Date of Award

8-31-2026

Document Type

Open Access Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Department

Counseling

First Advisor

Dr. Sharon Lamb

Abstract

This study drew on a critical discursive psychology (CDP) analytical approach to examine how lesbian and queer participants made sense of unwanted consensual sex (UCS).  The data analysis traced how UCS was constructed on three discursive levels: the construction of UCS across narratives, the interpretive repertoires mobilized (including sexual scripts), and the broader sociocultural discourses that shaped what elements of their experiences were intelligible. Therefore, I sought to understand both how participants drew on familiar heteronormative and queer ways of talking about sex and how various discursive resources shaped how they could construct themselves and others. Data for this research consisted of semi-structured 90-minute online Zoom interviews with U.S. participants ages 22 to 43 (M = 27.4) that identified as lesbian or queer. Of the 23 total participants, 18 identified as People of Color which included identities such as Black (N = 5), Latino (N = 6), South Asian (N = 4), West Asian (N = 2), East Asian (N = 2), and Native American (N = 2), as well as 5 monoracial White participants.

Participants often described UCS as something that developed through the interaction rather than as a clear decision made before sex began. Encounters were narrated as moving forward through small steps, where stopping became harder once the interaction had already gained direction. As participants moved from describing what happened to explaining why continuing made sense, they often drew on repertoires of duty, caretaking, sexual role performance, and identity proof. These repertoires made their participation intelligible by positioning themselves as good partners, caring queer subjects, responsible sexual actors, or people working to sustain a recognizable queer self. Broader discourses of good communication, queer attunement, and sexual legitimacy shaped what participants could say about desire, and responsibility, though notably there was an absence of directly harm which was thus identified as a ‘missing’ discourse. Future research should examine how UCS is constructed across queer relational contexts, attending to the ways consent is organized discursively. Additionally, clinicians working with lesbian and queer clients may consider how wantedness and consent function as related but distinct clinical questions, particularly when clients experience difficulty naming harm.

Comments

Free and open access to this work is made available to the UMass Boston community by ScholarWorks at UMass Boston. Those not on campus and those without a UMass Boston campus username and password may gain access to this work through Interlibrary Loan. If you have a UMass Boston campus username and password and would like to download this work from off-campus, click on the “Off-Campus Users” button.

Download

Share

COinS