lesbian and heterosexual women, there are

potential control variables to be considered Negative attitudes towards lesbians, for instance, may bias participants towards lower ratings of acceptability and higher ratings of risk for permissive sexual activities involving partners of the same sex

A similar, though less likely, argument could be made regarding negative attitudes towards heterosexual women Such negative

attitudes may therefore need to be controlled for if the purpose

of the study is to attribute differences in acceptability and risk perceptions to differences in sexual orientation In the same manner, knowledge of STI (e.g., STI rates among men and

women) may need to be controlled for because it may affect

acceptability and risk perceptions of permissive sexual

activities Those with greater STI knowledge may be less

accepting of and may perceive greater risk then those with lesser STI knowledge, especially in the present context of permissive sexual activities

In terms of risk perceptions, the concept of lesbian

immunity (where lesbian women see themselves as safe from STIs) and popular notions of men being more sexually permissive than women are likely to result in lesbian women perceiving lower risk with same-sex partners, as compared to heterosexual women Thus,

it was expected that lesbian women, as compared to heterosexual

women, would perceive permissive sexual activities with same-sex (female) partners as less risky as compared to engaging in the same sexual activities with opposite-sex (male) partners

(hypothesis 3a) On the other hand, given the various sex

education campaigns (such as safe sex), it is likely that both lesbian and heterosexual women are somewhat familiar with how STIs are passed on to another Thus, both lesbian and

heterosexual women were expected to perceive risk according to the type of permissive sexual activity Specifically, it was

expected that both lesbian and heterosexual women would rate

those sexual activities with higher likelihood of transmission of bodily fluids (namely, oral sex and penile-vaginal intercourse)

as riskier than those activities with lower likelihood of

transmission of bodily fluids (namely, kissing and digital sex), with penile-vaginal intercourse rated as the riskiest and kissing

as the least risky (hypothesis 3b)

In the present study, the link between acceptability of and risk associated with the various permissive sexual activities was also explored, in general and separately by each group As

mentioned previously, perceived risk can influence the use of safe sex methods This, in turn, can mean that the activity with greater risk (one that carries a higher likelihood of

transmission of bodily fluids) is also seen as less acceptable Thus, it was expected that, in general, there would be a negative correlation between perceived risk of permissive sexual

activities and the acceptability of those permissive activities (hypothesis 4a) However, given that lesbian participants may think that they are invulnerable to STIs and therefore tend

towards disregarding risk, the negative correlation between risk

and acceptability for lesbian women was expected to be lower than that for heterosexual participants (hypothesis 4b) This lower correlation between risk and acceptability for lesbian women

compared to heterosexual women was expected to apply across

different sexual activities (oral sex, digital sex, etc.)

(hypothesis 4c)

In summary, the hypotheses for this study were as follows: 1a Lesbian participants are more likely than heterosexual

participants to be accepting of sexual permissiveness

1b Lesbian participants are more likely than heterosexual

participants to perceive less risk associated with being sexually permissive

2a Lesbian participants are more likely than heterosexual

participants to be accepting of permissive sexual activities involving a same-sex (female) partner

2b Both heterosexual and lesbian participants are likely to see

permissive sexual activities involving a same-sex (female) partner as more acceptable than those involving an opposite-sex (male) partner

3a Lesbian participants are more likely than heterosexual

participants to perceive permissive sexual activities with same-sex (female) partners as less risky compared to

engaging in the same sexual activities with opposite-sex (male) partners

3b Both heterosexual and lesbian participants are likely to

perceive oral sex and penile-vaginal intercourse as riskier than kissing and digital sex with penile-vaginal intercourse

as the riskiest and kissing as the least risky