Title: Being Fast or Cautious? Sociocultural Conditions Influencing the Sexual Pathways of
Black Females in the United States
Version: 5 Date: 30 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for revising the manuscript, and for addressing many of the review comments to a
high standard. The result is improved reporting and discussion of what already appeared to be
an excellent study. I have a few further comments where some of my original points were not
quite addressed (below). All are minor.
(Also some very minor typographic errors remain or have been newly introduced in the revisions
– I trust that the authors and/or production team will pick these up on a final read-through/
proofing stage. There are a few sentences which now don’t read well: e.g. “A study of 766
female college students found that college aged female participants…” – repetitive. Also in the
footnote the addition: “The database sample described Grown as the second phase in the sexual
development of Black females” – this is the first and only mention of a database in the whole
manuscript, what is this database and what is the database sample? Is this part of the same study
or the earlier study?).
1. Insert: “Black populations groups have higher rates of concurrent sexual relationships by race/
ethnicity, therefore Black women are more likely to engage in sexual relationships with Black
men [10,15] [15].” [and following few sentences]
This edit was made in response to my comment #4 that concurrency increases individual and
group-level risk of STI; and #20, that authors could point out that choice of sexual partners
is highly assortative* by race/ethnicity. However the revision made doesn’t really respond to
point #4, and appears to link (or perhaps conflate) concurrency and assortative sexual mixing in
ways that don’t quite make sense. Concurrency and assortative sexual mixing are two different
things, and contribute to STI risk in very different ways. (The authors’ response to Reviewer 2’s
comment 3 also suggests that there is some confusion – the reviewer asked about partner choices
by ethnicity, the response refers to concurrency too, which is distinct.) [*Please accept apologies
for wrongly using the word ‘assertive’ instead of ‘assortative’ here, in my original review]
‘Black populations have higher rates of concurrent sexual relationships by race/ethnicity’ does
not make sense as there is no comparator. If ‘by race/ethnicity’ is deleted, the sentence still
does not follow: concurrency (overlapping sexual partnerships) conceptually distinct from
‘assortative’ sexual mixing (i.e. Black heterosexual women being more likely to have sex with
Black men than with men of other ethnicities). Using ‘therefore’ as a connecter does not work
as the second part of the sentence does not follow from the first. Please also correct the repeated
reference 15 and ‘populations groups’. (Authors could also delete the second comma between
the words ‘society, tends’, or – at authors’ discretion - rephrase as ‘Assortative sexual coupling
by race/ethnicity reflects the racialized nature of US society’).
2. Age at menarche. I suggest deleting the sentence ‘These findings are similar globally as studies
among sub-Saharan African girls report 11-15 as when menarche occurs, however older onset
more common among rural adolescent girls [35,36].’
This new sentence was added in response to my point #5 which asked if authors could provide
evidence for ethnic/racial differences in age at puberty (or age at menarche – NB puberty does not
begin at menarche), and asked whether the use of ‘Black’ in this context was specific to the US,
or the whole world. Neither reference 35 nor reference 36 provide confirming or disconfirming
evidence about the authors’ assertion that age at menarche varies by race/ethnicity. (Ssewanyana
et al provides no new data on age at menarche and cites other studies that have apparently found
a very broad range of menarche at 11-15 (please note, in general it is preferable to cite original
studies). Tegegne et al.’s random sample of schoolgirls in NE Ethiopia is limited in geographic
scope and excludes girls not in school whose nutritional status might be poorer; also the mean age
at menarche was almost 14, which seems somewhat older than in wealthier countries/regions,
including (largely White) Europe.) Crucially, neither study makes comparisons by ethnicity.
Given other changes that authors have made to the paper post-review, that make it clear that
the focus is on Black US women, it seems there is no need to discuss the global picture of age
at menarche, particularly if no global evidence of consistent ethnic/racial differences has been
located (as seems to be the case).
3. Discussion of ‘content analysis of sex positivity’ (‘sex positive research’ in original
manuscript – change not marked)
I appreciate that the reference used here has been updated (Hargons et al 2017 ‘Studying Sex: A
Content Analysis of Sexuality Research in Counseling Psychology’). Thank you for making this
change. However, the cited paper is not a content analysis of sex positivity. It is a content analysis
of sexuality research in counselling psychology – i.e. a lot of diverse research (sex positive and
not sex positive, and I imagine everything in between). It uses a sex positive framework (and
it found that only 5% of the research reviewed used a sex-positive perspective). Correcting this
error will make what you are saying more meaningful. E.g. ‘A content analysis of sexuality
research in counselling psychology suggests that when such research is conducted with people
of colour, the discourse is sex negative.