See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236147506

Points of Convergence: Introducing Sexual Scripting Theory to Discourse

Approaches to the Study of Sexuality

Article in Sexuality & Culture · March 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s12119-013-9176-3

CITATIONS READS

33 3,553

1 author:

Melanie A Beres
University of Otago
36 PUBLICATIONS 1,418 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Melanie A Beres on 16 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Points of Convergence: Introducing Sexual
Scripting Theory to Discourse Approaches
to the Study of Sexuality

Melanie A. Beres

Sexuality & Culture

An Interdisciplinary Quarterly

ISSN 1095-5143

Sexuality & Culture

DOI 10.1007/s12119-013-9176-3

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media New York. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you
wish to self-archive your work, please use the
accepted author’s version for posting to your
own website or your institution’s repository.
You may further deposit the accepted author’s
version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s
request, provided it is not made publicly
available until 12 months after publication.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Sexuality & Culture
DOI 10.1007/s12119-013-9176-3

ORIGINAL PAPER

Points of Convergence: Introducing Sexual Scripting

Theory to Discourse Approaches to the Study
of Sexuality

Melanie A. Beres

 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract This paper explores the potential for increased development of the study
of sexuality through blending the use of discourse approaches with sexual scripting
theory. To date, these theoretical approaches have produced two different bodies of
work that each contributes to the understanding of sexuality. Yet, rarely do they
speak to each other. By using both theories concurrently, it will be possible to add
greater depth to both forms of analyses. This means a greater emphasis on inter-
action within discourse approaches and a more in depth engagement of power in
scripting approaches.

Keywords Heterosexuality
Sexual scripting theory
Discourse
Research

methods

Introduction

In their recent book Theorising sexuality Jackson and Scott (2010) call for
re-engagement with social interactionist theories of sexuality, particularly sexual
scripting theory. A move toward a social interactionist account of sexuality is
important because, as Jackson and Scott argue, the dominant discursive accounts of
sex do not take into consideration the interaction between sexual actors. Recent
years have seen an increase in the use of scripting theory, particularly of qualitative
studies from a social constructionist perspective. The aim of this paper is to put
scripting theory into conversation with discourse approaches to the study of
sexuality. By doing so it may be possible to address some drawbacks of each
approach, and provide added richness to the data analysis.

M. A. Beres (&)
Department of Sociology, Gender and Social Work, University of Otago, PO Box 56,
Dunedin 9054, New Zealand
e-mail: melanie.beres@otago.ac.nz

123
 Author's personal copy
M. A. Beres

Sexual Scripting Theory

Sexual scripting theory was introduced by Gagnon and Simon in 1973. They
developed scripting theory in response to the dominant biological model of
sexuality. In this biological model sexual behaviour is determined through innate
biological drives. Gagnon and Simon found exclusively biological explanations of
sex lacking and argued that sexuality is a social product. Sex takes place within a
particular social context that determines what is considered sexual and how sex is
enacted. They use the language of the theatre to describe how scripts work. People
are ‘‘actors’’ who are using ‘‘scripts’’ to understand and shape their sexual
interactions. Sexual scripts help ‘‘actors’’ identify sexual situations and behaviours,
and suggest the appropriateness of engaging in particular behaviours, including the
order in which those behaviours typically occur. Scripts vary by culture and by
individual, so that no two people will have identical sexual scripts, but people
within a specific culture should have access to scripts that are reasonably similar
(McCormick 2010a). Thus to some degree scripts and expectations of sex are pre-
prepared.
Scripts operate at three different levels (Simon and Gagnon 1986, 2003). At the
most macro level, cultural scripts relate to gender roles within heterosexuality and
how sexuality is supposed to be enacted (Simon and Gagnon 1986). Interpersonal
scripts are developed through socialization and learning in particular circumstances.
They describe how sex is to play out in particular circumstances (which activities
are part of the heterosexual dating scripts and which order they come in, or how they
are paired with other activities (Simon and Gagnon 1986)). Intrapsychic scripts
influence how gender roles are produced at the individual level including sexual
fantasies and desires. These three levels of scripts interact to produce various
versions of sexuality and to explain patterns of sexuality within particular cultures
and groups (Simon and Gagnon 1986; Whittier and Simon 2001).
Research using scripting theory can broadly be divided into two groups based on
the underlying epistemology driving the research. Scripting theory has been taken
up, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s by post-positivist researchers using
predominantly quantitative methods. More recently researchers operating within a
social constructionist frame have been working with scripting theory, and typically
use qualitative methodologies.
Research situated within a post-positivist frame has examined dating scripts, with
particular focus on gender roles within the scripts (Alksnis et al. 1996; Klinkenberg
and Rose 1994; Laner and Ventrone 2000; Rose and Frieze 1989, 1993). Many of
these researchers argue that normative scripts place men in the position of initiator
for dates and sex and women in the role of ‘‘gatekeepers’’, who ultimately decide
whether or not and when a couple will engage in sex (Byers and Heinlein 1989;
Dworkin and O’Sullivan 2005; Laner and Ventrone 1998; O’Sullivan and Byers
1992; Weaver and Herold 2000). These roles place men in positions of power during
the early stages of ‘‘courtship’’ (Laner and Ventrone 2000). Men are reported to ask
for dates and initiate kissing or invitations for a second date. These same dynamics
are reported to give women power later when it comes to engaging in sex because of
women’s ‘‘gatekeeping’’ role (Laner and Ventrone 2000). The presumption is that

123
 Author's personal copy
Points of Convergence

men are always willing to engage in sex, and are forever looking for sex. Thus, even
though men are initiating sex, it is women who control when it happens by refusing
a good portion of the time and relenting at other times (Byers 1996). Recent
literature suggests that shifts in scripts are occurring and women do initiate some of
the time (McCormick 2010a).
Using scripting theory from a post-positivist perspective produces snapshots of
the ‘‘typical’’ or ‘‘normative’’ sexual patterns. Conclusions tend to focus on
distinction between roles of women and men and thus focus on gender difference.
Research using sexual scripting theory from a post-positivist perspective has been
useful in monitoring changes to normative heterosexual practices. Laner and
Ventrone (1998) argue there is a current trend of ‘‘egalitarian daters and traditional
dates’’. In other words, their participants expressed a desire for an egalitarian
relationship, but their discussion of their sexual practices remained consistent with
the traditional sexual scripts.
Research embedded within a social constructionist frame has looked more in
detail into the interpersonal sexual scripts within particular contexts. For example
Parsons et al. (2004) interviewed HIV positive gay men about their experiences with
alcohol and unsafe sex. They came up with three particular scripts men reported
using in this context. In the ‘‘routine script’’ alcohol was seen as part of the sexual
routine and used intentionally when men wanted to engage in sex either to lower
inhibitions or as a prerequisite for sex. In the ‘‘spontaneous script’’ men did not use
alcohol intentionally to engage in casual sex, instead they were out drinking and just
happened to have sex. The ‘‘overcoming taboos’’ was another script where men used
alcohol intentionally, but not as a pathway to sex (as in the ‘‘routine script’’) but to
overcome their own negative associations about having sex. Men who described
using the ‘‘overcoming taboos’’ script also described feelings of guilt associated
with sex. Alcohol was used to quiet that voice so they could engage in sex. To this
end, there is no single dominant story associated with alcohol use for HIV positive
gay men in relation to their casual sex encounters. Instead multiple scenarios are
presented to illustrate the complexity associated with alcohol in this context.
Similarly, Whittier and Simon (2001) have used scripting theory, particularly the
articulation of scripts at the intrapsychic level to explore the production of sexual
lives and sexual desires of gay men. They explore in detail the experiences of five
men and, rather than generalizing to a single experience, they demonstrate how
intrapsychic scripts can be developed in unique ways for individuals. Thus while
there are shared scripts at the cultural level, there are unique scripts developed by
each person’s unique sexual history. The intrapsychic scripts themselves vary
widely. Yet, what Whittier and Simon (2001) demonstrate is that early sexual
feelings and experience impact the specificity of sexual attractions and desires.

Critiques of Scripting Theory

One of the critiques of research based on sexual scripting theory is that it can
reinforce the status quo. This critique is particularly relevant within research using a
post-positivist frame. Post-positivist research using scripting theory tends to focus

123
 Author's personal copy
M. A. Beres

on broad gender differences and gendered roles, glossing over individual differences
and manifestations of sexual scripts. For example, in their results Rose and Frieze
(1993) present detailed scripts for heterosexual dates that are consistent with the
traditional sexual script, dates where the man is expected to initiate and be the active
partner and the woman is expected to look attractive and follow the man’s lead.
Their results are similar to many such studies in the way they depict general
differences between the scripts of women and men. Inadvertently (perhaps), studies
such as this one fail to depict any other possible choices for men and women. On the
one hand, it is clear that these results represent ‘‘averages’’ of between group
(women and men) differences. On the other hand, these results cloud differences
within groups (between various men and between various women). This ends up
reinforcing the status quo by presenting sexual scripts seemingly void of variation or
exceptions.
It is important to note however that while the critique may be quite valid for
certain research using scripting theory, it is not the theory itself that is to blame in
this case. Simon and Gagnon (2003) are quite clear that the theory is not about
reproducing the status quo. They are arguing to use the theory to uncover the
socially constructed nature of sexuality—in other words the way that sexuality is
fluid, contextual and changeable.
A second critique of sexual scripting theory that is related to the first one is that
research using scripting theory fails to take into consideration relations of power and
inequality (Brickell 2006) that impact how heterosexuality is produced with concern
for how options for women in particular are shaped by patriarchal power dynamics.
The consequences of the lack of analysis of power become clear when we
examine suggestions for change from studies that use scripting theory (particularly
scripting theory in conjunction with quantitative methods). For example,
McCormick (2010a) suggests that ‘‘twenty-first century heterosexual women can
break out of the traditional sexual script by being sexually assertive but continue to
lack the skills and structural resources to feel sexually empowered (p. 93).’’ Implied
within this statement is the assumption that heterosexual women have the desire and
power to create this change, if they were only had assertiveness training. This
statement is problematic for two reasons. First, it assumes that heterosexual women
are not assertive and do not know how to be assertive. Secondly, it assumes that
individual women have the power to make such changes. If this were the case, it is
unlikely that rates of sexual and domestic violence would continue to be as high as
they are. Women would be making changes to improve their lives. Thirdly, it fails to
consider other cultural forces, particularly gendered power relations that may
constrain women’s ability to make ‘‘free’’ choices and exercise assertiveness.

Discursive Approaches

Similar to sexual scripting theory, a discourse analysis approach to heterosexuality

began in response to the dominant biological models of sexuality of the 1970s.
Feminist scholars interested in interrogating heterosexual relations completed much
of this early work. However, insights gained through their analysis have extended

123
 Author's personal copy
Points of Convergence

far beyond feminist theorizing. Wendy Hollway (1984a), the first to articulate this
type of approach to sexuality, embarked on her research to produce a social account
of sexuality. In her articulation of heterosexual discourses Hollway (1984a) argues
that ‘‘heterosexual relations are the primary site where gender difference is
re-produced’’ (p. 228). She builds on a Foucauldian understanding of discourse and
power to look at how discourses of heterosexuality have been historically and
culturally produced.
According to Foucault a discourse is a set of statements that belong to a particular
discursive formation representing a set of assumptions about the social world
(Foucault 1972). Thus, within the context of the topic of this paper, the discursive
field is sexuality. Discourses then are sets of statements representing understandings
and assumptions about sexuality. For example, the male sexual drive discourse
represents one dominant construction of heterosexuality (Hollway 1984a). Within
the male sexual drive discourse heterosexuality is constructed as driven by men’s
insatiable sexual desires and urges.
There are two important implications of discourses pertinent to our discussion of
sexuality here. The first implication necessary is that discourses open spaces for
particular sets of actions or subjectivities for individuals. Discourses shape the
meanings and actions available to actors. For example, within the male sexual drive
discourse space for male desired and initiated sex is opened. Space for female
desired and initiated sex is not available. Sexual relations driven by female desire
would require another discourse or set of discourses.
The second implication of using discourses to understand sexuality is that
discourses are not neutral and are implicated within systems of power. The subject
positions opened up within particular discourses have consequences for the relations
of power within sex. Power, as Foucault articulates, is not monolithic, or an
oppressive force constraining action. Instead, power is productive (Foucault 1980)
in this case, it produces sexual actions, relations and subject positions.
Beyond identifying discourses deployed within heterosex, Hollway (1984a)
emphasizes the investments held by individuals that led them to position themselves
within particular discourses rather than just identifying the discourses deployed by
social subjects. In this way she combines a Foucauldian understanding of discourse
with psychoanalysis. Hollway argues that there are reasons why particular
individuals position themselves within particular discourses. These reasons may
be subconscious and remain unarticulated, yet they are there. This might mean
exploring the relationship a man has with dominant constructions of masculinity
(for example), or a woman’s connection and reasons behind her sense of what
makes a ‘‘real’’ woman. Hollway refers to this as the investment each person has in
the particular discourses he/she employs.
Building on Hollway’s articulation of heteronormative discourses many
researchers have identified and engaged with other discourses of heterosexuality.
For example, Braun et al. (2003) have described the discourse of reciprocity. This
discourse is premised on an understanding that heterosexual relationships should be
egalitarian. In this case egalitarian typically means that women and men should both
experience orgasm during sex. Braun et al. argue that while this discourse may be
based on an understanding of egalitarian views, the way it is enacted does not reflect

123
 Author's personal copy
M. A. Beres

equal power relations between men and women. Instead what is produced is a
tension between supporting an active and agentic female (and male) subject and the
possibility of perpetuating the exchange of orgasms as an obligation. Thus women
are positioned as active sexual subjects, although sex remains constructed within the
coital imperative and thus limits possibilities for alternative sexual behaviours (and
continues to privilege male orgasm as the indication that sex is complete).
Hollway (1984a, b) is the only [one of the few] to go beyond a description and
understanding of the discourses and subject positions available through those
discourses to interrogate why people use them and position themselves within
particular discourses. Typically, the focus is on the implications of the subject
positions available through various discourses. For example, within the male sexual
drive discourse there is limited availability for sexual practices initiated and driven
by the female partner’s desire. The vast majority of research using a discourse
perspective is concerned with what discourses do, rather than why discourses
continue to be taken up and perpetuated by social actors.

Critiques of a Discourse Approach

Critiques of a discourse approach most commonly argue that a concentration on

discourse denies the material realities of sex and sexuality. A post-structural
understanding of sexuality views sexuality as continuously re-constructed through
the use of language, texts, and/or actions. Focusing on the ongoing constructed nature
of sexuality leaves little room for an articulation of sex that presents it as real or
embodied. This critique suggests that sexuality is often experienced as real by sexual
actors. The materiality of the experience needs to be acknowledged to provide a
complete and integrated understanding of the way sex is experienced (Gavey 2005).
While discourse theories identify macro level constructions of sexuality
(discourses) and interrogate the way individuals position themselves within these
discourses, there is a lack of exploration in the ways that understandings of sex are
co-created through interaction (Jackson and Scott 2010). Considering that sex is
often performed between two (or more) people, is it reasonable to suggest that
interaction plays a large role in the construction of sex and sexuality for particular
couples engaging in sex.

Scripts as Manifestations of Discourses

At this point I turn to the question about why it is fruitful to look at sexual scripting
theory along side discourse theories of sexuality. How are they similar as tools used
to analyze sexuality? What are their points of diversion? Both forms of theory were
developed in response to dominant biological models of sexuality. Research using
both theories can rely on forms of thematic analysis to come up with a list of
possible scripts/discourses. The difference between the two is that results using
sexual script theory generally focus on the behavioural aspects of the stories while
discourse theorists focus on the way participants use language to describe their
sexual lives, and the resulting subject positions taken up by those participants.

123
 Author's personal copy
Points of Convergence

Analysis interested in identifying scripts takes place at the story level and seeks
to find patterns in the behaviours associated with the production of sex. Analysis at
the discourse level is interested in the underlying assumptions and beliefs
represented by the way that people talk about their sexuality. The analysis is at
the level of language rather than behaviour. Putting these two approaches together,
we can start to see scripts as the manifestation of discourses.
In this next section I examine in more detail scripting theory along side
discourse theory and argue that it is possible to consider sexual scripts as the
manifestation of the discourses. Through this articulation we can begin to see how
we can connect discourses and scripts. Discourses reflect understandings of how
sexuality is constructed, and underlying beliefs about the nature of sexuality.
Discourses of heterosexuality are the assumptions behind the ways that hetero-
sexuality is produced within particular cultural and temporal contexts. These
assumptions are manifest in particular cultural scripts. These discourses make
available particular subject positions for actors to take up and open up particular
spaces for action. The spaces available vary depending on one’s social location. In
heterosex men have available different forms of action than do women (for
example). When a heterosexual couple negotiates their sexuality these spaces of
action produce various possibilities for them as a couple. Conflict can arise when
partners have investments in different discourses, or when one may be attempting
to subvert a particular discourse in which the other is invested. This negotiation
then leads to the development of interpersonal scripts for both partners, and agreed
upon scripts for them as a couple. Once invested within these subject positions
actors then behave in ways to ensure their actions are consistent with the subject
position within which they are invested. That is: they act in ways that reflect
sexual scripts. On this discourse side, these actions and the assumptions underlying
them lead to particular subject positions taken up by the individuals in the couple.
On the script side this leads to the interaction. As researchers we have access
(through accounts told by participants) to the subject positions and to descriptions
of the interactions.

Cultural Scripts

Considering that quantitative research typically attempts to generalize to a particular

population is it not surprising that post-positivist research using scripting theory
explores scripts at the cultural level. As discussed previously quantitative research
using scripting research is interested in broad trends around scripts. These trends
and statements (that men tend to initiate for example) are then indicative of scripts
at the cultural rather than the interpersonal or intrapsychic level. Looking over to
discursive forms of analysis cultural scripts are related to dominant discourses of
sexuality. So, while cultural scripts suggest that men initiate sex and women
respond to those initiations. Dominant discourses of heterosexuality, such as the
male sexual drive discourse, construct heterosex in a way such that sex is male
desired and where the goal of heterosex is to satiate men’s desires, leaving women
the passive participants in sexual activity.

123
 Author's personal copy
M. A. Beres

Interpersonal Scripts

Interpersonal scripts are similar to non-hegemonic discourses, or discourses in

forms that deviate from the dominant one. For example, Halkitis et al. (2004)
identified three different scripts used by HIV gay men involving alcohol and used
during casual sex encounters. These scripts are not mutually exclusive or
exhaustive. It is possible for the same man to use more than one script, at different
times. It is also possible that other scripts are sometimes used, ones not identified by
Halkitis et al. Interpersonal scripts could be seen as the manifestation of discourses
similar to that discussed above in the section on cultural scripts. The difference
between these two sections is that interpersonal scripts may manifest from dominant
discourses, but equally possibly, they may manifest from subverting the dominant
discourses, or from less hegemonic discourses surrounding sex. We can see
possibilities for example, for couples that subvert the male sex drive discourse. This
would likely have implications for their sexual scripts. If men’s presumed ever-
present sexual desires are not fueling the sexual relationship, then something else
must be. This might lead to sex that is initiated by a female partner and/or sex that
does not include intercourse (for example).
There forms of scripting and discourse research that appear in some ways
structurally similar. Research at this level typically uses a form of thematic analysis
to determine a possible range (or list) of discourses/scripts. For example Halkitis
et al.’s (2004) three scripts for the inclusion of alcohol in casual sex and
Stokes’(2007) six sexual scripts deployed by Black American adolescent girls’
related to their online personas. Likewise, discursive approaches to sexuality, the
focus has been on identifying the discourses deployed in various contexts and the
implications for subject positions available for those engaging in sex. Discourses
such as the discourse of reciprocity (Braun et al. 2003), the missing discourse of
desire (Fine 1988), and the male sexual drive discourse (Beres 2007; Hollway
1984a). Results are often presented by identifying a number of discourses present
within the data.
The lists created through these studies are necessary for increasing our
understanding of sexuality, yet suffer from two limitations. Firstly, these lists
answer questions about how people experience and conceptualize sexuality. To
move beyond the ‘‘how’’ questions about we will have to engage with questions
about why. Why do people develop particular sexual scripts? Why do they reinforce
and engage with particular discourses of heterosex? Secondly, despite the
interactive nature sex, neither directly address how scripts and discourses are
co-produced within sexual interactions and relations. Sexual scripting theory builds
off symbolic interactionism. To that end, interaction is at the heart of the
understanding of scripts. Still researchers have examined the interpersonal scripts of
individuals, but have yet to explore how these scripts are created in sexual couples.

Intrapsychic Scripts and ‘‘Investment’’

At the most personal and intimate level it is possible to see connections between
intrapsychic scripts and Hollway’s articulation of ‘‘investment’’. Whittier and

123
 Author's personal copy
Points of Convergence

Simon (2001) provide an in depth account of intrapsychic scripts. They discuss how
individuals arrive at particular ‘‘types’’ or have desires for particular types of
people. Hollway argues that we all have investments that lead us to position
ourselves within particular discourses. Hollway (1984a) asserts that investments
‘‘mean that there will be some satisfactory pay-off or reward… for that person. The
satisfaction may well be in contradiction with other resultant feelings. It is not
necessarily conscious or rational. But there is a reason. (p. 238)’’ To this end then,
through an examination of the investments held by those who position themselves
within particular discourses Hollway attempts to answer the question ‘‘why’’. Why
does someone take up particular discourses, especially in cases when an outside
perspective might suggest it is not to his/her benefit? In order to answer this question
it may require exploring the person’s history and deep routed beliefs about sex,
sexuality and masculinity and femininity. This exploration is not unlike that that
Whittier and Simon take on in their exploration of intrapsychic scripts. There they
trace desires of adult gay men back to early experiences as children and theorize
about the way that those early experiences shaped their understandings of sexuality
and their current desires and practices.
The difference between intrapsychic scripts and an understanding of investment
is that the scripts focus on events and behaviours, and understanding of investment
requires analysis of beliefs and thought patterns. Of course, these inherent beliefs
are tied to those early experiences, just as those early experiences result in particular
beliefs about sex. In other sections of this paper I argue that the scripts are
manifestations of discourses. When examining intrapsychic scripts we can see how
discourses may be shaped by early experiences and behaviours. Thus, the adoption
of discourses may be the result of experiences, which then manifest in other specific
behaviour patterns (or scripts). Looking across all levels described above we can see
how sexual scripts and discourses are inextricably linked.

Achieving Integration in Research and Practice

Researchers can benefit from both scripting and discourse perspectives and analyses
multiple ways. The implications of using both theories simultaneously may include
more integrative theory development and more robust suggestions for social change.
In this section, I outline two possibilities for the development of research projects
and discuss how this may benefit educators and practioners who use the research.
The first suggestion relates to the investigation of cultural scripts. The theory
integration in this case occurs at the level of interpretation of results. Once general
trends in behaviours and scripts are identified, explanations of these trends can
include an explicit discussion of discourse identified by other researchers to extend
the theorizing. Researchers interested in studying heterosexuality and the changes in
the traditional sexual scripts (for example) may want to also engage with writing on
dominant heteronormative discourses when discussing their results. For example,
Laner and Ventrone’s analysis reveals that despite the desire for egalitarian
relationships heteroexual men and women still adhere to the traditional sexual script
(Laner and Ventrone 1998, 2000). Adding insights from discourse theory has the

123
 Author's personal copy
M. A. Beres

potential to shed light on their results in a new way. The male sexual drive discourse
suggests that there are widely-held beliefs that heterosex is constructed around male
sexual pleasure and the male orgasm. This discourse in particular is shaped by
strong adherance to the male as active and female as passive, and emphasizes male
sexual pleasure, coitus and male orgasm. In order to change behaviour, sexual actors
must simultaneously develop or deploy alternate discourses that provide alternate
subject positions, and open up spaces for alternate actions and behaviours. This
poses a rather more challenging proposition to heterosexuality than a simple
behavioural intervention. Thus, it is not too surprising that many people had
‘traditional dates’ despite being ‘egalitarian daters’.
A second method of engaging with scripting and discourse theory relates to
interpersonal sexual scripts. In this case, a single qualitative interview data set is
subjected to two different analysis methods within one study. The first stage
of analysis focuses on determining the scripts present in the data. Using thematic
analysis (see Braun and Clarke 2006), a number of scripts may become apparent.
Analysis of this sort focuses on which behaviours are identified and how sexual
scenarios are structured. The second stage of analysis requires the researcher to
examine the data for the underlying discourses deployed by participants in their talk
of their sexual interactions. This analysis goes beyond a face-value interpretation of
the stories to an analysis of the language used by participants and the ways they
construct their stories and their own subjectivities within those stories. This is more
indicative of a discursive analysis of the interviews. Once these two analyses are
complete the research can examine the resulting scripts and discourses for how they
fit together and relate to each other.
Combining scripting and discourse theories is not only important for more
integrated theory development, but also for more robust suggestions for creating
social change. One of the differences between the use of scripting theory and
discourse approaches is the implications for education that result from research
within each theoretical perspective. Researchers using scripting theory and
discourse approaches agree that there are problems in the way heterosexuality is
produced and that these problems contribute to the incidence of sexual violence.
Research coming out of scripting theory on sexual coercion and ‘‘miscommunica-
tion’’ tends to suggest behavioural interventions (teaching women to speak up more
and express their desires, or saying no more clearly; McCormick 2010a, b).
Discourse approaches to research focus more on the importance of changing
underlying assumptions about men and women and sex. For discourse theorists it is
not what happens in the bedrooms of the nations that is responsible for the
production of a rape culture, but it is the way that gender is produced in relation to
heterosexuality (Gavey 2005). Suggestions for change are about changing beliefs
about gender roles broadly and specifically within the realm of the sexual. Discourse
theorists then suggest challenging gendered norms about heterosex broadly (see
Beres and Farvid 2010). These shifts extend beyond what can be accomplished
within anti-sexual violence education programming and requires broader change in
cultural constructions of gender and heterosex. Through theory-building that bridges
both scripting and discourse approaches it may be possible to imagine prevention
measures that address both behaviours and beliefs simultaneously. Education

123
 Author's personal copy
Points of Convergence

programs can talk about changing behaviour and challenging gender norms that
contribute to construction of heterosex.

Conclusion

Through the integration of discourse and scripting theories researchers interested in

sexuality, particularly the production of heterosexuality, can provide added depth to
their analysis. This depth will include how the dominant discourses are being taken
up, not just individually, but how couples are negotiating with and around them.
Discursive research can benefit from an added focus on scripts because it extends
the focus to include an exploration of the sets of actions opened up through the
discourses. It creates a link between the social understandings associated with sex
and the behavioural patterns and materiality of sex. These patterns must be
embedded in an understanding that sexual behaviours are (with the possible
exceptions of masturbation and fantasy) the products of social interactions.
Discourse research interrogates sexuality at the individual (micro) level for evidence
of macro level hegemonic constructions of sex. Sexual script theory helps bridge
these levels and adds in the more meso-level social interactions that create
individual variations and permutations to the dominant forms of sexuality.
Likewise scripting research could benefit from the addition of an exploration of
the discourses associated with those scripts. This necessitates an inclusion of an
analysis of power associated with sex. In particular gendered forms of power must
form part of the analysis. Discourse approaches to the study of sexuality, through a
discussion of the subject positions available for particular actors, require an
understanding of how gendered forms of power (Braun et al. 2009) impact the
available sets of actions for different people. This type of analysis can be helpful for
thinking about how to alter or change scripts. For example, McCormick (2010a)
suggests that teaching women to respond more assertively would help them achieve
greater sexual agency. By including a discourse approach to sexuality it is possible
to see that the task is not just one of assertiveness training, but of also altering
discourses around heterosex that position women as passive recipients of men’s
desires.
By combining scripting and discourse theories it is possible to take a ‘‘both/and’’
approach to issues related to sexual violence prevention and sexuality education
broadly. Education can begin working with participants to engage with the
discourses (underlying beliefs associated with sex) and to think about alternate
forms of scripts (behaviours).

Acknowledgments I would like to thank Associate Professor Chris Brickell for stimulating discussions
and comments on early drafts that lead to the development of this paper.

References

Alksnis, C., Desmarais, S., & Wood, E. (1996). Gender differences in scripts for different types of dates.
Sex Roles, 34(5/6), 321–335.

123
 Author's personal copy
M. A. Beres

Beres, M. (2007). ‘It just happens’: Discourses of heterosexuality and casual sex. In M. Kimmel, A.
Aronson, & A. Kaler (Eds.), The gendered society reader (Canadian Edition). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Beres, M., & Farvid, P. (2010). Sexual ethics and young women’s accounts of heterosexual casual sex.
Sexualities, 13(3), 377–393.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Braun, V., Gavey, N., & McPhillips, K. (2003). The ‘fair deal’? Unpacking accounts of reciprocity in
heterosex. Sexualities, 6(2), 237–261.
Braun, V., Schmidt, J., Gavey, N., & Fenaughty, J. (2009). Sexual coercion among gay and bisexual men
in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Journal of Homosexuality, 56(3), 336–360. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00918360902728764.
Brickell, C. (2006). The sociological construction of gender and sexuality. The Sociological Review,
54(1), 87–113.
Byers, E. S. (1996). How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? Review of a
program of research. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 8(1/2), 7–25.
Byers, E. S., & Heinlein, L. (1989). Predicting initiations and refusals of sexual activities in married and
cohabitating heteroseuxal couples. Journal of Sex Research, 26(2), 210–231.
Dworkin, S. L., & O’Sullivan, L. F. (2005). Actual versus desired initiation patterns among a sample of
college men: Tapping disjunctures within traditional male sexual scripts. The Journal of Sex
Research, 42(2), 150–158.
Fine, M. (1988). Sexuality, schooling, and adolescent females: The missing discourse of desire. Harvard
Educational Review, 58(1), 29–54.
Foucault, M. (1972). Archeaology of knowlege. London: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge. Brighton, Sussex: The Harvester Press Limited.
Gavey, N. (2005). Just sex?: The cultural scaffolding of rape. East Sussex: Routledge.
Halkitis, P. N., Kutnick, A., Parsons, J. T., Punzalan, J. C., Velasquez, M. M., & Vicioso, K. J. (2004).
The impact of alcohol use on the sexual scripts of HIV-positive men who have sex with men. The
Journal of Sex Research, 41, 160?.
Hollway, W. (1984a). Gender difference and the production of subjectivity. In J. Henriques, W. Hollway,
C. Urwin, C. Venn, & V. Walkerdine (Eds.), Changing the subject: Psychology, social regulation
and subjectivity (pp. 227–263). New York: Routledge.
Hollway, W. (1984b). Women’s power in heterosexual sex. Women’s Studies International Forum, 7(1),
63–68.
Jackson, S., & Scott, S. (2010). Theorizing sexuality. New York, NY: Open University Press.
Klinkenberg, D., & Rose, S. (1994). Dating scripts of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality,
26(4), 23–35.
Laner, M. R., & Ventrone, N. A. (1998). Egalitarian daters/traditionalist dates. Journal of Family Issues,
19(4), 468–477.
Laner, M. R., & Ventrone, N. A. (2000). Dating scripts revisited. Journal of Family Issues, 21(4),
488–500.
McCormick, N. B. (2010a). Preface to sexual scripts: Social and therapeutic implications. Sexual and
Relationship Therapy, 25(1), 91–95. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14681990903563707.
McCormick, N. B. (2010b). Sexual scripts: Social and therapeutic implications. Sexual and Relationship
Therapy, 25(1), 96–120. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14681990903550167.
O’Sullivan, L. F., & Byers, E. S. (1992). College students’ incorporation of initiator and restrictor roles in
sexual dating interactions. Journal of Sex Research, 29(3), 435–446.
Parsons, J. T., Vicioso, K. J., Punzalan, J. C., Halkitis, P. N., Kutnick, A., & Velasquez, M. M. (2004).
The impact of alcohol use on the sexual scripts of HIV-positive men who have sex with men.
Journal of Sex Research, 41(2), 160–172. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490409552224.
Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1989). Young singles’ scripts for a first date. Gender and Society, 3(2), 258–268.
Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1993). Young singles’ contemporary dating scripts. Sex Roles, 28(9), 499–509.
doi:10.1007/bf00289677.
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 15(2), 97–120. doi:10.1007/bf01542219.
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (2003). Sexual scripts: Origins, influences and changes. Qualitative
Sociology, 26(4), 491–497. doi:10.1023/B:QUAS.0000005053.99846.e5.

123
 Author's personal copy
Points of Convergence

Stokes, C. E. (2007). Representin’ in cyberspace: Sexual scripts, self-definition, and hip hop culture in
Black American adolescent girls’ home pages. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 9(2), 169–184.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691050601017512.
Weaver, S. J., & Herold, E. S. (2000). Casual sex and women: Measurement and motivational issues.
Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 12(3), 23–41.
Whittier, D. K., & Simon, W. (2001). The fuzzy matrix of ‘My Type’ in intrapsychic sexual scripting.
Sexualities, 4(2), 139–165. doi:10.1177/136346001004002003.

123
View publication stats