↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Sexual Behavior, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
46 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
Title
Why Women Engage in Anal Intercourse: Results from a Qualitative Study
Published in
Archives of Sexual Behavior, November 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10508-014-0367-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Grace L. Reynolds, Dennis G. Fisher, Bridget Rogala

Abstract

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

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 106 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Researcher 9 8%
Other 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 39 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 14%
Social Sciences 12 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 42 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 80. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 April 2024.
All research outputs
#546,535
of 25,784,004 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Sexual Behavior
#316
of 3,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,765
of 277,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Sexual Behavior
#8
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,784,004 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,784 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,369 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.