Contextualizing Sexual Violence in Intimate Relationships: The Taxonomy of Sexual Control

Background and Purpose: Intimate partner sexual violence (IPSV) is a unique weapon of power and control warranting attention in intimate partner violence (IPV) research. This study seeks to answer the question: For female IPV survivors, what are the contexts, processes, and experiences of sexual violence in intimate relationships? In answering this question, this study builds upon a newly developed taxonomy of IPSV.

Methods: For this qualitative descriptive study, a purposeful sample of women who experienced IPV (n=28) was recruited from a domestic violence program and the community at large. The sample represented diverse ethnicities (57% White; 14% African American; 11% Hispanic; 7% Native American; 7% multiracial - unreported and Asian/White; 4% South Asian). In their most recent abusive relationships, nearly half of the participants (46%) had been married. On average, abusive relationships lasted 5.4 years, ranging 1 month to 18 years. Data were collected with semi-structured, in-person interviews, averaging 59 minutes. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were stored and analyzed in NVivo Qualitative Software (Version 11.1.1). Methods of analysis included process coding (first cycle coding) and focused coding (second cycle coding), with the use of the original IPSV taxonomy as an analytic template. Detailed process notes, analytic memos, coding checks, and the use of visual analytic displays were used to increase the trustworthiness of findings.

Findings: Women’s experiences of sexual violence can be categorized according to the IPSV taxonomy: sexual abuse (n=27; 96%), sexual coercion (n=19, 68%), sexual assault (n=14, 50%), and forced sexual activity (n=2; 7%). Overall, women’s partners used sexual abuse as a central strategy to assert sexual control in the relationship. Sexually abusive tactics include: denying communication, denying pleasure; having sex outside the relationship; refusing sex; denigrating with sexual criticism and insults; and controlling reproductive decisions. Both sexual coercion and sexual assault always co-occurred with sexual abuse. By forcing and coercing unwanted sex, refusing wanted sex, and engaging in other sexually abusive behaviors, women’s partners created and maintained an imbalance of sexual power in their relationships. With a new understanding of how these types of sexual violence cluster together – that is, how violent partners use sexual abuse together with sexual assault and sexual coercion to exert sexual control – a fitting name for the IPSV taxonomy is The Taxonomy of Sexual Control. Furthermore, findings show women’s processes of coping from victimization (resisting and acquiescing) to surviving (minimizing and keeping silent) to thriving (finding voice and achieving safety).

Conclusions and Implications: Understanding the different types of IPSV as a comprehensive mechanism for sexual control is a new way to conceptualize sexual violence in intimate relationships. The expanded taxonomy provides social workers a useful tool in helping women find voice and achieve safety as they heal from IPSV, as women long to share these experiences: “It’s just like [I had] no choice but to hang [my] head in shame and just shut up and deal with it on [my] own. . . . So, finally, here you come. I can say it now.” (Vicky)