ORIGINAL PAPER Re-Embedding Sexual Meanings: A Qualitative Comparison of the Premarital Sexual Scripts of Chinese and Japanese Young Adults James Farrer • Gefei Suo • Haruka Tsuchiya • Zhongxin Sun Published online: 22 November 2011 Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 Abstract Through a comparison of the premarital sexual scripts of Chinese and Japanese young adults, we propose a general framework for cross-culturally com- paring sexual scripts. Based on a breakdown of narrative structure into six narrative components—act, context, purpose, actors, agency and consequences—this narra- tive component method of comparison provides a way of accounting for the con- siderable differences in Japanese and Chinese premarital sexual norms. Both Chinese and Japanese students’ normative cultural scenarios for entry into sexual intercourse situate sexual intercourse within a ‘‘love’’ relationship; but narrative component analysis reveals key differences in the construction of acts, agents and contexts. Both the Japanese and Chinese findings point to a process of re-embedding sexual behavior in sexual scripts associated with a narrower scope of relational purposes and specific social contexts. The differential embedding of sexual scripts in an idealized relational context is shown to be relevant for the cultural con- struction of sexual agency. Keywords Sexual scripts Á Premarital sexuality Á Virginity Á China Á Japan Á Comparative research Á Sexual agency Introduction: Comparing Japanese and Chinese Premarital Sexual Norms The sociological description of sex as culturally scripted behavior suggests that a comparative study of sexual scripts may help explain cross-cultural differences in premarital sexual behavior patterns (Gagnon and Simon 1973; Gagnon 2004). Comparative qualitative studies of sexual scripts are made difficult, however, because of the lack of a comparative framework. In this paper, we develop a general J. Farrer (&) Á G. Suo Á H. Tsuchiya Á Z. Sun Sophia University, Tokyo, Japan e-mail: jim_farrer@yahoo.com 123 Sexuality & Culture (2012) 16:263–286 DOI 10.1007/s12119-011-9123-0