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.”
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.
Really? I’ve never once felt personally attacked as a cis man when I’ve heard the phrase “toxic masculinity.” I know when I’ve been a tool as someone will have probably told me or I feel disappointed in myself after the fact. I’m also a queer guy and on the spectrum so I’ve never really given a fuck about behaving “masculine.”
With the best will in the world, I think you’re still conflating the symptom with the disease.
Gender-policing is abusive, and abused people often behave in problematic and indeed shitty ways. While of course there are no excuses for shitty behaviour, it’s also incredibly shit to turn around and frame that behaviour in terms of the criteria by which they were picked out for abuse in the first place.
For intance (to get into properly uncomfortable territory), it’s fair to say that systemic racism drives poverty and disadvantage, which in turn can drive all kinds of antisocial behaviour and societal problems. But imagine for one second some sociologist coming up with the concept of ‘toxic Africanity’ (or equivalent) to describe it. They would get fucking dragged, and rightly so.
It’s not about being ‘probably one of the good ones’. It’s about looking at a bunch horrible maladaptive coping strategies, and asking what the hell it is we’re expecting people to cope with, and why we put up with that.
‘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”.
