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.”
Toxic humanity is what it is. Expressed by males here.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
If we are going to broadly add buzzword adjectives to one gender, we should add them to all genders, equally: toxic femininity.
Just because you don’t understand academic terminology doesn’t mean it is a buzzword
That is hardly academic. Rather it is tied to a generation that misunderstands the basis of gender as a whole.
Yeah see, I don’t think you get it. First of all the term has existed across multiple generations at this point, and really only unifies discussions of hegemonic masculinity that have spanned far longer.
Secondly, and more importantly, toxic masculinity has nothing to do with the “basis of gender”, unless of course you’re claiming that these traits are inherent to males, in which case I suggest you start with “The Second Sex” and work your way up to a real conversation. To put it simply for you, toxic masculinity is just a term used to encompass certain behaviours, and (more importantly) how they are taught and reinforced. It’s obviously more complex than that, I haven’t even mentioned the study of how the rigid enforcement of these behaviours can negatively affect men, but I suggest you learn from a book instead of random women on Lemmy.
Feel free to explain how this “toxic feminity” poses a threat to all and sundry on a daily basis.
Feel free to explain the opposite. It’s a poor premise of masculinity, if that is what you think of it.
What do you think the researchers mean by toxic masculinity? And how is “toxic femininity” relevant to this study?
How is the combination of adjective plus noun going to get you an unbiased study? Toxic anything creates bias before the research on anything has begun.
“Toxic masculinity” is a term with a certain usage by sociology/psychology/gender studies/etc. researchers which is separate from “masculinity”. Toxic masculinity is using performative gender expression / the presence or absence of certain gendered traits as a way to determine how “man” someone is. Toxic masculinity can be considered basically weaponizing the concept of masculinity, directly or indirectly. People who display stronger beliefs/behaviours/traits indicative of said toxic masculinity are labelled as having more toxic masculinity (poor wording I would say since it’s not something you “have”).
Not sure where you think “bias” comes into play. Biased in what way? Who or what is being biased for or against here?
Maybe elaborate? I know what toxic masculinity means, what do you mean by that, and toxic femininity? (everyones a shithead but bring receipts if you wanna be taken seriously)
toxic femininity
Yes, that is a thing. So is performative masculinity/femininity and so on.
The problem is that one is disparately expressed more than the other so you hear about that often. Like, toxicity over underperforming masculinity can get you harassed, bullied, and even killed. Toxic masculinity can also lead to rape if a woman isn’t feminine enough.
I’m very interested in how many posters in this thread are non-virgin men, because I’m not seeing any discussion of how behaviour like this is often absolutely necessary in order to get anywhere with a woman. Every woman I’ve ever met, including my current gf, has found explicit consent at every step an absolute mood-killer, and I’ve been rejected multiple times by other women for checking for it. I’m expected to sinply make an advance and give her the opportunity to reject it. I absolutely hate this, but it’s reality. I’m sure not all women are like the women I’ve met, and I don’t have hard numbers for you, but it’s also how every woman works in every movie, every book, every story about romance, so I’m sure most people reading this post at least understand what I’m referring to.
behaviour like this is often absolutely necessary in order to get anywhere with a woman
I can’t speak for the women you know, but most, if not all, of the women I know prefer men who aren’t overly-aggressive misogynistic assholes.
Every woman I’ve ever met, including my current gf, has found explicit consent at every step an absolute mood-killer
Cool. There’s a big difference between asking for explicit consent every time and noticing passive response and it’s a bit disturbing that you don’t seem to understand that.
but it’s also how every woman works in every movie, every book, every story about romance
It isn’t, but it certainly is in a lot of them that are written by men.
noticing passive response
I don’t know how unique or widespread my personal (male) experience is, but I’ve always had a very difficult time noticing anything less than a blatant response.
I’ve discovered (in retrospect) that I have missed tons of hints, clues, and subtle responses that I have been shown over the decades. Absolutely oblivious.
And in my attempts to be a decent person, I have always treated what I perceived as a lack of interest/consent and not pushed forward.
I suspect my romantic life and even friendship circle would be much more lively had I been better able to notice many of those subtle clues.
Even now approaching my grey-hair years, I am not very good at “picking up what people are putting down” unless they are quite blatant in their intentions.
Then I guess you need to find someone who is blatant enough to help you understand.
You’re not owed a girlfriend or sex.
same. the real world is very different than the world of internet words.
i have never ever met a woman who wanted ‘consent’ in my 30+ years of dating. and plenty of them told me they are turned off, and many said they find non-consent, aggression, and boundary violation ‘sexy’. i have never met a ‘sex positive’ woman who wanted to talk about boundaries and consent for any sex act, including kinky violent bdsm stuff. they always told me ‘just do what you want, i trust you, talking about this stuff is gross i just want to do it’.
but nobody wants to talk about that because it violates their kindergarten level ideals of human behaviour. truth is a lot of people get off on non-consent and idealize it. men and women both.
Just want to say I’m sorry your potential partners are turned off by consent seeking. I definitely wouldn’t be with my partners if they didn’t find consent sexy.
I can promise you that the actual bdsm community cares a great deal about consent. Negotiating is a critical skill in that context, especially if engaging in stuff that might look nonconsensual. If you like your sex kinky and consensual you might seek out your local kink scene.
No. I am not interested in joining sex cultists who think they are ‘know the truth path’. Thanks.
you guys need to chill and stop recruiting.
Gross. Yeah, no. You should definitely be asking for consent if nothing explicit has been said. I’ve done it many times and it was always appreciated (including by my now wife on our second date when I asked her if I could kiss her), but more importantly, it was the right thing to do. If for some reason there’s a person that is put off by asking, that’s kind of a red flag to be honest. Good communication in relationships and sex is essential and the foundation of any healthy relationship.
There are many ways of asking, too. It doesn’t have to be some stitled “Would you like to have sex with me right now?” Also just generally communicating a lot before and during sex acts as consent and helps to build trust.
A lot of women have had truly awful experiences with men. Good communication and obtaining consent is not only treating women with the kindness and respect they deserve, but it also makes you stand out among the many men with poor social skills that make unwanted advances all the time.
Agreed. Your down votes and my down votes are toxic celibacy from those who no longer know how to go out and speak to women in person. Their lives are lived mostly on their phones.
What’s amusing is that these same people will, in other threads, bash men who take the only other feasible approach, which is the giving up you’re referring to. They want to have their cake and eat it, too: in this thread, it’s never ok to make a pass at a woman, but if you make a thread about being lonely, you’ll be told you’re a coward for not making passes at women.
I had one interesting experience when it came to explicit consent. I walked to the date, she drove. No alcohol was consumed by any parties.
She offered to give me a ride home, which I politely declined, and then accepted when she pushed. I asked her if she wanted to come inside, and she said yes. I asked her if she wanted to come upstairs, and she said yes. We went up to my bedroom, did the deed, I asked her if she wanted to take a shower together and she said yes. I asked her if she wanted to go for round 2 and she said no. She left, shortly thereafter, and I was pretty confused when she told me she had felt pressured into sex and didn’t want to see me again, when I thought I had intentionally given her lots of opportunities to say yes or no.
I still don’t think I need to get a legally binding document agreeing to engagement in sexual intercourse, but that experience really demonstrated to me that an extra awkward question or two is better than the alternative.
because a lot of women lie or at least setup a scenario of plausible deniability. they don’t care about logic or facts of the situation, only the ‘feelings’ of it.
in her mind she wanted you to seduce her. so she seduced you and convinced herself that it was 100% your fault.
many women 100% refuse to exercise any agency in sexual relationships, and even when they do exercise it… they deny they have done it.
why? because agency requires responsibility. by denying it 100% they are 100% not responsible for their actions.
in this woman’s mind it’s your fault she felt pressured. but the only pressure that existed was the pressure she put on herself in her head.
