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 we are going to broadly add buzzword adjectives to one gender, we should add them to all genders, equally: toxic femininity.
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)
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?
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.
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.
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.
Toxic humanity is what it is. Expressed by males here.
Is’nt it the definition? It’s like saying drivers who drive fast are more likely to drive fast…
I wouldn’t say it’s the definition, but I agree this is not surprising.
Toxic masculinity is much more though. Men bullying men because they do something “not manly” is toxic masculinity. It can be anything from not enjoying sports to showing emotion for any reason (even crying if a family member died).
I was in a private elementary school for six years with the same asshole teacher who treated me like shit all the time. There were several reasons, but big ones were that I didn’t like sports and I was sensitive, so I cried when something upset me.
Toxic masculinity fucked me up in a major way and it wasn’t even my own father (who also didn’t like sports and had no trouble showing his emotions) who did it to me.
It’s a terrible term for very real problem of toxic gender roles. I’m not sure if you meant to imply that these roles are only reenforced by other men, but that couldn’t be further from the truth.
Men and women reenforce these gender roles against men and boys, promoting the poor behavior.
Absolutely not surprising in the slightest.
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.
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.
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.”
