Consent beyond Sexual Cues—Pre- and In Situ Interactions between Men Influence Men’s Approach towards Sexual Consent

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for the opportunity to review this article. This research is important, and I will certainly use it in my own research and in my teaching. My only suggestion is that authors engage with the literature on male  homosociality which, at the moment, is missing. I think this will not only increase the theoretical merits of the article, but it will also make it better mapped against this area of knowledge.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the introduction provides a good background, it would be beneficial to explicitly highlight the specific gap this study addresses compared to previous research. This will help emphasize the novel contributions of the study. Ensure all seminal works and the most recent studies are included. This will provide a more comprehensive and up-to-date literature base. Consider adding more references related to the communicative acts approach and different models of masculinity.

Provide more detailed information on the focus groups, such as the specific questions and observed dynamics.

In the results section, add visual aids such as tables, figures, or charts to summarize key findings. Also, ensure that quotations from participants are given sufficient context to understand the situations described. 

It will be interesting to explore the potential implications of the findings for policy and practice in more depth in the discussion. Discuss how these insights could be applied in real-world settings to improve interventions targeting male interactions and sexual consent. Also, compare your findings with those of other relevant studies in more detail. This will help contextualize your results within the broader field of research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text is well-written but could be revised to check for small typos.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction could use some reorganization. For example, there were a couple of paragraphs that centered discussions around consent. Why weren’t those together? There are no transitions between paragraphs. Consider adding headers. I would also read through from grammatical errors. There were multiple run on sentences.

The following is an example of a sentence that needs to be rewritten because the current structure makes it difficult to understand: “Therefore, it is essential to look also at 60 non-verbal communication to identify whether or not there is affirmative consent, as a 61 passive attitude that does not actively stop the sexual initiative of the partner cannot be 62 confused with consent [10].”

The following is a good example of a sentence that is too long and therefore requires rewording for the sake of clarity: “The theory of com- 66 municative acts, which has been developed by CREA (Community of Research on Excel- 67 lence for All), integrates theories of language and interactions as well as theories of human 68 communication, so that the communicative act refers to both linguistic elements and the 69 rest of non-linguistic and contextual elements that form the relationship between people 70 [16].”

The communicative acts approach is not substantively explained before it is applied to the situation of consent.

I don’t know if it is just the way it is written but this paragraph is confusing. This confusion is pretty common throughout. “The present study is based on the approach proposed by Flecha, Puigvert and Ríos 101 [25] who distinguish three types of masculinities: dominant traditional masculinities re- 102 produce chauvinism and use violence; oppressed traditional masculinities do not use vi- 103 olence but reproduce the double standard that promotes the attractiveness of men who 104 treat badly while considering "good guys" as suitable as friends but not attractive in the 105 sexual sphere; and New Alternative Masculinities combine ethics and attractiveness, as 106 they are egalitarian men who partner with other egalitarian people with a clear commit- 107 ment against violence and do so with security and confidence in their positioning. In this 108 line of research, the scientific literature shows that there is a social pressure (among friend 109 groups, families, media, and others) that promotes attractiveness towards masculinities 110 with violent behaviors while trying to diminish the attractiveness of those masculinities 111 that do not use violence. This way, a type of masculinity is promoted that separates good 112 relationships from excitement [26]. An extreme example of this is cases in which those 113 who have committed crimes are presented as more attractive [27].”

The first paragraph of the Methods and Materials section reads like it should be a “Current Study” section. Especially because you start generally talking about the benefits of the study towards the end of the paragraph.

The recruitment and data collection procedure is confusing. It would be better to talk about the recruitment procedure before discussing the demographics of the sample.

Why did you complete interviews and focus groups, and not just one or the other.

The typologies in the results section are not clearly defined.

Did you use the participants’ real names? If so, I would use pseudonyms

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is okay. But there are still lots of moments throughout where ideas are not communicated clearly. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revisions made to this manuscript. You were really able to incorporate the feedback well into an article I believe is ready for publication.