Women's Experiences of Sexual Agency Under Constrained Choice: A Systematic Review

Abstract

In Western societies, women are encouraged to present themselves in sexualized ways and are expected to experience this as a form of sexual agency. However, research on women's sexual agency is new and still developing, leading to inconsistent definitions and understandings. In addition, women's experiences of and resistance to violations of their sexual boundaries are frequently overlooked. The current systematic review answers research questions on how sexual agency has been conceptualized, how it has been studied in relation to sexual violence, and how women's social positionality influences sexual agency. A systematic strategy was used to search 10 health and social science databases and analyze 95 full-text articles. A feminist social constructionist framework guided this mixed-methods synthesis and provided a framework for addressing the research questions. The findings contribute to a deeper understanding of how society and researchers understand women's sexual agency and how intersectionality is largely ignored. Findings also identify an urgent need for future research to consider the relations between violence against women and women's perceptions of (or lack of) sexual agency. Future policymakers, researchers, and educators should move away from a one-size-fits-all approach in their work and instead, consider the diverse impact of societal expectations on women. By doing so, we can develop policies and programming that are specifically tailored to address the unique needs and challenges faced by women in society.

Research on women's sexual agency has increased in recent years, yet there is still confusion about what it truly means. Feminist activists, researchers, and scholars across disciplines have argued about what sexual agency is and have used related terms (i.e., sexual subjectivity and sexual empowerment) interchangeably with sexual agency, leading to even more confusion (Fahs & McClelland, 2016; Fritz & Paul, 2017). Some have argued for a multidimensional understanding of sexual agency, while others posit that it is inherently subjective, shaped by an individual's unique social context and societal experiences (Fahs & McClelland, 2016; Fritz & Paul, 2017). Although some aspects of sexual agency, subjectivity, and empowerment overlap, each offers a unique lens through which to view women's autonomy within sexual contexts. Broadly, sexual agency is understood to be an individual's ability to make independent and informed decisions about their sexual behaviors; sexual subjectivity is an individual's experience of their sexuality; and sexual empowerment is the experience of gaining knowledge and confidence over one's sexuality (e.g., Bay-Cheng, 2015a; Horne & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2006; Lamb & Peterson, 2012; Martin, 1996; Tolman & Chmielewski, 2019; Ward et al., 2018). Although these concepts contribute to a multidimensional understanding of sexual agency, it is important to distinguish between these terms while acknowledging their interconnectedness and the importance of each in comprehensively understanding women's sexual autonomy. This nuanced approach allows us to navigate the complexities of sexual agency without oversimplifying the experiences and challenges women face in society and their daily lives.

Beyond definitional intricacies, societal expectations impose a burden on women, urging them to consistently assume the role of sexual agents and “take control” of their sexual encounters. Paradoxically, this societal pressure often leads to women being blamed when they experience sexual violence (Bay-Cheng, 2015a; Muehlenhard & McCoy, 1991). Negotiating these experiences without a clear understanding of what is required while also considering the influence of social positionality (e.g., race, sex, [dis]ability, class, etc.) proves to be a complex task for women (Chmielewski et al., 2020; Ward et al., 2018). This complexity is further compounded by the fact that women are expected to simultaneously embody conflicting roles as both sexual agents, taking charge of their experiences, and sexual gatekeepers, responsible for regulating the pace and progression of sexual activity, including that women are supposed to be passive and play hard to get in romantic and sexual relationships, and that women have a weaker sexual desire than men (Andreasen, 2021; Bay-Cheng, 2015a, 2015b; Muehlenhard & McCoy, 1991; Simon & Gagnon, 2003). Within these conflicting roles, women must prioritize others’ desires over their own, downplay negative sexual experiences, and potentially face blame in cases of sexual violence. Therefore, women must grapple with existing social structures, navigating their experiences.

Social influences on women's sexual agency stem from intersecting discourses of neoliberalism, post-feminism, and patriarchy. Neoliberalism, an economic and political ideology that advocates for limited government intervention and emphasizes individual responsibility, not only reinforces gender binaries but also places the onus on individuals for their experiences, regardless of their social positionality (Downey et al., 2022). Postfeminist discourse supports the belief that society has achieved gender equality and suggests there is no longer a need for feminist movements (Burkett & Hamilton, 2012). Finally, patriarchal discourse upholds male dominance and enforces a division of gender roles, perpetuating gendered social practices that grant men control over women. Despite these contradictions, women are tasked with navigating a cognitive tightrope imposed by traditional gender roles when engaging in behaviors perceived as sexually agentic, such as taking the initiative in intimate encounters (Bay-Cheng, 2015a, 2015b; Norris, 2011). They are told they have the “freedom to” act as sexual agents and take control of their sexuality. However, their society is shaped by gender inequalities. As highlighted by neoliberal discourses (Chmielewski et al., 2020; Infanger et al., 2016), Fahs (2014) pointed out that there is simultaneously a lack of “freedom from” oppressive structures that simultaneously reward and punish women for their sexual choices. This leaves some women in a double bind, facing contradictory societal expectations that challenge their ability to navigate agency while avoiding negative consequences (Muehlenhard & McCoy, 1991).

The complexity of women's sexual agency requires a comprehensive consideration of women's various social locations and how they influence their experiences. By critically examining the impact of intersecting social identities, such as race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, and ability, we gain insight into the challenges faced by marginalized women. Intersectionality provides a framework for recognizing how multiple forms of oppression intersect, shaping women's experiences of agency (Crenshaw, 1989). Acknowledging these intersections enhances our understanding of the unique barriers and dynamics that different women encounter in their pursuit of sexual agency.

Recent research underscores the prevalence of harmful discourses and practices that bolster rape culture, often deflecting responsibility onto women and minimizing men's sexual aggression (Downey et al., 2022). Early on, girls and women receive conflicting sexual socialization messages, being told they are free from traditional gender imbalances yet simultaneously encouraged to be sexually passive or act as gatekeepers of access to sex (Simon & Gagnon, 2003). Specifically, previous research has reported that women may describe their sexual experiences as consensual, even if unwanted. Unwanted sexual experiences vary in severity but can range from violent sexual assault to sexual coercion (i.e., engaging in sexual intercourse after pressure from a partner) to sexual compliance (i.e., engaging in sexual intercourse when undesired, without the presence of coercion, because you know your partner wants it; Fedina et al., 2018; Katz & Tirone, 2010). Women experiencing coercion or compliance often believe they are in control, as their encounters lack overt violence, believing that changing their minds is not an option (Burkett & Hamilton, 2012). Additionally, online portrayals often reinforce neoliberal and patriarchal discourses, categorizing women as “rapeable” or “unrapeable” based on perceived respectability (Andreasen, 2021). These examples illuminate the societal pressures on women to take on the role of sexual agents while simultaneously subjecting them to victim-blaming and judgment based on their perceived sexuality and social positions.

Despite recognizing the influence of harmful discourses on women's sexuality, there remains a notable gap in research addressing women's sexual agency. Although existing studies touch on various aspects, research on women's sexual agency has yet to attain a comprehensive understanding of its multifaceted nature. This gap emphasizes the need for a synthesis that integrates and examines the nuanced facets of women's sexual agency. Although definitional clarity is crucial, it is just one facet of the broader societal influences shaping women's experiences with agency in sexuality, such as experiences with sexual violence and social location in society. To address these gaps, new research should challenge the status quo, deepen our understanding of sexual agency, and promote a safer society for women. This systematic review analyzes social discourses and identities to explore the complexities of women's sexual agency. It aims to address existing gaps in the literature and contribute to our knowledge of the topic.

Guiding Theoretical Perspectives

A critical feminist lens, specifically feminist social constructionism, guided this synthesis. Feminist social constructionism emphasizes that all experiences are grounded in a social context and that all concepts and experiences are framed within historical and social contexts that reinforce prevailing systems of power (Gergen, 1999). One of the critical contributions of feminist social constructionists has been to make meaning of women's experiences outside of the categories that have been primarily developed for men by men (Lafrance & Wigginton, 2019; Wigginton & Lafrance, 2019). This framework allows an investigation of women's sexual agency within the context of the societal constructions that often marginalize their experiences. In addition, sexual scripts theory was used to understand how women's sexual experiences and sexual agency may be influenced by the sexual scripts laid out in society (Simon & Gagnon, 2003). These theories complement each other in analyzing sexual agency within heteronormative societies.

Purpose of the Current Synthesis

Understanding previous research is crucial for shaping future directions and enhancing women's sexual health and safety, especially considering postfeminist neoliberal discourses that unfairly blame women for societal disadvantages and violence (Downey et al., 2022). Through the use of feminist social constructionism and sexual scripts theory in the context of women's sexual agency, this research synthesis addresses several gaps in the literature, such as the lack of a uniform understanding of the relationships between sexual agency and violence. Exploring how women experience and understand sexual agency is a central inquiry in this study. Addressing this, the study delves into specific research questions regarding the conceptualization and definition of women's sexual agency, the forms of sexual violence studied in relation to agency, and the examination of social and cultural factors influencing agency within the broader context of societal inequality. Furthermore, the following specific questions were answered:

How has women's sexual agency been conceptualized and defined in previous research?

What forms of sexual violence have been studied in relation to sexual agency?

How have social and cultural issues of inequality in society been studied in relation to sexual agency?

Method

Search Strategy

The current systematic review implemented the PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021). The eligibility criteria and search terms were kept intentionally broad to capture as much literature as possible. The inclusion criteria were (a) peer-reviewed (original research articles or dissertations), (b) available in English, (c) focused on women and/or girls, and (d) search terms included in the title, abstract, or keywords. Articles were excluded if they did not meet the inclusion criteria and/or were case studies, meta-analyses, master's theses, or not original research articles. Ten databases were searched using the keywords (Women OR girls OR femal*) AND (“Sexual* Agen*” OR “Sexual* Empower*” OR “Sexual* Subject*”). The included databases were: Academic Search Complete, JSTOR, Scopus, Medline, PsycINFO, PsycArticles, ERIC, Communication and Mass Media Complete, Sociological Abstracts, and Applied Social Sciences Abstracts. The search phase ran from May to December 2022.

Once the data searches were complete, records identified from each database were downloaded to a reference manager. Two-hundred and seventy-two full-text articles were screened, and 95 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Four articles were added through backward referencing. Articles included in the review can be found in the online Supplementary Material. The PRISMA diagram in Figure 1 shows the systematic review process.

Figure 1.

PRISMA Diagram for Systematic Review.

Data Extraction Process

Thematic analysis was chosen for its flexibility in identifying common themes or patterns. As outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006) and Saldaña (2016), a descriptive thematic analysis was used to analyze and synthesize the findings to answer the first research question: How has sexual agency been conceptualized and defined? The information was extracted from the articles by gathering content related to agency, subjectivity, or empowerment, whether through explicit definitions provided by the authors or their discussions of these key terms.

As part of this systematic review, all analyses were conducted independently. However, I sought consultation from qualitative analysis experts and colleagues throughout the process. I began by thoroughly familiarizing myself with the extracted data for each section (agency, subjectivity, and empowerment). Next, I manually extracted semantic and latent codes from Microsoft Excel tables. These initial codes were then organized into broad themes and subthemes, which were iteratively refined by reviewing relationships between codes. Consultation with others was sought before finalizing the appropriate themes for Research Question 1.

For research question two, information was extracted when the authors specifically discussed women's sexual agency, subjectivity, or empowerment in relation to any form of sexual violence. This could be through how women discussed their sexual agency prior to sexual violence, outcomes after experiencing sexual violence, or statistical outcomes found in empirical studies. Finally, the last question was concerned with how women's less studied social locations (i.e., outside of the analysis of gender) in society had been considered in relation to sexual agency, subjectivity, and empowerment. Therefore, any research article that specifically highlighted how their social location or social status impacted a woman and her sexual agency, subjectivity, or empowerment was extracted and included in the analysis.

Results

Study Characteristics

The articles retained in the current systematic review ranged from 1996 to 2022, as research on sexual agency is still relatively new. The articles obtained were conducted in the United States (n = 76), Canada (n = 5), Australia (n = 8), New Zealand (n = 1), the United Kingdom (n = 4), Norway (n = 1), Belgium (n = 1), Sweeden (n = 1), and Italy (n = 1). Three of the articles included had authors from, or the research took place in, multiple countries; therefore, the total numbers are greater than 95. There were an almost equal number of quantitative (n = 45; 47.3%) and qualitative (n = 44; 46.3%) studies, with a few using mixed methods (n = 6; 6.3%). There were 82 journal articles (86%) and 14 dissertations (14%). A historical trend was identified with increasing numbers of articles on sexual agency and women being written over time. From 1996 to 2005, only 6 (6%) articles were retained. Journal articles and dissertations then began to increase: 2006–2010 (n = 14; 15%), 2011–2015 (n = 20; 21%), 2016–2020 (n = 38; 40%), and 2021–2022 (only 2 years of data extraction rather than 5; n = 17 articles; 18%). More details on the demographics of the 95 articles can be found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Information From Included Articles.

Study	Sample N and Type, Age Range	Race/Ethnicity of Participants (n or %)	Sexual Orientation of Participants (n or %)	Used to Answer RQ1	Used to Answer RQ2	Used to Answer RQ3
Abboud et al. (2019)	10 women, 18–35 years	Arab or Arab American with Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian, Palestinian, Iraqi, or Egyptian	Heterosexual	Yes	No	Yes
Ashline and Crane (2015)	35 women, 20–59 years	White = 19, Black or African American = 13, Latina or Hispanic = 3, Native American = 1, Mixed race = 1	Heterosexual = 19, Lesbian = 2, Bisexual = 4, Queer = 9, Pansexual = 1	Yes	No	Yes
Ault (1996)	35 women	Predominately White	Bisexual	Yes	No	No
Averett et al. (2008)	14 women, 18–22 years	White = 9, Black = 1, Bi-Racial = 2, Asian = 1, Italian = 1	Heterosexual	Yes	No	No
Avery et al. (2016)	378 women, 18–30 years	Black/African American = 76%, Bi/Multi-Racial = 14%, African = 4%, West Indian/Caribbean = 3%, Afro-Latina (e.g., South or Central American, Dominican, Puerto Rican) = 1%	Heterosexual = 93%	Yes	Yes	Yes
Avery et al. (2021a)	597 women, 18–30 years	Black = 81.3%, Bil/Multi-Racial = 10.7%, African = 2.7%, West Indian/Caribbean = 1.9%, Afro-Latina (e.g., South or Central American, Dominican, Puerto Rican) = 1.4%, Other 1.9%	Heterosexual = 89%	Yes	No	No
Avery et al. (2021b)	640 women, M = 21.59 years	Black/African American = 81.1%, Bi/Multi-Racial = 10.8%, African = 2.8%, West Indian/Caribbean = 2.0%, Afro-Latina (e.g., South or Central American, Dominican, Puerto Rican) = 1.5%, Other = 2.0%.	Exclusively or predominantly Heterosexual = 93.1	Yes	No	Yes
Bay-Cheng and Fava (2014)	9 women, 16–17 years	Black = 3, Bi-Racial = 3, White = 3	Heterosexual	Yes	No	Yes
Bay-Cheng et al. (2018)	186 men and women, 19–64 years	White = 146, Black = 14, Asian American = 14, Latina/o = 7, Multi-Racial = 4, Native American = 1	Heterosexual = 159, Bisexual = 17, Gay or Lesbian = 6, Queer = 2, Questioning = 1, Unspecified = 1	Yes	No	No
Beaver (2016)	21 women, 24–40 years	White = 15, Latina = 3, Biracial = 2, Asian-American = 1	Heterosexual = 15, Bisexual = 4, Queer/Bisexual = 1, Lesbian = 1	Yes	No	No
Berdychevsky (2016)	13 women, 19–24 years	White = 3, Latin American White = 3, Asian = 3, Black = 3, Multi-Racial = 1	Heterosexual	Yes	No	No
Blunt-Vinti et al. (2018)	30 women, 18–25 years	Not reported	Not reported	Yes	No	No
Bond et al. (2020)	209 women, M = 22 years	Black = 3, Asian = 25, Hispanic = 13, Multiple races = 15, Native = 2, Pacific Islander = 1, White = 146, Other = 4	Heterosexual = 157, Asexual = 1, Bisexual = 21, Lesbian = 8, Other = 1, Pansexual = 8, Queer = 7, Questioning = 6	Yes	No	No
Bowman (2014)	765 women, 18–61 years	White = 572, Multi-Racial = 61, Asian American = 48, Latina American = 36, African American = 30.	Heterosexual = 509, Gay/Lesbian = 76, Bisexual = 75, Queer = 75, Questioning = 17, Other = 9	Yes	No	No
Bragard and Fisher (2022)	200 girls, 14–18 years	American Indian/Alaska Native = 13, Asian/Asian American = 10, Black, African American/African, Caribbean = 57, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander = 2, White = 106, Other = 52	Not reported	Yes	No	No
Braksmajer et al. (2022)	26 women, 18–35 years	Predominantly White; Latina = 2, Mixed race = 1	Heterosexual = 21, Bisexual = 1, Pansexual = 2, Lesbian = 2	Yes	No	Yes
Brown-Bowers et al. (2015)	39 women, 18–26 years	Not reported	Heterosexual = 31, Bisexual = 7, Pansexual = 1	Yes	No	No
Burkett and Hamilton (2012)	8 women, 18–24 years	Not reported	Not reported	Yes	Yes	No
Calabrese and Zea (2012)	149 women, 29–76 years	Black	Not reported	Yes	No	No
Campos et al. (2016)	50 women, 18–50 years	Black	Heterosexual	Yes	No	Yes
Cary et al. (2021)	216 women, M = 20 years	White = 66%, Black/African American = 8%, Hispanic/Latinx = 7%, Asian = 8%, Other = 11%	Heterosexual = 65.4%, Bisexual = 11.1%, mostly Heterosexual = 9.5%, Asexual = 6.6%, Other = 7.4%	Yes	No	No
Cato and Carpentier (2010)	68 women, age not reported	White = 60, Black = 6	Not reported	Yes	No	No
Cheng et al. (2014)	6,416 women, age not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Yes	No	Yes
Cherkasskaya and Rosario (2017)	614 women 18–39 years	White = 63%, African-American = 12%, Latina = 12%, Asian = 7%, Other = 6%	Heterosexual	Yes	No	No
Chesser et al. (2019)	28 women, 21–54 years	Predominately White; Indian Caribbean = 1, South Asian = 1, Mixed race = 2	Heterosexual = 5, Bisexual = 6, Pansexual = 6, Queer = 2, Gay = 1, Sexually Fuid = 1, Unspecified = 7 years	Yes	No	No
Chmielewski et al. (2020)	348 women, 18–26 years	Black = 52.90%, White = 47.10%	Heterosexual	Yes	No	Yes
Clonan-Roy (2019)	72 girls in Grades 5–8	Latina	Not reported	Yes	No	Yes
Crown and Roberts (2007)	616 women, M = 21.7 years	White = 91.9%, African American = 2, Hispanic = 3, Asian = 11, Other = 2	Not reported	Yes	Yes	No
Curtin et al. (2011)	580 women, 17–25 years	White = 67.3%, Asian = 14.4%, African American = 7.8%, Latina = 6.0%, Arab American = 4.5%	Heterosexual = 95.9%	Yes	No	No
de Wilde et al. (2020)	Study 1: 121 students, M = 23.26 years Study 2: 296 women, M = 24.54 years Study 3: 330 women, M = 25.8 years	Study 1: Belgian = 69.4%, Western European = 24.8%, North African = 0.7%, Asian = 0.3%. Study 2: Belgian = 46.6%, French = 50.7%, European = 2%, North American = 0.7% Study 3: British = 61.2%, American = 28%, Canadian = 2.8%, European = 3.4%	Study 1: Heterosexual = 86%, Bisexual = 9.9%, Gay = 4.1% Study 2: Heterosexual = 86.3%, Bisexual = 11%, Gay = 2.7% Study 3: Heterosexual = 82.9%, Bisexual = 15.8%, Gay = 0.9%, Other = 0.4%	Yes	No	No
Ellison and Papps (2020)	4 women, 28–59 years	Australian with mixed heritage	Not reported	Yes	No	No
Erchull and Liss (2013)	Study 1: 232 women, 18–23 years Study 2: 217 women, 18–25 years Study 3: 131 women, 18–40 years	Study 1: White = 78.0%, Asian = 7.8%, Multi-Racial = 4.3%, Latina = 3.0%, African American = 2.2%. Other = 2.6%, Unspecified = 2.2% Study 2: White = 81.1%, Asian/Pacific Islander = 7.4%, Multi-Racial = 3.2%, Latina = 2.8%, African American = 1.8%, and American Indian = 0.5%. Other = 2.3%, Unspecified = 0.9%. Study 3: White = 73.3%, Asian/Pacific Islander = 9.9%, African American = 3.8%, Multi-Racial = 3.8%, Latina = 2.3%, American Indian = .8%, Other = 3.8%, Unspecified = 2.3%	Study 1: Heterosexual = 94.0%, Bisexual = 6% Study 2: Heterosexual Study 3: Heterosexual = 96.2%, Bisexual = 3.8%.	Yes	No	No
Erchull and Liss (2014)	164 women, 18–27 years	White = 90.9%, Asian/Pacific Islander = 3%, Multi-Racial = 3%, Latina = 1.8%, African American = 0.6%	Heterosexual	Yes	No	No
Fahs and Swank (2016)	20 women, M = 34 years	White = 11, African-American = 3, Mexican American = 4, Asian-American = 2	Heterosexual = 12, Bisexual = 6, Lesbian = 2	Yes	No	No
Fileborn et al. (2015)	15 women, 57–81 years	Not reported	Heterosexual	Yes	No	Yes
Finlayson-Fife and Aldarno (2002)	16 women; 23–53 years	White	Heterosexual	Yes	Yes	Yes
Froyum (2010)	24 men and women, age not reported	Black and White	Not reported	Yes	No	Yes
Frydman (2022)	Qual: 102 women Quant: 398 women Age not reported	Not reported	Heterosexual	Yes	No	Yes
Gakumo et al. (2012)	100 women, 19–25 years	African American = 50, White = 50	Not reported	Yes	No	No
García (2009)	50 girls, 13–18 years	Latina	Not reported	Yes	No	Yes
García-Gómez (2017)	36 girls, age not reported	Predominantly White	Not reported	Yes	No	No
Gilmartin (2006)	14 women, 18–19 years	White = 7, Chinese = 3, Vietnamese = 2, Black = 1, Indian = 1	Heterosexual	Yes	No	No
Grose and Grabe (2016)	430 women, M = 19.89 years	White = 37.7%, Hispanic/Latina = 25.1%, Asian American = 19.2%, Multi-ethnic = 13.6%, Other = 4%	Heterosexual = 271, Lesbian = 7, mostly Lesbian = 6, Bisexual = 33, mostly Straight = 87, Other = 15, Unsure = 11	Yes	No	Yes
Grower and Ward (2018)	355 women, 18–40 years	White = 73.5%, American Indian = 1.4%, Asian American = 8.7%, Hispanic/Latina = 5.9%, Black = 12.4%	Heterosexual	Yes	Yes	No
Grower and Ward (2021)	663 women, 17–24 years	White = 375, Asian American = 91, Black = 38, Latina = 30, Middle Eastern = 15, Native American = 2, Multi-Racial = 3, Other = 2, Unspecified = 2	Heterosexual = 556, predominantly Heterosexual = 73, Bisexual = 15	Yes	Yes	No
Halliwell et al. (2011)	122 women, M = 19.98 years	White = 114, Black = 4, Mixed Race = 2	Heterosexual = 115, Bisexual = 5, Unspecified = 2	Yes	Yes	No
Harris and Hayward (2018)	279 women over the age of 18 years	Black	Heterosexual	Yes	No	Yes
Hawkey et al. (2019)	82 women, 18–70 years	Born in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Sudan	Heterosexual	Yes	No	Yes
Hitter et al. (2017)	8 women, 28–45 years	Latina = 1, White 6, Multiethnic = 1	Heterosexual = 4, Lesbian = 1, Bisexual = 2, Queer = 1	Yes	Yes	No
Hlavka (2014)	23 girls, 11–16 years	White = 13, Black = 6, Latina = 4	Not reported	Yes	Yes	No
Hong and Levy (2004)	25 women, M = 18.92 years	Black = 32%, Asian = 16%, White = 52%	Not reported	Yes	Yes	No
Horne and Zimmer-Gembeck (2005)	449 women, 16–20 years	White = 91%, Aboriginal Australian = 1%, Asian = 5%	Heterosexual = 85%, Heterosexual with Lesbian experience = 11%	Yes	No	No
Horne and Zimmer-Gembeck (2006)	Study 1: 175 women, 16–19 years Study 2: 449 women, 16–20 years Study 3: 216 women, 17–22 years	Study 1: White = 95%, Aboriginal Australian = 2%, Asian = 1%, Other = 2% Study 2: White = 91%, Aboriginal Australian = 1%, Asian = 5% Study 3: White = 80%, Asian = 14%, Other = 6%	Study 1: Heterosexual = 90%, Heterosexual with Lesbian experience = 8%, Lesbian = 0.6%, Bisexual = 1%, Undecided = 1% Study 2: Heterosexual = 85%, Heterosexual with Lesbian experience = 11%, Bisexual = 3%, Lesbian = 0.4%, Undecided = 1% Study 3: Heterosexual = 85%, Heterosexual with Lesbian experience = 8%, Lesbian = 0.5, Bisexual = 4%, Undecided = 2%	Yes	No	Yes
Infanger et al. (2016)	Study 1: 211 men and women, M = 34.50 years Study 2: 73 men and women, M = 31.44	Study 1: White = 167, Asian = 12, Black = 11, Hispanic = 11, another ethnic background = 10 Study 2: White = 58, Asian = 3, Black = 7, Hispanic = 2, Other = 2	Not reported	Yes	Yes	No
Kaestle and Evans (2018)	471 women, 18–22 years	White = 81.1%, Asian = 10.0%, Black = 3.6%, Other = 5.3%	Heterosexual	Yes	No	No
Katz and van der Kloet (2010)	185 women, 18–22 years	Predominately (95.8%) White	Heterosexual	Yes	No	No
Katz et al. (2018)	200 undergrads, 158 women, 39 male, 3 nonbinary, 17–26 years	White/European-American = 154, Asian = 24, Hispanic/Latina/Mexican = 8, Black = 7, Other = 7	Not reported	Yes	Yes	No
Keith et al. (2020)	7 women, 18–24 years	Not reported	Heterosexual	Yes	No	No
Kettrey (2018)	7255 women, M = 19.87 years	White = 70.96%, Hispanic = 10.13%, Asian = 9.50%, Black = 5.09%, Other = 4.33%	Heterosexual	Yes	No	No
Kordrostami and Kordrostami (2021)	Study 1: 192 men and women, M = 34.2 years Study 2: 122 men and women, M = 34.5 years	Study 1: Not reported Study 2: Not reported	Study 1: Not reported Study 2: Not reported	Yes	No	No
Koven and Lamb (2021)	190 women, 18–44 years	White = 50%, Black or African American = 7.4%, Hispanic = 26.8%, Asian or Asian American (Asian and Southeast Asian categories were combined) = 11.6%, Multi-Racial = 2.1%.	Heterosexual = 80%, Bisexual = 14.7%, Gay/Lesbian = 1.6%, Questioning = 2.6%, Other = 1.1%	Yes	No	No
Lavender-Scott and Allen (2017)	446 women, 18–23 years	Not reported	Not reported	Yes	No	No
Lawrence and Giordano (2021)	5 women, 18–24 years	Not reported	Not reported	Yes	No	Yes
Lunde et al. (2021)	28 men and women, 20–50 years	Iraqi or Iranian Kurdish	Not reported	Yes	No	Yes
Lustig and Liem (2012)	1271 women, 18–34 years	White = 69.6%, Black = 9.8%, Latino = 10.5%, Asian = 12%	Heterosexual = 1,063, Lesbian = 44, Bisexual = 129, Other = 29	Yes	Yes	No
Lys et al. (2019)	41 girls, 13–18 years	90% Aboriginal or Indigenous (First Nations, Métis, or Inuit)	Not reported	Yes	No	Yes
Mackenzie and Brooks (2018)	30 women, 22–25 years	Black	Bisexual = 10, Gay, or Queer = 6, Heterosexual = 14.	Yes	No	Yes
Malson et al. (2011)	7 women, 18–21 years	White	Not reported	Yes	No	No
Mann (2016)	30 girls, 14–18 years	Latina	Not reported	Yes	Yes	Yes
Maposa and Smith (2010)	12 women, 20–25 years	Black	Not reported	Yes	No	Yes
Mark and Vowels (2020)	41 women, 18–55 years	White = 33, Racial/ethnic minority (AfroLatina, Asian, Black, Filipino, Jewish, Hispanic) = 8	Heterosexual = 27, Bisexual = 5, Lesbian = 1, Pansexual = 2, Queer = 4, Questioning = 2	Yes	Yes	No
Marks and Wosick (2017)	Study 1: 22 men and women, 18–22 years Study 2: 211 men and women, 17–59 years	Study 1: Hispanic = 10, White = 6, Unspecified = 6 Study 2: Hispanic = 105, White = 69, Other or unspecified = 37	Not Reported	Yes	No	No
Meehan (2022)	106 girls, 12–16 years	Predominately Maori (Indigenous New Zealander), Pakhea (non-Maori New Zealander), Pasifika, or Asian (including South, East, and Southeast Asia).	Not reported	Yes	No	Yes
Miller (2021)	60 women, 18–91 years	White = 88%, Black = 5%, Latino = 2%, Asian = 2%, Multi-Racial = 3%	Heterosexual	Yes	No	Yes
Missari (2021)	252 women, 18–25 years	Latina or Hispanic, Mexican or Chicana = 62.2%, White = 12.4%, Multi-Racial/Ethnic = 8.4%, Asian = 7.6%, Black or African American = 6.4%, Another racial or ethnic group = 2.8%	Heterosexual = 86.3%, Bisexual = 9.6%, Lesbian, Pansexual, or Queer = 4.0%	Yes	No	Yes
Montemurro (2014)	95 women, 20–68 years	White = 54, African American = 11, Asian = 4, Hispanic = 1, Eastern = 1	Heterosexual = 91, Bisexual or “undefined” = 4	Yes	Yes	No
O'Sullivan et al. (2006)	68 girls, 12–14 years	African American = 26%, Latina = 49%, White or other = 25%	Not reported	Yes	No	No
Payne (2010)	Number not disclosed, women 18–21 years	White	Lesbian	Yes	No	Yes
Pearson and Muller (2009)	National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Nationally representative survey sample of Grades 7–12 from 1994 to 1995			Yes	No	Yes
Ramsey and Horan (2018)	61 women, M = 19.23 years	White = 79%, Latina = 8%, African American = 5%, Asian/Asian American = 3%, Multi-Racial = 3%, Other = 2%	Heterosexual = 87%, Bisexual = 7%, Lesbian = 2%, Unspecified = 5%	Yes	Yes	No
Ramsey and Hoyt (2015)	119 men, 18–61 years	White = 97, African American = 2, Asian/Pacific Islander = 10, Latino = 6, Multi-Racial = 3, Unspecified = 1	Not reported	Yes	Yes	No
Satinsky and Jozkowski (2015)	237 women, 18–71 years	White = 84.8%, Black = 1.7%, Asian = 1.7%, Mixed race = 3.4, Hispanic = 4.6, Other = 3	Heterosexual = 79.7%, Bisexual = 13.1%, Other = 3.8, Queer = 3.4	Yes	No	No
Scappini and Fioravanti (2022)	390 women, 18–35 years	Italian	Heterosexual	Yes	Yes	No
Schick et al. (2008)	424 women over the age of 18	Predominately White = 72%	Not reported	Yes	No	No
Seabrook et al. (2017)	415 women, 19–21 years	White = 333, Asian/Asian American = 33, Black/African American = 23, Latino/Hispanic or Native American = 11, Middle Eastern = 8, Multi-Racial = 2	Not reported	Yes	No	No
Sheff (2005)	40 men and women, mid-30s to late 50s	Predominately White	Polygamous	Yes	No	Yes
Tholander et al. (2022)	7 women, 17–18	Swedish	Heterosexual, Bisexual, or Undefined, and all had experience of heterosexual sex to varying extents	Yes	Yes	No
Thompson and Zurbriggen (2009)	111 women, 18–25 years	White/European American = 60, Latina/Mexican American = 14, Asian American/Pacific Islander = 18, Black/African American = 4, Bi- or Multi-ethnic = 15	Exclusively Straight = 35, Mostly Straight = 24, Bisexual = 11, Mostly Gay/Lesbian = 4, Exclusively Gay/Lesbian = 9, Curious = 4, Questioning = 2, Unlabeled = 7, Other = 15	Yes	Yes	No
Tirone and Katz (2020)	172 women, 18–22	White = 149, Hispanic/Latina = 10, Asian = 8, Black = 3, Other = 2	Heterosexual = 156, Bisexual = 13, Other = 2	Yes	Yes	No
Ussher and Mooney-Somers (2000)	8 women, 17–24 years	U.K. origin = 50%, remaining four were German, Irish, Israeli, and Pakistani	Lesbian	Yes	No	Yes
Ussher et al. (2017)	169 women, older than 18 years	Participants originated from various countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Sudan	Not reported	Yes	No	Yes
Ward et al. (2020)	594 women, M = 22.21 years	Black	Heterosexual	Yes	No	Yes
Ward et al. (2018)	754 women, 16–23 years	White = 562, Asian/Asian-American = 102, Black/African American = 42, Latina = 23, Middle Eastern = 16, Multi-Racial = 4	Heterosexual = 723, Bisexual = 31	Yes	No	No
Watson et al. (2021)	532 men and women, 18 − 66 years	White = 72.56%, Asian = 2.63%, Black = 4.70%, Latinx = 8.46%, Bi-Racial = 6.02%, Native American = 1.32%, Middle Eastern = 0.94%, Other = 3.01%, Unspecified = 0.38%	Queer = 23.38%, Pansexual = 23.50%, Demi = 4.89%, Questioning = 2.44%, Greypanromantic = 0.38%, own words = 6.95%,	Yes	Yes	Yes
Zimmer-Gembeck et al. (2011)	251 women, 16–25 years	White = 82%	Heterosexual = 80%	Yes	No	No

Conceptualization and Definition of Women's Sexual Agency in Previous Research

The first research question focused on how sexual agency, subjectivity, and empowerment were conceptualized and understood in the current literature. From the articles retained, 71% (n = 67) discussed sexual agency, 40% (n = 38) discussed sexual subjectivity, and 27% (n = 26) discussed sexual empowerment. Analyses were first conducted separately for these three concepts. As previous research has conceptualized these three terms as unidimensional, multidimensional, and interchangeable, I attempted to clarify the relations and boundaries between these three constructs and took detailed, reflexive notes throughout my analysis to minimize and acknowledge my existing biases.

Sexual Agency

Through the synthesis process, an overarching definition of sexual agency was identified, encompassing a woman's ability to make sexual decisions and understand their sexuality independently from the influence of others. Two major themes were identified. The first theme was: I understand my sexual experiences, which has four subthemes: (1) that women acknowledge their sexual desire and the ability to recognize and fulfill their sexual needs (Montemurro, 2014; Pearson & Muller, 2009); (2) that women can communicate their wants and needs, verbally and non-verbally, in sexual relationships (Bay-Cheng & Fava, 2014; Grower & Ward, 2018); (3) that women are in control and believe in their ability to take control of their sexual encounters and assert their power in any situation, developing from a deep understanding of their sexuality (Crown & Roberts, 2007; Maposa & Smith, 2010); and (4) that women understand they are responsible for their actions (Braksmajer et al., 2022; Katz et al., 2018). The subthemes within “I understand my sexual experiences” collectively highlight various dimensions of how women perceive, interpret, and navigate their sexuality.

The second theme was: I deserve sexual well-being, which has two subthemes. The subthemes were (1) that women understand they have the right to sexual safety, as women have the right to refuse unwanted sex and have the right to engage in safe, pleasurable sexual activities free from violence and the risk of sexually transmitted infections (Averett et al., 2008; Fahs & Swank, 2016) and (2) that women appreciate their bodies and themselves (Cherkasskaya & Rosario, 2017; Frydman, 2022). The subthemes under “I deserve sexual well-being” highlight the inherent rights of women to experience safety and pleasure in their sexual lives, reflecting the essential components of well-being in sexual contexts. More details and examples of the thematic analysis for sexual agency can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2.

Themes Identified for Sexual Agency.

Theme	Subthemes	Definition	Examples
I understand my sexual experiences.	I acknowledge my sexual desires.	Women must understand their own sexuality and desires, as well as the ability to recognize and fulfill their sexual needs.	“Refers to both the acknowledgement and acceptance of sexual feelings, and to the choice and ability to act, or not to act, on those feelings as well” (Pearson & Muller, 2009, p. 14)
			“Having sexual desire and the ability to act on that desire” (Montemurro, 2014, p. 66)
	I can communicate my wants and needs.	Women must have the skills to communicate their wants and needs verbally and non-verbally, especially in sexual relationships.	“Girls exert their sexual agency by advocating for themselves” (Bay-Cheng & Fava, 2014, p. 117) “Finding that women who engaged in assertiveness, refusal of unwanted sex acts, proactive engagement in what they want, and interrogative practices tend to feel more agentic during sex” (Fahs & Swank, 2016, p. 52) “The ability to identify, negotiate, and communicate one's sexual needs” (Grower & Ward, 2018, p. 139)
	I am in control.	Women should strive to be sexually assertive and self-assured, believing in their ability to take control of their sexual encounters and assert their power in any situation.	“The ability to recognize one's power to shape sexual situations” (Maposa & Smith, 2010, p. 69)
			“The possession of control over one's body and sexual choices” (Crown & Roberts, 2007, p. 389)
	I understand I am responsible for my actions.	In a neoliberal society, women are expected to take charge of their sexual encounters and take responsibility for the choices they make. Women need to recognize that they cannot always rely on others and seek out the necessary support and resources when needed.	“Postfeminist views of sexual agency often rely on neoliberal constructs of self-determination, self-regulation and individual responsibility insofar as people are expected to be answerable for their successes (or failures) regardless of circumstances or social context” (Braksmajer et al., 2022, p. 2)
			“Responsible sexual agents characterized by self-sufficiency, self-regulation, and an acceptance of the consequences of one's actions” (Katz et al., 2018, p. 811)
I deserve sexual well-being.	I have the right to sexual safety.	It is important to recognize that women have the right to refuse any sexual experiences they do not want. They have the right to engage in safe, pleasurable sexual activities free from violence and the risk of sexually transmitted infections.	“Sexual agency is found in the woman who reflects on a particular situation and decides to say no because agreeing to sex is not in her best interest” (Averett et al., 2008, p. 332) “Finding that women who engaged in assertiveness, refusal of unwanted sex acts, proactive engagement in what they want, and interrogative practices tend to feel more agentic during sex” (Fahs & Swank, 2016, p. 52)
	I respect my body and myself.	Women have the right to feel positive about their bodies and to have positive experiences with them. Additionally, they should strive to appreciate and understand their bodies, including their embodiment.	“The positive, pleasurable, and even empowering aspects of the quick shift include having sudden autonomy over one's own body, being free to express love physically, and learning to negotiate physical intimacy. Sexual agency requires ongoing genuine self-reflection and awareness” (Frydman, 2022, p. 7) “Ownership over one's sexuality” (Cherkasskaya & Rosario, 2017, p. 2441)

Sexual Subjectivity

Through the systematic review process, sexual subjectivity was identified as an extension of sexual agency. The two terms had overlapping concepts; however, sexual subjectivity focused more on women's sexual pleasure. In the research articles, three themes were identified. The first was: I have sexual independence, which included three subthemes that overlapped with sexual agency. The first subtheme considered that women must understand their sexual desire, where, in addition to understanding and acknowledging their sexual desire, they must also allow themselves to be the subject of their desire and not have it focus on the pleasure of others (Calabrese & Zea, 2012; Cheng et al., 2014). The second subtheme is that women acknowledge that they are in control and must have efficacy over their actions and situations (Chesser et al., 2019; Montemurro, 2014). The final subtheme is that women must appreciate their bodies and themselves, which, although similar to the subtheme identified for sexual agency, agency supports the assertion of one's rights and choices. In contrast, sexual subjectivity underscores the importance of self-love and embodiment as foundational to experiencing sexual pleasure (Ellison & Papps, 2020; Montemurro, 2014). The subthemes under “I have sexual independence” emphasize women's independence in defining and pursuing their sexual desires, showcasing the empowerment that stems from self-awareness, control, and body positivity in their sexual identities.

The second theme was: I deserve pleasure, which had no subthemes. In this component of women's sexual subjectivity, they must recognize that their sexual pleasure is just as important as men's and should not be overlooked or disregarded (Bragard & Fisher, 2022). The third and final theme was: Am I the subject or the object? This directly explores the dichotomy between women defining their sexual identity versus being defined by external expectations and societal norms. It questions whether women view themselves as active participants (“subjects”) in their sexual experiences, driving their desires and choices, or if they feel positioned as passive entities (“objects”) whose sexual roles are dictated by others’ desires and societal standards. More details and examples of the thematic analysis for sexual subjectivity can be seen in Table 3.

Table 3.

Themes Identified for Sexual Subjectivity.

Theme	Subthemes	Definition	Examples
I have sexual independence.	I understand my sexual desire.	In addition to recognizing and embracing their own sexual desires, women need to prioritize their own pleasure and be the subject of their own desire rather than solely focusing on the pleasure of others.	“A component of sexual self-concept encompassing self-awareness of one's sexuality and sense of agency to protect it” (Calabrese & Zea, 2012, p. 6) “Girls’ ownership over their desire/pleasure” (Cheng et al., 2014, p. 517)
	I am in control.	It is crucial that women still have efficacy and control over their actions in situations.	“Entitled to sexual pleasure and sexual safety, who makes active sexual choices, and who has an identity as a sexual being” (Pearson & Muller, 2009, p. 14) “Having confidence and engaging in sexual decision making as well as being a willing and eager participant in sexual encounters” (Montemurro, 2014, p. 66) “In control of their own sexual decision making and appeared to be able to act on their erotic interests” (Chesser et al., 2019, p. 1246)
	I appreciate my body and myself.	Through embodiment, women can experience their full sexuality	“Individual's awareness of their perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires as sexual, being situated in the body” (Ellison & Papps, 2020, p. 2) “Involves feeling good about one's body and sexual self” (Montemurro, 2014, p. 66)
I deserve sexual pleasure.		It is essential to recognize that women's sexual pleasure is just as important as men's and should not be overlooked or disregarded.	“Successfully negotiate healthy and satisfying sexual relationships” (Hong & Levy, 2004, p. 16) “Defined as feeling entitled to and self-efficacious in experiencing sexual pleasure in a sexual encounter” (Bragard & Fisher, 2022, p. 7)
Am I the subject or the object?		Explores the dichotomy between women defining their sexual identity versus being defined by external expectations and societal norms. It questions whether women view themselves as active participants (“subjects”) in their sexual experiences, driving their desires and choices, or if they feel positioned as passive entities (“objects”) whose sexual roles are dictated by others’ desires and societal standards.	“Disentangling sexual subjectivity from being a sexual object may be difficult as the roles of sexual subject and sexual object may be experienced simultaneously” (Erchull & Liss, 2014, p. 786) “Women must learn the value of subjectivity to begin with, or the value of being fully present in and responsible for the choices that they can make, and the distinction between ‘subject’ and ‘object’” (Gilmartin, 2006, p. 451) “Rather than women being displayed as objects of male desire, in the new representations women are portrayed as actively choosing to display themselves sexually in order to demonstrate their independence and liberation” (Halliwell et al., 2011, p. 39)

Although some redundancy between the themes of sexual agency and sexual subjectivity is present, this is both intentional and reflective of the literature, where these constructs often overlap and intertwine. This overlap underscores the complexity of women's sexual experiences, illustrating how agency and subjectivity are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary facets of women's sexuality.

Sexual Empowerment

Sexual empowerment was the most understudied construct. Due to this, it was not possible to extract cohesive themes. Instead, two opposing views of sexual empowerment in society were outlined. As initially introduced and discussed by Lamb and Peterson in 2012, researchers and feminist scholars still wonder if women are subjectively or legitimately empowered. More specifically, are women experiencing sexual empowerment if they also experience negative consequences? (e.g., Averett et al., 2008; Beaver, 2016; Bowman, 2014; Braksmajer et al., 2022; Grose & Grabe, 2016; Keith et al., 2020; Mark & Vowels, 2020) More information on the debates is in Table 4.

Table 4.

The Two Sides of Sexual Empowerment.

Subjective Empowerment	Legitimate Empowerment
Different experiences for all women. Women believe they have the freedom to engage in sexual expression (pursuit of pleasure and intimacy, positive sexual experiences). Does not consider social location or power. Is a genuine experience for every woman. Is enduring and ongoing and can change throughout life.	Not real if women experience negative consequences (i.e., negative body image). Not possible without full development of sexual agency and subjectivity. Is not real if societal structures influence it. Can never truly be attained in a patriarchal society. Requires freedom from oppressive structures.

Note. Both sides of the sexual empowerment debate include the right to sexual safety and sexual health.

Integrating the Relations of Sexual Agency, Subjectivity, and Empowerment

In synthesizing the relations among these three constructs, it is evident that they are not entirely separate but are deeply intertwined and impact women's sexual experiences. However, a lack of cohesive understanding of these constructs and their relations to one another limits the current research and understanding of their relations. This is further compounded by the fact that much of the research did not include the women's attitudes or perspectives on these constructs and how they experienced sexual agency. Such omissions highlight critical gaps in our knowledge and recognize the importance of centering women's voices in discussions about their sexual rights and identities. Moreover, these findings illuminate how women's experiences of sexual agency, subjectivity, and empowerment inherently involve acts of resistance against societal expectations as they assert their autonomy, desires, and rights within intimate relationships.

Sexual Agency and Sexual Violence

This research question was used to assess what types of sexual violence have been researched specifically in relation to sexual agency, subjectivity, and empowerment to identify which areas have received more attention than others for future researchers. Twenty-two articles were identified to answer this research question. Of those articles, 45.5% (n = 10) were quantitative studies, 45.5% (n = 10) were qualitative studies, and 9% (n = 2) were mixed-method studies. Explicit mention of sexual violence, which included rape, sexual assault, sexual abuse, and other sexual violations were discussed in 39% (n = 9) of the articles. Next was sexual objectification of self or by a partner in 26% (n = 6), sexual coercion and unwanted sex in 22% (n = 5), negative sexual experiences (i.e., unwanted spanking) in 17% (n = 4) of the articles, and childhood sexual violence in 9% (n = 2) of the articles. It is important to note that articles often covered multiple types of violence, accounting for the cumulative percentage exceeding 100%.

Across research studies, a clear pattern emerged. Women frequently adopt the role of sexual gatekeepers, highlighting the enduring influence of sexual scripts and entrenched gender norms, which sometimes clash with contemporary ideals of gender equality (i.e., post-feminism and neoliberalism). Women often face complex situations where exercising their sexual agency may lead to misinterpretations of their actions. Specifically, their assertion of their sexual wants and desires may be wrongly perceived as an acceptance of unwanted sexual advances, or they may face challenges that in prioritizing their desires could lead to further harm and social stigma (Avery et al., 2016; Finlayson-Fife & Aldarondo, 2002; Hlavka, 2014). This reflects a broader societal challenge where asserting sexual independence can paradoxically expose women to the risk of being blamed for any violence they experience. Some articles discussed how women lost their sense of sexual agency post-sexual violence and could not verbally identify their needs or understand their desires (Watson et al., 2021). Additionally, when women experienced sexual coercion and unwanted sex, many would experience a gap in their descriptions of sexual agency and their experiences of being pressured. Women would not recognize the coercive or unwanted experiences as negative but instead make statements that they did not want to back out and felt they needed to go along with the encounter (Burkett & Hamilton, 2012). This highlights that women may not be aware of their existing contradictory beliefs between their sexual agency and experiences with coercion and unwanted sex. Notably, Mark and Vowels (2020) examined how some women, in response to trauma, developed a stronger sense of sexual agency, making it a non-negotiable element of their subsequent relationships.

Collectively, these findings identify that contrary to the belief that gender equality is achieved and that women can make their own sexual choices, a more nuanced reality exists. This is emphasized by the insights shared in the article by Mark and Vowels (2020), which emphasizes the significance of women acquiring crucial elements of their sexuality, including sexual confidence, effective negotiation of their desires, and recognition of their boundaries. New research must explore the ways these ideas can be embedded into systemic and educational settings, supporting women in understanding their sexual agency from a young age. Such approaches would contribute to a foundation that not only empowers women but also challenges and changes the societal norms and structures that underpin sexual violence.

Social and Cultural Issues of Inequality in Relation to Sexual Agency

This research question aimed to identify what social locations, outside of a woman's gender identity, have been studied in relation to sexual agency, subjectivity, or empowerment. Recognizing that prevailing research in the social sciences often centers on heterosexual White women, it is important to acknowledge potential limitations in generalizing findings to all women. For instance, studies on sexual violence and diverse women have underscored that marginalized women experience violence differently than their White heterosexual counterparts (e.g., Rajiva, 2023; Ussher et al., 2022). Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that women's experiences in various social contexts are richly diverse and intricate, encompassing a spectrum of experiences related to agency, subjectivity, and empowerment.

Thirty-five articles specifically discussed social or cultural issues of inequality in relation to women's sexual agency, subjectivity, or empowerment. Of those, 69% (n = 24) were qualitative, 23% (n = 8) were quantitative, and 9% (n = 3) were mixed methods. Many articles discussed social and cultural issues together, so the total is over 100%. The most common cultural experiences or inequalities researched were the experiences of Black women (n = 9, 26%), followed by experiences of race in general (n = 5, 14%). Other articles focused on Latina women (n = 3, 9%), immigrant women (n = 3, 9%), and Asian and Indigenous women were discussed in one article each (3%). The most common social issues or inequalities researched were sexual identity/orientation (specifically lesbian and bisexual women; n = 6, 17%) and age (specifically older women; n = 3, 9%). Other social issues researched were youth status (n = 2, 6%) and religion (n = 2, 6%). Disability and health were each discussed in one article (3%).

Although many studies frequently reported demographic diversity, there was a notable absence of in-depth analysis on how intersectional identities systematically influence the experiences and sexual agency of women. This extends beyond merely not using the term “intersectionality” and reflects a broader gap where the implications of social intersections on the findings are not explored or discussed.

Regardless of social context, a common trend emerged, with women experiencing immense pressure to conform to prevailing norms, often at the expense of their own sexual agency. Contemporary norms of femininity tend to favor young, White, heterosexual, slim, non-disabled women with no history of child sexual abuse. Women who fall outside the “perfect” category are perceived as having no social capital, are more likely to minimize their sexual experiences, and are even more likely to receive blame when they experience sexual violence.

Studies highlighted that racialized women who felt they did not conform to prevailing norms believed they deserved less agency in their sexual experiences (Lawrence & Giordano, 2021), while those who deviated from socially accepted norms faced fetishization and objectification (Avery et al., 2021a, 2021b; Froyum, 2010; Lawrence & Giordano, 2021; Ward et al., 2020). Racialized women were under pressure to conform to the expectations and beauty standards associated with White women, facing the risk of being hypersexualized or reinforcing detrimental stereotypes (e.g., the “Jezebel” stereotype; Avery et al., 2021a, 2021b; Froyum, 2010; Ward et al., 2020). This complex dynamic extended into their negotiations of sexual encounters, requiring a delicate balance between asserting themselves to challenge patriarchal authority and managing the fear of potential rejection (Ward et al., 2020).

Across various social groups, disparities in experiences of sexual agency were observed, revealing the nuanced impact of social location. Lesbian and bisexual women navigated conditional sexual agency within the confines of heteronormativity, underscoring the intricate relation between privilege and autonomy (Grose & Grabe, 2016; Lawrence & Giordano, 2021; Mackenzie & Brooks, 2018; Ussher & Mooney-Somers, 2000). Additionally, societal pressures on women to suppress desires, conform, or face potential violence perpetuated an environment where sexual agency was fraught with challenges, including the threat of corrective rape (Payne, 2010; Watson et al., 2021), while older women, struggling with issues of sexual invisibility, actively resisted stereotypes and advocated for their own needs (Fileborn et al., 2015; Miller, 2021). For individuals with disabilities and health concerns, their experiences were often framed as “problems” to be solved rather than approached with acceptance and understanding (Ashline & Crane, 2015). Similarly, religiously conservative women who had been socialized against sexual expression faced challenges in navigating sexual agency post-marriage due to a lack of clarity regarding their desires and boundaries (Finlayson-Fife & Aldarondo, 2002; Frydman, 2022). Consequently, attempts by these diverse groups of women to assert their sexual agency were met with pressures to conform to prevailing norms, undermining their unique experiences and desires.

The collective findings underscore the multifaceted nature of social inequalities in shaping experiences of sexual agency. This emphasizes that individuals’ ability to assert control and agency over their sexuality is intricately tied to their social context, including factors such as gender identity, sexual orientation, age, and cultural norms. It is clear from the limited research available that specifically assesses social location and sexual agency that sexual agency is a social privilege, and it is not uniformly afforded to all women. In addition to empowering individuals with knowledge about their sexual agency and how to navigate it, future research must consider how to minimize the influence of sexual scripts and empower individuals to challenge and redefine traditional notions of sexuality. Recognizing this complexity is crucial for fostering a more inclusive and empowering environment for individuals of all backgrounds.

Discussion

As research on women's sexual agency continues, new research studies must be well-informed, acknowledging how societal expectations intersect with experiences of violence, social identities, and social locations. This systematic review offers insights into what is known about women's agency, subjectivity, and empowerment within a context shaped by neoliberal, postfeminist, and patriarchal discourses. By delving into the complexities, conflicting discourses, and negative experiences that can impact women's sexuality, this review underlines the significance of continued research on women's sexual agency.

What Is Sexual Agency, Subjectivity, and Empowerment?

The findings of this synthesis are consistent with existing literature, which suggests that both neoliberalism and patriarchy play significant roles in shaping women's sexual experiences (Downey et al., 2022; Lamb & Peterson, 2012). Neoliberalism, emphasizing individualism, can impact women's self-perception and decision-making in intimate relationships. Meanwhile, patriarchal norms may reinforce traditional power dynamics, influencing how women navigate their sexual experiences. These factors create a complex relationship that shapes women's intimate lives. Despite the pervasive influence of neoliberalism and postfeminist ideals, discussions surrounding sexual agency, subjectivity, and empowerment consistently highlight an element of resistance in women's sexual experiences. Scholars discuss that these aspects represent forms of resistance within a confining societal framework (e.g., Berdychevsky, 2016; Horne & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2005). Expressing one's desires and needs in sexual relationships and prioritizing one's sexual pleasure can be viewed as a form of self-assertion and resistance. By vocalizing their wants and needs, women prioritize themselves while challenging the prominent narratives and scripts that position them as passive recipients of sexual advances.

Given that agency, subjectivity, and empowerment can be influenced by societal standards; it is crucial to recognize that they are not evenly accessible to all women, emphasizing the social power dynamics at play. Although the process of women expressing their sexual selves may involve negotiation with societal norms, it is important to be careful not automatically to label this negotiation as a form of oppression. Instead, this dynamic should be viewed as a complex interplay between personal autonomy and societal expectations (Beaver, 2016; García-Gómez, 2017; Thompson & Zurbriggen, 2009; Tolman, 2012). Women face many conflicting pressures to conform to societal standards while also seeking to assert their own sexual priorities. This highlights the prominence of a balancing act that diverse women must face daily between agency, resistance, and societal expectations. Multiple truths can coexist, allowing women to be subjectively and legitimately empowered, engaging in resistance while struggling with oppression (Lamb & Peterson, 2012).

Agency, Violence, and Intersectionality

The reviewed articles provided interesting perspectives on women's current experiences with violence, agency, and how their social location may influence it. A critical finding is the societal norm that male sexual interests should guide women's sexual agency. In instances of sexual violence, this expectation often leads to distorted interpretations, suggesting that the woman, in some way, “wanted it” or did not resist enough. This misguided perspective perpetuates harmful stereotypes undermining women's autonomy (Downey et al., 2022; Miriam, 2007). Moreover, the complexity of understanding sexual agency, subjectivity, and empowerment becomes apparent as some women may interpret their perceived sense of control over their violent or coercive experiences as agency or empowerment or even normalize such violence as expected behaviors in their sexual encounters.

Furthermore, this review highlights that sexual agency, subjectivity, and empowerment are a social privilege influenced heavily by intersecting identities and dictate who is permitted to engage in sexual agency. This privilege, or lack thereof, can have profound implications for women's experiences, influencing their choices, the potential repercussions they may face, and their susceptibility to experiencing sexual violence (Grose & Grabe, 2016; Lawrence & Giordano, 2021; Mackenzie & Brooks, 2018; Payne, 2010; Watson et al., 2021). For women to access more privilege, women of diverse groups may attempt to conform to societal expectations, often downplaying their sexuality or cultural identities. Women outside the accepted social norms and sexual scripts were perceived as having no social capital, with each intersecting oppression making sexual agency a more difficult goal to reach.

Limitations and Strengths

Although this systematic review offers valuable insights into women's sexual agency, subjectivity, and empowerment, it is important to acknowledge its limitations. The inclusion criteria, which focused solely on English-language articles and the predominance of United States-based studies, may restrict the generalizability of the conclusions primarily to North American contexts. Nonetheless, the review has several strengths. The comprehensive search strategy, encompassing a wide range of keywords and spanning 10 academic databases, ensured an extensive coverage of relevant literature. The mixed-methods approach adopted in this systematic review, encompassing qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method studies, provided a multifaceted understanding of the research topic. Additionally, while conducting a comprehensive thematic analysis of terms such as sexual subjectivity, sexual agency, and sexual empowerment may present challenges, the analytical process employed in this review significantly contributed to a robust identification of recurring themes and patterns across the selected studies. This approach bolstered the overall rigor and reliability of the synthesis.

Future Directions

In light of the findings from this systematic review, future research should examine the intricate dynamics of women's sexual agency, subjectivity, and empowerment and how they are influenced by intersectionality. Research must move beyond a one-size-fits-all approach and instead adopt a more nuanced understanding of how patriarchal and neoliberal discourses impact diverse groups of women and their experiences with sexual violence. By doing so, we can pave the way for a more inclusive and accurate representation of women's experiences with sexuality in contemporary society. Moreover, there is a need for studies that shed light on how marginalized women navigate their sexual agency within the constraints of various social conditions, addressing the barriers they may encounter. Such research will not only fill existing gaps but can also guide the creation of more effective, tailored sex education programs that consider the specific needs of diverse girls and women and the challenges they face in society.

Additionally, as research has inconsistently and interchangeably used sexual agency, subjectivity, and empowerment, future research should seek to utilize and validate the themes identified in the current synthesis. Developing a comprehensive measure encompassing all three terms studied would be valuable to understanding the relation between these constructs and how they manifest across different intersections of women. This would support researchers in capturing the multifaceted nature of women's experiences more accurately with their sexuality, offering insights into how these dimensions of sexual agency can be supported or hindered by various factors.

Practice Implications

This work calls for comprehensive sex education programs to empower women by promoting an understanding of consent and sexual autonomy and challenging societal norms. Such programs could inclusively address the diverse experiences of all women, teaching them to assert their desires and boundaries confidently. Implementing this approach requires a curriculum that integrates practical knowledge of sexual health with critical discussions on gender, power dynamics, and respect for personal agency, thereby equipping women with the tools necessary for navigating their sexuality with confidence and safety.

Conclusion

Overall, the findings from this systematic review illuminate the current state of research on women's sexual agency, subjectivity, and empowerment in our society. Research highlights that neoliberal, postfeminist, and patriarchal ideologies influence women's experiences. In this context, it is important to note that the scholars engaging with these constructs address and critique these ideologies rather than adhere to them. Their work serves to challenge and deconstruct these prevailing beliefs. These constructs are complex and intertwined with societal norms and expectations. The themes from the analysis emphasize the importance of women's understanding of their sexual experiences, desires, and well-being. However, it is crucial to acknowledge the limitations in the existing literature, including the lack of understanding of how these experiences differ among diverse populations. Additionally, it is essential to take an intersectional approach and recognize women's diverse experiences, avoiding the tendency to oversimplify them as a homogeneous group. By addressing these limitations and expanding our knowledge of women's sexual agency, subjectivity, and empowerment, we can develop a more inclusive and nuanced understanding of women's lived realities within sexual contexts.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-pwq-10.1177_03616843241245713 - Supplemental material for Women's Experiences of Sexual Agency Under Constrained Choice: A Systematic Review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-pwq-10.1177_03616843241245713 for Women's Experiences of Sexual Agency Under Constrained Choice: A Systematic Review by Storm Balint in Psychology of Women Quarterly