In the context of pervasive prejudice, violence, and mental health issues faced by U.S. plurisexual women, there is a need to better understand positive factors that can improve their lived realities and wellbeing. In this study, we conducted a qualitative examination of bipositivity-focusing on the experience and function of bipositivity. We analyzed in-depth 1-1 interviews with plurisexual women across the U.S. (N = 31) using reflexive thematic analysis. We identified three themes regarding how bipositivity operates in their social and internal worlds: (1) seeing and being seen, (2) internal bipositivity as an anchor, and (3) community-dependent internal bipositivity processes. Across themes, bipositivity was beneficial to participants' wellbeing and instrumental in their resilience amidst binegativity. Our findings highlighted the ways bipositive community was integral to the processes facilitating internal bipositivity and the cyclical pattern of processes observed from bipositive experiences to development and integration of internal bipositivity, maintenance, and transferal.

Disparities in physical and mental health have been well documented between plurisexual and monosexual women, but protective factors related to plurisexual identity remain largely unexplored. In this study, we aimed to provide an in-depth examination of the nature and perceived effects of plurisexual women's bipositive experiences, to the extent that others may apply knowledge gained to intentionally foster bipositivity. We recruited 25 plurisexual women to complete a qualitative interview. Using reflexive thematic analysis, we identified 4 themes across participant descriptions of bipositive experiences, including (1) "Me too!" bonding, (2) Showing up: Acceptance and affirmation from monosexual allies, (3) "Ports in the storm": The importance of queer spaces, and (4) Rosa is bi: Plurisexual representation in the media. Across themes, participants experienced positive social and psychological outcomes resulting from their bipositive experiences. Our findings have implications for developing interventions, supports, and consciousness-raising efforts to foster bipositivity.

Under cisheteropatriarchy, women's and gender expansive individuals' bodies are highly stigmatized. Research finds internalizing stigma about the genitals has negative implications for sexual satisfaction, but this work has predominantly focused on heterosexual cisgender women. We examined associations between genital stigma and partnered sexual satisfaction among Queer (including any minoritized sexual identity) women (cisgender and transgender) and gender expansive people. We also examined whether comfort communicating with a sexual partner mediated the relation between genital stigma and sexual satisfaction, and whether positive LGBTQ+ identity may buffer against internalized genital stigma (i.e., moderate relations between stigma, communication, and sexual satisfaction). We analyzed survey data from 452 Queer women and gender expansive people. We tested a moderated mediation model. Mediation was supported-greater genital stigma was associated with less comfort communicating with a sexual partner, and greater discomfort communicating was associated with lower sexual satisfaction. Moderated mediation was supported, as the negative association between genital stigma and comfort communicating with a partner increased as participants' LGBTQ+ identity positivity decreased. Our findings offer novel insights into genital stigma and factors that may facilitate and hinder Queer women's and gender expansive individuals' sexual satisfaction.

Institutions of higher education (IHEs) often disseminate risk reduction strategies intended to reduce sexual assault victimization and/or perpetration. This research examined the content and context of publicly available risk reduction strategies offered by a nationally representative sample of 4-year IHEs in the United States (N = 242; public and private not-for-profit institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and Tribal institutions). We identified strategies for 102 (42

Plurisexual women, or women attracted to multiple genders, are a large and vulnerable population in the United States. Plurisexual women experience higher rates of negative mental, physical, and sexual health outcomes compared with monosexual men and women (i.e., straight, lesbian, or gay). One potential factor underlying the high rates of negative health outcomes among plurisexual women is the pressure to "prove" one's plurisexuality through sexual and/or romantic behavior with persons of more than one gender. The current study used qualitative interviews with 25 plurisexual women of varying identities (e.g., bisexual, pansexual, and queer) who discussed their experiences with the pressure to prove their sexual identities, and what effects this pressure has had on their lives and relationships. Using thematic analysis, we identified two themes across participant responses: (a) external pressure to prove sexual identity and (b) internalized pressure to prove sexual identity. External pressure arose from others demanding plurisexual women disclose their sexual and romantic history, accusing them of faking plurisexuality for attention, and pressuring them into performing sexual acts. The notion that plurisexual women must provide behavioral evidence to be validated as plurisexual was internalized by participants (e.g., checking behavioral boxes, questioning identity due to insufficient "evidence"). The women in our sample discussed how their experiences with external and internalized pressure to prove their plurisexuality were harmful to their sense of identity and their relationships with others. External and internal pressures to prove plurisexuality were also connected to sexually coercive experiences. Our findings highlight two different forms of pressure to prove one's plurisexual identity, which may underlie negative health outcomes among plurisexual women. Public Significance Statement The plurisexual women (bisexual, pansexual, queer) in our sample experienced external and internal pressure to prove their sexual identities behaviorally, and were harmed by this pressure. These findings indicate that the pressure to prove phenomenon acts as a pervasive form of binegativity and chronic minority stress in plurisexual women's lives. This phenomenon is detrimental to the psychological wellbeing of plurisexual women and contributes to the erasure of plurisexual women's identities.

Many universities have implemented mandatory reporting policies requiring most employees to report sexual harassment to the Title IX office, even if the victim/survivor does not want them to. Such policies constrain survivor autonomy and are particularly relevant for graduate students, who work closely with designated mandated reporter employees. This study examined graduate student sexual harassment survivors’ experiences disclosing to mandatory reporters, including interactions with mandatory reporters and the outcomes of their reports. We conducted interviews with graduate student survivors whose experiences were reported to their university's Title IX office and analyzed data from the cases involving a mandated report. Using thematic analysis, we identified three themes: survivors lacked knowledge that they were disclosing to a mandatory reporter, mandatory reporters lacked knowledge about Title IX processes, and mandatory reporters provided support. When analyzing outcomes of mandated reports, most did not result in formal grievance procedures, and the few that were investigated and adjudicated did not result in meaningful sanctions. Accommodations were rarely used, because they were not offered, were not perceived as helpful, or their requests were denied. Findings suggest that the purported goals of mandatory reporting policies were not met and that polices should afford survivors more autonomy.

Following federal and state law, institutions of higher education (IHE) have implemented mandatory reporting (MR) policies, requiring some employees to report sexual violence they learn about to university officials regardless of victim/survivor consent (i.e., compelled disclosure). Proponents argue that MR policies are beneficial (e.g., provide survivors with support), while critics argue that MR policies that limit survivor autonomy can be harmful. Given the tension between purported goals of MR policies and potential risks to survivors, the current work provided a comprehensive analysis of IHE MR policies in the United States. First, we reviewed laws shaping MR policies. Second, we analyzed MR policies from a nationally representative sample of Title IV eligible IHEs in the United States. Third, we discussed the findings in connection to extant research on MR policies, identifying key patterns and remaining gaps. Our analysis suggested that federal and state policymaking has increasingly expanded reporting mandates for IHE employees. The majority of IHEs designated all or nearly all employees as mandatory reporters, but there was more variability in the breadth of MR policies compared to the previous research. The content of MR policies mostly offered minimal instructions for employees (e.g., to whom to report) and rarely mandated trauma-informed responses (e.g., how to respond to disclosures). In light of empirical evidence, which finds that those who are most knowledgeable about survivors' needs and the process of reporting to the university (including survivors) are less supportive of MR policies, our findings further indicate that current MR policies focus on compliance over victim/survivor support. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Abstract In this chapter, we review two emerging policy issues regarding sexual misconduct in institutions of higher education: investigation and adjudication procedures and mandatory reporting policies. First, we review key policymaking regarding sexual misconduct investigation and adjudication, contextualizing policymaking on sexual misconduct in higher education within its historical, sociopolitical background. We then discuss a current and controversial issue in investigation and adjudication procedures—due process and the use of live hearings with direct cross-examination. Second, we provide an overview of mandatory reporting policies for sexual misconduct, reviewing federal guidance and state legislation that have shaped these policies and discuss the important issue of survivor autonomy and control in reporting decisions. Finally, we discuss recommendations for policy reforms and future research on these two policy issues regarding sexual misconduct in higher education.

Objective: It is widely assumed that universal mandatory reporting policies (MRPs) for sexual misconduct are important for campus safety, but there is little evidence to support these assumptions. Hypotheses: Given the exploratory nature of this research, no formal hypotheses were tested. We did not expect universal MRPs to be significantly associated with increased reporting or postreporting outcomes. Method: Data on MRPs and sexual misconduct reporting in annual security reports and to Title IX coordinators at institutions of higher education in New York (N = 188) were used to examine the prevalence of universal MRPs as well as the relationship between MRPs and reporting and postreporting outcomes. Results: Descriptives showed that 44% of institutions of higher education have a universal MRP. Multivariate linear regression models indicated that universal MRPs were not significantly related to reporting in annual security reports; reports to Title IX coordinators, campus police, campus safety or security officers; or rates of referrals to additional services, no-contact orders, access to the judicial conduct process for sexual misconduct, or findings of student responsibility for sexual misconduct. Conclusions: Our findings raise concerns about the widespread implementation of MRPs and highlight the need for future research on their impact on student-survivor reporting and access to remedies and resources.

Many universities have implemented mandatory reporting policies requiring most employees to report sexual harassment to the Title IX office, even if the victim/survivor does not want them to. Such policies constrain survivor autonomy and are particularly relevant for graduate students, who work closely with designated mandated reporter employees. This study examined graduate student sexual harassment survivors' experiences disclosing to mandatory reporters, including interactions with mandatory reporters and the outcomes of their reports. We conducted interviews with graduate student survivors whose experiences were reported to their university's Title IX office and analyzed data from the cases involving a mandated report. Using thematic analysis, we identified three themes: survivors lacked knowledge that they were disclosing to a mandatory reporter, mandatory reporters lacked knowledge about Title IX processes, and mandatory reporters provided support. When analyzing outcomes of mandated reports, most did not result in formal grievance procedures, and the few that were investigated and adjudicated did not result in meaningful sanctions. Accommodations were rarely used, because they were not offered, were not perceived as helpful, or their requests were denied. Findings suggest that the purported goals of mandatory reporting policies were not met and that polices should afford survivors more autonomy.

Sexual harassment of graduate students is prevalent, yet little is known about their experiences reporting sexual harassment to their university. We conducted interviews with 32 graduate students who reported sexual harassment to Title IX to understand how survivors’ experiences of harassment align with report outcomes. Nearly all participants experienced severe, education-limiting consequences of the harassment and reported to ensure safety and restore educational access. Most reports were deemed unactionable and findings of responsibility were rare, demonstrating a disconnect between survivors’ experiences and Title IX outcomes. Our analysis suggests that Title IX practitioners rely on notions of “severity” rather than harassment consequences.

The current study investigated how plurisexual women of varying identities conceptualize bisexuality. We conducted 25 semi-structured interviews women with attraction to more than one gender. Using thematic analysis, we identified three overarching themes: (1) definitions of bisexuality differ by one’s identity label, (2) concerns about sexual identity label inclusivity, and (3) outcomes of inclusivity concerns among women attracted to more than one gender. Non-bisexual women (i.e., pansexual, queer) defined bisexuality as limited to attraction to cisgender men and women and critiqued bisexuality as reinforcing the traditional gender binary. However, bisexual women defined bisexuality as attraction to two or more genders, described bisexuality as inclusive of attractions to all genders, and negative psychological outcomes as a result of the debate around bisexual gender inclusivity. Our findings suggest that sexual identity researchers might consider adopting the definition of bisexuality provided by bisexual women in this sample: attraction to more than one gender.

In institutions of higher education, mandatory reporting policies require certain employees to report students’ sexual assault disclosures to university officials, even if the student does not want to report. It is commonly assumed that these policies will benefit survivors, but there is a paucity of research to substantiate this assumption. The current study examined college sexual assault survivors’ perceptions of mandatory reporting policies, including three specific policy approaches (Universal, Selective, Student-Directed). Interviews were conducted with 40 college sexual assault survivors and thematic analysis was used to analyze these data. Results found that the mandatory reporting policy approaches that survivors prefer, which limit the number of mandatory reporters and offer more autonomy and flexibility, do not align with the policy digitalcommons.unl.edu Published in Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 2020, 21pp. DOI: 10.1111/asap.12226 Copyright © 2020 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues; published by Wiley, Inc. Used by permission. Submitted 7 July 2020; revised 30 October 2020; accepted: 2 November 2020; published 14 December 2020. To cite this article: Holland KJ, Cipriano AE, Huit TZ. “A victim/survivor needs agency”: Sexual assault survivors’ perceptions of university mandatory reporting policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. 2020;1-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12226 H o l l a n d e t a l . i n A n a ly s e s o f S o c i a l I s s u e s a n d P u b l i c P o l i c y 2 0 2 0 2 approaches most frequently implemented within institutions of higher education (i.e., Universal). Survivors anticipated more harms resulting from mandatory reporting than benefits (e.g., pushing survivors into disclosures before they are ready, increasing stress and anxiety, discouraging help-seeking from trusted sources of support on campus). Survivors lacked substantive knowledge of their university’s mandatory reporting policy. Findings suggest that policy makers at institutional, state, and federal levels should consider survivors’ perspectives when crafting such policies and institutions should increase educational efforts about mandatory reporting. W college students experience sexual assault, they face serious psychological and academic harms (Dworkin et al., 2017; Jordan et al., 2010; Jordan et al., 2014; Mengo & Black, 2016). As a result, sexual assault survivors may consider seeking help from people on campus who can provide supports or resources (e.g., faculty members, resident assistants). One reason that survivors disclose to informal providers, is a desire to receive emotional and tangible support (Ahrens et al., 2009; Demers et al., 2017; Ullman, 1999). However, in many institutions, these university employees would be required to report a sexual assault disclosure to university officials, even if doing so contradicts the wishes of the survivor (Holland et al., 2018). These “mandatory reporting” policies that require employees to report sexual assaults to a university official have been informed by federal guidelines, such as The Clery Act and Title IX. It is commonly assumed that these policies will benefit survivors, but there is a paucity of research to substantiate this assumption and existing evidence suggests that mandatory reporting policies may have adverse effects on survivors and campus communities (Holland et al., 2018). To address this need, the current study examined college sexual assault survivors’ perceptions of mandatory reporting policies. Mandatory reporting policies in institutions of higher education Mandatory reporting policies for sexual assault have been shaped by federal policy and guidelines, wherein mandatory reporters can be designated as “Campus Security Authorities” or “Responsible Employees.” The Clery Act (34 CFR 668.46(a)) states that academic institutions must designate certain employees as Campus Security Authorities. This includes those who are in charge of campus safety and employees “who have H o l l a n d e t a l . i n A n a ly s e s o f S o c i a l I s s u e s a n d P u b l i c P o l i c y 2 0 2 0 3 significant responsibility for student and campus activities” (e.g., residence staff, faculty advisors to student organizations; US Department of Education, 2016). In the role of Campus Security Authority, employees are only required to report general information (e.g., assault type, assault location) to the university officials in charge of publishing the university’s Annual Security Report (US Department of Education, 2016). Although the current administration within the Department of Education has rescinded the 2016 Handbook on Campus Safety and Security Reporting (Office of Postsecondary Education, 2020), institutions are still required to designate Campus Security Authorities under Clery. Responsible Employees, on the other hand, are required to report all relevant information about a known sexual assault to university officials—most frequently the Title IX Coordinator. This reporting role was established through Title IX Guidance from the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Responsible Employees were defined as an employee who “has the authority to take action to redress the harassment, who has the duty to report to appropriate school officials sexual harassment or any other misconduct by students or employees, or an individual who a student could reasonably believe has this authority or responsibility” (US Department of Education, 2001; p. 13). Because the mandatory reporting role under Title IX guidance requires the reporting of identifiable information (e.g., a victim’s name), the current study focuses on this role rather the role of Campus Security Authority. There is variability in how colleges and universities have interpreted and implemented the mandatory reporter mandate under Title IX guidance (Holland et al., 2018). In addition to the definition of “Responsible Employee” provided in the 2001 OCR guidance (US Department of Education, 2001), the Department of Education released a Q&A document in 2014 that offered more information about Responsible Employees (e.g., best practices for training employees designated as Responsible Employees; Lhamon, 2014). However, there is no prescriptive mandate as to which members of the campus community should be placed in the role of Responsible Employee. In fact, in recent rulemaking, the Department of Education explicitly stated that institutions have the latitude to make these decisions: “...these final regulations leave each institution flexibility to decide whether the institution desires all (or nearly all, or some H o l l a n d e t a l . i n A n a ly s e s o f S o c i a l I s s u e s a n d P u b l i c P o l i c y 2 0 2 0 4 subset) of its employees to be ‘mandatory reporters’ who must report notice of sexual harassment to the Title IX Coordinator.” (US Department of Education, 2020; p. 1959–1960) There are at least three distinct approaches to designating mandatory reporters, including Universal, Selective, and Student-Directed approaches (Holland et al., 2018; Holland et al., 2019). One of the most common approaches is Universal mandatory reporting, which is a policy that designates all faculty, staff, and students employed by the university as mandatory reporters (Holland et al., 2018; Saviano, 2015). A less common approach is Selective mandatory reporting, which designates a specific list of employees as mandatory reporters, generally employees in positions of leadership (e.g., heads of departments, directors) and those with significant responsibility for student wellbeing (e.g., housing staff; Holland et al., 2018). A third, and novel, approach implemented by the University of Oregon (2018) is a Student-Directed policy. This approach designates a limited list of employees as mandatory reporters (similar to the Selective approach) and requires all other employees to give survivors “information, resources, support and...only report the information shared to the university administration when the student requests that the information be reported (unless someone is in imminent risk of serious harm or a minor)” (University of Oregon, 2018). This approach requires Student-Directed employees to provide students with adequate knowledge of resources and reporting options, while ultimately deferring to students’ decisions on whether or not to file a formal report (for more information see Freyd, 2016). The effects and effectiveness of mandatory reporting A common assumption underlying the implementation of mandatory reporting policies is the belief that such policies benefit students who experience sexual assault (Holland et al., 2018). However, there is little research to substantiate this claim. The small body of existing research has primarily focused on students’ knowledge and perceptions of mandatory reporting in general, not among survivors. For instance, a study by Mancini et al. (2016) found that students held mixed feelings about the efficacy of mandatory reporting, with some imagining positive H o l l a n d e t a l . i n A n a ly s e s o f S o c i a l I s s u e s a n d P u b l i c P o l i c y 2 0 2 0 5 outcomes (e.g., survivors receive services) and others imagining negative outcomes (e.g., survivors are stripped of autonomy). A recent doctoral dissertation (Amin, 2019) found that while many students favored mandatory reporting policies, other students indicated that mandatory reporting would hinder reporting. Newins & White (2018) examined students’ perceptions of employees having to report “sexual harassment” and “rape,” and found that more than half of the sample were unsure if they would disclose or were less likely to disclose to an employee who was a mandatory reporter, and students who had personally experienced sexual assault were least likely to say they would disclose. Regaining a sense of autonomy and control is a key component to hea

Objective: Sexual assault is pervasive on college campuses, but survivors rarely use formal supports. A frequent reason that survivors do not use supports is the belief that the assault was not "serious enough." Our convergent parallel mixed method study examined the causes and consequences of minimization as a service barrier. We used qualitative interviews to examine the manifestation and impact of minimization in survivors' lives. We used quantitative surveys to examine whether minimization differed across four formal supports (Campus Police, Title IX Office, Counseling Center, Victim Advocate) and survivor characteristics (assault type, assault acknowledgment, race/ethnicity, sexuality), and the associations between minimization and mental health outcomes. Method: We collected survey data from 93 survivors and 40 semi-structured interviews. Results: Our qualitative thematic analysis suggested that minimization does not occur in a vacuum (e.g., minimization of sexual assault by society, peer groups, and resources fosters survivors' own minimization). There were few significant differences in minimization across survivor characteristics or type of formal support, but there was a trend that minimization was somewhat lower among survivors who experienced completed rape (vs. other forms) and labeled the assault (vs. unacknowledged survivors). Minimization occurred even when survivors experienced adverse mental health outcomes. Conclusions: Findings illustrated connections between social and institutional discourse around sexual assault (e.g., what is seen as "severe") and minimization. Survivors' endorsement of minimization as a reason they did not use formal supports does not reflect the consequences of the assault on survivors' wellbeing. Interventions to reduce service barriers should address minimization.

Sexual assault is a widespread problem on college campuses, and survivors rarely use campus supports. However, there is no established measure of service barriers for this population. This study develops and provides preliminary evidence for a measure of psychological service barriers. Data were collected from 100 college sexual assault survivors. Results provide evidence for three factors: social-emotional barriers, negative treatment barriers, and minimization barriers. Additional tests offer evidence for consistency and reliability in these factors over time and across campus supports. This work offers preliminary evidence for the psychometric properties of this measure and lays the groundwork for future validation research.

Women’s bodies are frequent sites of stigmatization. The internalization of negative attitudes toward the body can have negative implications for women’s sexual wellbeing. In the current study, we examined the relationships between young women’s internalization of body stigma—including body shape, genitals, and menstrual periods—and sexual satisfaction. Additionally, we tested two mechanisms that may mediate the relationship between body attitudes and sexual satisfaction: dehumanization (i.e., feelings of a loss of autonomy and subjectivity) and communication with a sexual partner (e.g., expressing needs and desires). We collected and analyzed survey data from 569 undergraduate women. We tested serial mediation models, such that more negative body attitudes would predict greater feelings of dehumanization, and more dehumanization would predict less comfort communicating with a sexual partner, and less comfort communicating would then predict decreased sexual satisfaction. We found support for serial mediation, which suggests that the links between body attitudes and sexual satisfaction may be partially explained by feelings of dehumanization and communication with a sexual partner. Our findings identify opportunities for intervention in practice and policy, and further clarify the ways that sociocultural stigma surrounding women’s bodies extends beyond the body—affecting women’s feelings of power, relationships, and sexual lives. Online slides for instructors who want to use this article for teaching are available on PWQ's website at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/0361684321994295

Experiencing college sexual assault is detrimental for students' mental health. Counseling options exist in every type of college/university, but many survivors do not use these resources and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) survivors may have additional unmet mental healthcare needs. Using 40 qualitative interviews, we examined LGBTQ and (cis)straight survivors' actual and anticipated interactions with counseling in a counseling center and women's center. More survivors used the counseling center than the women's center. Students anticipated and experienced positive treatment from both centers, but believed the women's center would have more experience working with survivors. Ciswomen (straight and queer) and survivors with marginalized gender identities (e.g., trans, genderqueer) were most likely to anticipate and experience negative treatment. However, the women's center may be less accessible for cismen and gender minorities, as there were concerns that this resource may only be for cisgender women.

Universities in the United States are required to remedy sexual assault under Title IX. Thus, college sexual assault survivors have the option to report to their university's Title IX Office as a mechanism for seeking sanctions and accommodations. The current study examined what survivors think about the Title IX Office, the possibility of seeking help there, and experiences with the reporting processes. Additionally, we examined the intersection between survivors' gender and sexual identity in their perceptions and interactions. We conducted qualitative interviews with 40 survivors at a large Midwestern University and analyzed these data using content analysis and thematic analysis. The majority knew about the Title IX Office and its function, but most did not use it. Campus climate often fostered service barriers, including the minimization of sexual assault, fear of negative treatment, and social-emotional concerns. Survivors who reported rarely saw accountability for their perpetrators and frequently experienced negative treatment from investigators. There were substantial inconsistencies in reporting processes across survivors. There were few differences in knowledge and barriers across sexual and gender identities, but only cisgender women reported. Findings suggest the value in reducing barriers fostered by the campus climate and establishing mechanisms for Title IX Office oversight and accountability.

In several states, bills have been introduced that require universities to report sexual assaults to law enforcement. Opponents argue that such policies can compel survivors to disclose against their will, stripping survivors of autonomy and harming campus communities. We used a mixed method approach to examine people’s support for reporting policies that do and do not consider survivor consent: compelled police disclosure (requires a report regardless of victim consent) and consented police disclosure (requires a report if the victim consents). We examined individual characteristics and attitudes associated with support for these approaches (i.e., had experienced sexual assault, trust in police). Participants (1,045 adults in the United States) were randomly assigned to read one of three policy statements, and we collected quantitative and qualitative survey data. Participants were less supportive of compelled police disclosure than consented police disclosure. People who supported compelled disclosure frequently focused on the crime and potential social benefits, were more likely to be non-victims, and held greater trust in the police. People who supported consented disclosure focused on the victim’s needs, were more likely to be survivors, and held less trust in the police. Survivor consent should be considered in the discussion of university-to-police reporting policies for sexual assault.