A team of researchers, including Binghamton psychology professor Richard Mattson and graduate student Michael Shaw asked men between the ages of 18–25 to respond to hypothetical sexual hookup situations in which a woman responds passively to a sexual advance, meaning the woman does not express any overt verbal or behavioral response to indicate consent to increase the level of physical intimacy. The team then surveyed how consensual each man perceived the situation to be, as well as how he would likely behave.
The work is published in the journal Sex Roles.
“A passive response to a sexual advance is a normative indicator of consent, but also might reflect distress or fear, and whether men are able to differentiate between the two during a hookup was important to explore,” said Mattson.
The team found that men varied in their perception of passive responses in terms of consent and that the level of perceived consent was strongly linked to an increased likelihood of continuing or advancing sexual behavior.
“The biggest takeaway is that men differed in how they interpreted an ambiguous female response to their sexual advances with respect to their perception of consent, which in turn influenced their sexual decisions,” said Mattson.
“But certain types of men (e.g., those high in toxic masculine traits) tended to view situations as more consensual and reported that they would escalate the level of sexual intimacy regardless of whether or not they thought it was consensual.”
if only there was some sort of, say, image of pikachu, that could express my feelings upon reading this
“Men who are toxic generally are more likely to be toxic sexually”
Kind of a no-brainer. I guess it’s interesting that men who exhibit toxic traits are both more likely to falsely identify behavior as consensual and are more likely to proceed even if they do identify it as not consensual, but that’s not totally unexpected either.
Even if it’s obvious, it’s still good to have data to back these things up.
Fair enough, I suppose
Some More News did a recent episode on toxic masculinity and the lack of good role models for young men and came up with the very simple solution (sorry, spoilers) to young men who have trouble getting girlfriends:
Make a female friend. Not a friend you hope will be a girlfriend, not someone you think about fucking, just a friend. A woman you can talk to like a buddy. Learn about how to talk to women from a woman.
It is sad that great role models for men don’t really exist right now. Who would most men look to for guidance? An actor? They’re fine and all, but they’re not usually symbols of greatness, they’re actors…
Politicians? Definitely not, we all know there isn’t a single politician that anyone can really look up to.
Corporate leaders? Selfish people at the least, destructive at worst. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos aren’t anybody anyone should be going to for advice.
Online pundits? That’s where men are finding themselves because those are the only people talking to men specifically. Their guidance is flawed (an understatement), but when they’re the only ones addressing the problems men have, of course many young guys are going to gravitate toward them.
My role models, the people I aspired to be like as a kid, were always fictional characters.
The Doctor from Doctor Who, Jake from Animorphs, Tyrion Lannister.
I definitely never had anyone from real life who’d I consider worth emulating.
Same, but I also see a trope of men often being dumb or evil or both in a lot of current media. And that really doesn’t help create role models
At least they still have uncle Iroh
National Tea Appreciation Day, anyone?
There are plenty of good men out there. Teachers, bosses, coaches, etc.
Nobody gives a shit about them, because they aren’t famous, rich, or complete piece of shit. Those are the only ‘men’ anyone looks up to.
The issue is that not there are no good male role models, it’s that we have decided the only ‘good’ men are famous, and anyone else is subpar. Our cultural assumption is that all men are bad by default, and that only the best of the best rise above it.
Personally, I’m sick of this nonsense. The vast majority of men I have ever known are good men. But society loves to shit on them because they aren’t sexy, popular, or wealthy. And we love to focus on the POS men who are, who cheat, lie, and steal their way to the top.
It’s quite similar to the issue women faced (face) for so long with old role models like blonde Barbie, etc etc. not equating experiences but it’s all about what media is trying to push as a standard. It doesn’t help that society does often look down on men expressing emotions (beyond anger) and other behaviors that are seen as feminine coded. I’m glad I have people around me that I do and live where I love so I can be myself a bit more.
the standard that blows my mind is achievement gap.
a woman goes to college, gets an office job, gets a mid-managerial position, etc > she is amazing, awesome, superstar.
a man goes to college, gets an office job, gets a mid-manager position, etc > what a pathetic loser/failure
this is why we are setting so many men up to just give up at life. we have made the basic super hard to achieve for them, and told them that even if they obtain that, they are still pathetic losers… so why even try?
Is’nt it the definition? It’s like saying drivers who drive fast are more likely to drive fast…
Isn’t that kind of a core aspect of toxic masculinity?
“Bears with teeth more likely to cause injury to people they bite.”
The headline is a bit misleading. What it should say is that “men who score low toxic masculinity traits are more likely to seek enthusiastic/affirmative consent”. Which is a bit of a “duh” thing.
Even the authors admit that passive response is normative consent, and as much as I love enthusiastic consent, a lot of men AND women feel very awkward when you try that paradigm since they’re used to normative human sexuality. That’s especially prevalent with older men and women like millennials and gen X. Escalating sexual behaviour with passive consent is different from escalating without consent or against consent. Perhaps when affirmative/enthusiastic consent is normalized, we can have a different conversation.
“A passive response to a sexual advance is a normative indicator of consent, but also might reflect distress or fear, and whether men are able to differentiate between the two during a hookup was important to explore,” said Mattson.
That’s the exact point. In a future study they’ll be able to see if men who score high in toxic masculinity traits are more likely to not notice or actively ignore distress or fear.
I honestly suspect yes since empathy is not a valued trait in performative toxic masculinity, but with science it’s unwise to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions, like this headline does.
I’ve had several fledgling relationships end due to not being sexually aggressive enough. I’m too autistic to pick up on subtle hints, I needed a green light if they wanted me to make a move and they didn’t give me one and then got upset when I didn’t initiate things. It seems like such a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation. I’m really uncomfortable with the “just keep pushing until I say no” expectation some women seem to have. It’s a part of why I’ve pretty much opted out of dating as a whole.
Removed by mod
Everyone is shy and awkward and waiting for the other person to make a move first.
Except when they’re not ready for that yet and you misread a signal and they go gossip to their friends about how you were trying to move too fast.
The whole dynamic is ass backwards. If I’m dating a woman then I’m open to having sex with her. I wouldn’t have asked her out in the first place if that wasn’t true. All the men I’ve talked to about this have been the same way. That usually isn’t the case for women in my experience. It takes time for them to get comfortable with you before they are ready for sex. Even after having had sex with you in the past they’re not always in the mood to do it again. That’s perfectly okay but they are the one setting the pace for when things happen so they should be the one sending the green light. They pretty much have a constant green light from me so don’t need to worry about any awkwardness from getting rejected.
Removed by mod
You do realize that asking can follow misreading a signal? Which is what happened in the instance I was referring to. I’m more than happy to communicate desires. That’s literally what I’ve been suggesting here just that it should go both ways.
Best practice is to communicate before taking action.
It’s the same with building a house. Imagine you put one brick onto another, and only after that draw a plan. Kind of a waste of energy.
Talk first, act second.
Removed by mod
I never once have said saying no is not okay. If someone isn’t comfortable doing shit with me I absolutely want them to say no. I’ve never held that against anyone. The thing I have issues with is that “no” often isn’t the only consequence to trying to move forward before they are ready as in the example I gave where I interpreted a signal wrong and suggested we go to the bedroom, she shot me down, the evening continued on without any further pressure from me on the issue and then a week later I find out that afterwards she was complaining about me trying to move too fast to several of her friends. Which makes me look like an asshole in our shared social circle. That I do have a problem with and it’s hardly the only experience I’ve had where it was difficult to get a woman to communicate on the subject with me.
Your daily reminder that “toxic masculinity” was a term coined by men sick of the negative mental health effects on having to conform to aggressive and dominate stereotypes.
Ya know, in case you think some other gender came up with it.
Correct. I lack those “toxic masculinity” and dating life is so hard for me. What they called “toxic masculinity” is what women seek.
I ask you to recognize that “women” are as diverse as humanity as a whole.
Saying that all women are equal or want the same stuff, is like saying, all humans want the same stuff. Which just isn’t true. Maybe you should consider that doing statistics like “most women want that” is not going to give you a full picture of the situation.
That’s not true, but I’ve gone round and round with these black pill talking points enough to know that there isn’t anything I could say to change your mind, at least not here in this thread.
I implore you to seek out new content and to shut off whatever incel sources that told you this. It’s not some harsh but true reality that most people are too PC to say out loud, but a defensive mechanism to blame women for your loneliness. And tragically one that women rightfully see as 🚩 's and stay away from.
This lonely angry ideology is a self fulfilling prophecy and I can only hope that one day you understand that.
Removed by mod
Its not how it is used now. EDIT: Why am I getting downvoted? Its literally how languages work.
Correct, now its mostly used as a lighting rod strawman that defensive insecure men attack while ironically complaining about how poor men’s mental health is.
Which is exactly what the 60’s men liberation movement was trying to avoid.
It gets thrown around by liberals plenty of times in order to simplify complicated gender issues. I try to be a better person, but the more I try the more I feel everything I do is wrong. I did not feel that why when I was more conservative.
bingo… as a guy anything i do that anyone else doesn’t like is because of my ‘toxic masculinity’.
seriously been told that i am a ‘toxic male’ for riding a bike. shit’s wild.
.
I hate having to explain this shit to my daughter.
We were talking about the “man vs. bear” thing and about trusting strange men and how even if a man isn’t horrific enough to try to assault her, many men who help her will expect sexual favors in return and would at the least harass her.
This world is so ugly and I have to show her that on a daily basis.
about trusting strange men
Fair enough but the problem isn’t just “strange men.”
I agree, and we’ve talked about that issue as well more than once, but this was specifically in regards to that whole “what would you be worried about more if you’re alone in the woods, a strange man or a bear?” thing that was spreading around where lots of women said they would be more worried about the strange man.
The reason it really happened was that my daughter said to me that she would pick the man because the man would help her get out of the woods, so I was explaining to her why many women say they wouldn’t trust the strange man.
She’s (almost) 14. She doesn’t really understand how some men will end up preying on her yet.
Sounds like your daughter has good common sense to me
You’re missing the point. Of course being lost in the woods with another human is preferable to a bear. The point in choosing the bear in the hypothetical scenario is that women have felt so uncomfortable around men for so long, that it’s almost preferable to risk the bear than risk the man. It’s making a statement about how women feel they’re being treated by too many men every day.
Maybe listen to the women who say they choose the bear, they’re telling you something is wrong with how they’re treated.
Which makes me wonder about your gender…
Weird
FYI, this user was sharing the racist ass incel “men prefer the bear because it’s brown, tall and abandons their children” image in threads about man or bear.
Food for thought if you think they are making a good point here (they aren’t).
You can go read the full thread of that in the mod history, the image perfectly proves that misandry is ok on here but racism is not, if you think I literally stand by that meme then there’s nothing I can do about that lol
Actually I remember debating you on that, you just hate men
I wouldn’t say guys wanting to fuck equals an ugly world.
“Guys wanting to fuck” because they did a woman a favor is the issue.
How would you like it if every time someone did you a favor, they not only expected sex in return, but treated you like shit if you turned them down?
I guarantee you plenty of women on Lemmy can tell you stories about that happening to them more than once.
You just spent an evening out with Alyssa, a girl you think is really attractive. You’ve been dating her for several weeks. You think Alyssa looks really sexy. She’s wearing a short skirt and a blouse that shows her cleavage. You know that Alyssa has had casual sex with several guys since she’s been in college. Although you haven’t had sex with Alyssa, you’re really hoping you’ll get the chance to tonight. During your date, both of you had several alcoholic drinks. After your outing, the two of you go back to your place where you have some privacy. After chatting for a while, you and Alyssa start kissing. After a few minutes of making-out you’re feeling really turned on, so you start to reach under Alyssa’s shirt. Alyssa stops responding but doesn’t resist you in any way.
Oh are we role playing?
Ok let’s see.
You’ve put me in a tricky situation.
I don’t know whether we have ever made out before. What about alcohol tolerance? Is she drunk? Am I drunk? How big are her titties? Does she have a BBL? Is she dressed all slutty? Is she asking for it, if you know what I mean? Are the walls think enough to muffle her if she screams for help?
Oh how about this. This is a stupid scenario that people shouldn’t find themselves in because they talk about intentions and expectations during the beginning phases of a relationship. Really, that’s first week of dating stuff.
So what if she’s casually slept with other guys? Maybe she had a traumatic experience with the last one. Maybe they were liars. Maybe she doesn’t want sex with the current guy. Maybe she does and she’s not ready. Whatever her reason, there needs to be real, non-intoxicated consent before sexual contact.
People can establish good non-verbal communication that is sufficient to grant consent. But it takes longer than dating for a few weeks. And the first time having sex needs to be double and triple checked to make sure you didn’t misunderstand in your excitement.
I mean, if someone stops responding to you, something is clearly wrong. Either they’re not into it or there’s more going on than meets the eye and in the first case you shouldn’t proceed, and in the 2nd you should try to help them, not fuck them. Either way, I wouldn’t even ask them if they wanted to continue, I would stop and ask them what was wrong.
If they don’t truly respect themselves how can they respect anyone else? Truly sad for all involved.
I’ve heard of a similar study that showed conservative women don’t actually respect their spouses either. They put on a front for an audience, but it doesn’t extend to their actions.
I wish I lived in your world. I’ve had 3 rejections specifically because I asked for permission to kiss.
You revealed rejection, almost certainly did not create it by asking.
You are free to assume they lied to me.
Are you saying that they would have kissed you if you had just gone for it, but because you asked they said no?
I’ve met two people like that that I can remember, and I’m pretty sure not dating them was dodging some bullets.
But it’s also very likely that if you had just gone for it, they would have awkwardly moved out of the way.
Wow. Three whole rejections.
Might as well give up now and become a monk.
Or, you know, give women what they are literally telling me they want, which is what I did.
Yes, but only three times and then you give up?
Of course not. It was only three times where the problem was asking for consent to kiss, not only three times for consent period. My consent rejection list is considerably longer than 3.
Didn’t I see you in those threads about the women choosing bears over men supporting the idea of men listening when women tell men they need to change their behaviour? Why are you now attacking me for doing it?
Believe it or not, suggesting you need to try harder when your post suggests you’ve only tried three times is not an attack.
Reported that they would escalate the level of sexual intimacy regardless of whether or not they thought it was consensual.
Gentlemen, the moment you’re questioning in your head if the girl is consenting, you use your voice and ask something along the lines of, “do you trust me?” or, “keep going?”, or “do you like this/it?”
Fkin no brainer. smh
until she says ‘no’. you stop and take her home.
then she messages you the next morning ‘i don’t date pussies who take no for an answer’.
plenty of women have the toxic idea that their consent should and must be violated to prove your worth as a man, or equally, her desirability.
Jesus Christ, no. don’t listen to this guy.
Then you congratulate yourself for dodging a bullet and focus your efforts on people who don’t play those kinds of games.
Someone who sends a text like that is also the sort of person to “forget” their birth control or lie about std test results. So yeah maybe you got your dick wet, but now you’re paying for child support and syphilis medication.
You assume there are people who don’t play those games.
I know there are because I go outside and meet them.
It’s a lot better not to participate in rape culture and risk committing sexual assault, rather than submit to a woman perpetuating toxic masculinity, ngl. I wouldn’t want to be the person to get raped just because other people think that accepting “no” for an answer is for pussies.
dating is participating in toxic everything.
“You wanted me to rape you, on the off-chance that you were into that?”
“yes, and you’re a pussy for not doing it. I don’t date pussies.”
wanna cyber
Oh my, TLDR! (Statement not a summary)
sexual advances without consent by men is masculine toxicity by definition.
Toxicity is a spectrum. Some people are entirely toxic and love it. Others are slightly toxic and not aware. Yet others put in honest effort, struggling to reduce their own toxicity.
Thats not just men, that’s people.
sexual advances without consent by men is masculine toxicity by definition.
It’s a whole lot more than that.
This post right here is exactly why ‘toxic masculinity’ is a fucking shit term that should never be used.
The intended meaning of the phrase was never ‘men, who are toxic’, or even ‘men who are toxic’, even though that’s the straight-line interpretation of it.
What it’s supposed to mean is ‘overexaggerated performative masculinity required by social norms, the imposition of which upon men is toxic’.
Given that that’s a fucking mouthful and the short form is horribly misleading, I always go with “gender policing” instead.
Stop telling people how to do their gender, and a vast number of social problems will evaporate. It also places the blame on the actual cause of the problem, and expands to cover mandatory-performative-femininity as well, which is also a shit thing to subject people to.
‘overexaggerated performative masculinity required by social norms, the imposition of which upon men is toxic’
Huh, I always thought this was obvious but I can see how people can take it as “men who are toxic” since feminism is flattened down in some people’s minds to mean “women who want to dominate men” like wtf.
Also, thanks for introducing me to “gender policing”!
You know, gender studies is arts-faculty - people who devote their careers to parsing the subtlest nuances from the gauziest wisps of meaning.
Yet when it comes to making up two-word catchphrases like [HORRIBLE] [DEMOGRAPHIC], it never even occurs to them that people might associate [demographic] with [horribleness] when they hear it.
I’m just a little bit cynical about this.
Yet when it comes to making up two-word catchphrases like [HORRIBLE] [DEMOGRAPHIC], it never even occurs to them that people might associate [demographic] with [horribleness] when they hear it.
I don’t think anyone actually believes that-- it seems like you see it from bad faith actors online/in the manosphere. No one thinks someone who hates “big trucks” hates all trucks, or “crowded places” hates everywhere, or more to the point, that someone who wants to cut “toxic people” out of their life is going to never see another human. Yet somehow applying an adjective to “masculinity” makes it really easy to be misunderstood?
If the argument is that they should’ve come up with a phrase that’s less vulnerable to corruption by bad faith actors I might buy it, but I’m willing to bet that even something as specific as “overly performative aspects of how men express their masculinity because they squash their feelings and thus become dangerous to people around them, especially women” would still magically be “misunderstood” on the internet and reduced to “feminists say all men bad”.
“Big” is not a negative adjective. “Truck” is not (mostly) an identity or demographic group. You’d have to make up some term like maybe “murder trucks” to get close to an analogy. Would you not suppose that someone who advocated against “murder trucks” thought trucks were bad?
“Crowded” - maybe mildly negative. “Places” - not an identity or demographic.
“Toxic” - Ok. “People” - This hardly seems like an identity or demographic. Maybe if martians start talking about “toxic humans” we’d have an analogy.
And that whole last paragraph is just a straw man.
Let’s consider some real analogies.
“Poisonous Hinduism” “Virulent Femininity” “Malignant Jewishness” “Destructive Liberalism” “Pestilent Blackness” “Dangerous Queerness”
I literally just looked up synonyms for toxic and picked random identity groups. Could you imagine trying to make any of these phrases academic terms?
Could you imagine trying to make any of these phrases academic terms?
That’s a good point, but (most) of your chosen identity aspects aren’t widely known for being accountable for negative things like violence. How about something like “dangerous republicanism” or “genocidal zionism”? Maybe if exaggerated (or even say, toxic) masculinity wasn’t being weaponized so much these days to lead young men toward alt right fascism it wouldn’t come up in academic settings.
How do you have Toxic Masculinity? That’s not how the concept works…
How do you have Toxic Masculinity?
Yeah, it’s a flaw in the way it’s framed, methinks - it’s very easy to discern men who display behavior that are “high in toxic masculine traits” because they are the visible tip of the iceberg.
