Science Says Toxic Masculinity — More Than Alcohol — Leads To Sexual Assault

[Jolly_Penguin]

To the single soccer mom crowd, sure, the tote guy could be very popular with them. But if your goal is to spread your seed to the most fertile, "fresh" and healthy females (which evolution nudges men towards)you are facing millions of years of evolution pushing aggression as your answer I am afraid.

Of course, our goals change, and maybe that's not what you are after. In which case, you may be in luck. You can become the provider for an already made group of offspring by another. Personally that's the camp I fall into. I don't care, at all, about making my own DNA babies and am perfectly happy adopting. Skips the messy stages.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yes, I think so too. I debated whether I should put his picture in Hide tags so as not to cause excessive female arousal, but I ultimately decided not to, as I figured, "Hey...who am I to deny women one of the great pleasures in life?".

I still don't get no. 6. but, having googled, I've just ordered a collection of short stories by David Foster Wallace, and am slightly worried, without understanding why, that I'm now a bad person.

 

[ruby sparks]

To the single soccer mom crowd, sure, the tote guy could be very popular with them. But if your goal is to spread your seed to the most fertile, "fresh" and healthy females (which evolution nudges men towards)you are facing millions of years of evolution pushing aggression as your answer I am afraid.

I am no expert, but personally, I'm not sure what qualities in a man lead to him having either more sex, more children (if he wants them) or a better relationship with a SO nowadays.

There have been many far-reaching social changes, not least among them women's increased ability to be financially-independent, and sexual freedoms obtained by reliable contraception, which likely affect their choices.

There are also some interesting articles and research out there:

Do Good Men Get Laid? Science Explains Who’s Having the Most Sex and Why
https://goodmenproject.com/featured...ains-whos-having-the-most-sex-and-why-hesaid/

"Bad boys have a reputation for great sex lives, but science has uncovered something surprising about who is actually getting the most (and best) sex."

When it comes to love: Personality matters
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181120125814.htm

"Men with a greater range of personality traits, especially those deemed extraverted, emotionally stable, agreeable or conscientious, have sex more often and produce more children, according to a new QUT study."

I would not say that things like status, assertiveness and strength are not also still valued by many women, perhaps highly valued by or desirable to many women, but the overall picture may be more variegated that it was (and after the arrival of monogamy, somewhat socially-enforced, at least in theory, the historical picture would not have been simple anyway). Soldier, fireman, pilot, etc are still routinely near the top the list of polls of women's favourite (thought most attractive or sexy) male jobs, along with some others such as entrepreneur, doctor and lawyer, which suggest that money still matters. But whether such people still have more sex or have more children may be a slightly different question.

 

[ruby sparks]

After doing some more googling, it looks to me like the whole area of what women find attractive in men is.....just very complicated.

Try this (with apologies, especially to Trausti, for bringing up feminism after saying it was unnecessary):

Feminists Think Sexist Men Are Sexier than "Woke" Men
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/...eminists-think-sexist-men-are-sexier-woke-men

The title is slightly sensationalist and does not fully reflect the studies discussed. Also, the type of sexism being referred to is specifically benevolent sexism.

"Past research has suggested that evolutionary biology explains these dynamics, pointing to findings that women reportedly prefer men with more masculine features and more indicators of “fitness.” However, many of those sensational findings are in question, with failed replications leading to doubt that these effects can be reliably predicted or measured."

and

"Women who find sexist men attractive are not being traitors to other women, nor are they naïve women who don’t understand their choices. Instead, they are women who are making rational decisions, accepting tradeoffs. They are women who recognize that it may be more beneficial to have a partner who is committed to them and willing to sacrifice for them and their family, than it is to have a “woke” feminist man who wants them to be independent."

and

"Gul and Kupfer’s research offers a new way to approach these complex dynamics of attraction, integrating the role of evolutionary influences, with culturally-influenced social role expectations. It also challenges some of the misleading beliefs that blame both women and men for the persistence of sexism in our society."



Whatever. I think this slight segue (which I may be to blame for at least as much as anyone else) into what women find attractive in men is somewhat away from the OP topic. It may be related to it in some way, but it does not seem to be in the way that Trausti implied when more or less saying that toxic masculinity (or whatever you want to call it) exists because it's 'what women want'. Which I thought was dubious in the first place. It is at least much more complicated than that, it seems. And in any case, that could, depending on what was made of it, become an appeal to nature justification in any case.

Or to put it another way, the most important thing about whether your masculinity is toxic or not may not be how much women want to date or have sex with you.

Perhaps we could get back closer to the OP topic if someone would offer some comments on the 'men's retreat' article:

After MeToo: What I Learned on a Men-Only Retreat
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/What_I_Learnt_On_A_Men_Only_Retreat

That is, at least, directly about masculinity and men's issues.

 

[ruby sparks]

Male feminist wondering how long does he have to agree with women until he gets laid

Judging by the Psychology today article above, that point could now actually be taken, Trausti.

 

[ruby sparks]

The word 'evolution' seems a bit tricky. I do not pretend to understand it fully, even in the strictly biological, non-colloquial sense. In the biological sense, it has to involve, as I understand it, heritable characteristics. If something is learned, say culturally, does it (a) never become heritable, (b) always become heritable, (c) sometimes become heritable or (d) is it not known for certain in the case of at least some characteristics? Furthermore, even if something is heritable, how much does that determine its expression? How malleable (to learning and what are called nurture conditions) are the characteristics if expressed? My guess (partly informed by having a daughter with a masters in genetics and partly by reading around) is that the answers, particularly perhaps for some of the characteristics which are relevant here, are very complicated and the picture incomplete.

So, maybe we can say that we don't know the answer to the question, how much is nature and how much is nurture, but that we might reasonably say that it's a mix of both for most characteristics.

That, I think, is what makes it reasonable to say that certain things can be changed over very short timescales, possibly even in terms of a lifetime. Which I think is demonstrably and clearly true, because people change, and over slightly longer timescales, societies and cultures change, and indeed there is variety in the world at any one time. Sexual, gender and gender politics issues, including the one being discussed here, differ quite a lot between, say, Uganda*, Sweden, the UK and the USA, for instance.

In other words, regardless of whether this or that characteristic has (biologically) evolved or not, that is not, clearly, a good reason to say that nothing can be done about it, obviously. Also 'what is desirable' is not something biological evolution, as a process, is even capable of giving a damn about. Only we can give a damn about it, and indeed 'what is desirable (and undesirable)' is ultimately what we as individuals and societies deem it to be.

Now, because we are a social species, one factor in personal change is social change. This gets us on to social norms, and what is called the 'evolution' of social norms, and of course gender roles and gender role expectations. Excellent introductory article on the former here:

The Evolution of Social Norms
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-economics-080614-115322
(particular emphasis on game theory, but discusses social norms generally)

Something can be deemed or felt to be ok just because the set of social norms allow that (again, see the video below). And things like 'boys will be boys' would be another example. Making comments to, whistling at, even just staring at, and certainly following after women in the street in order to try to engage them in uninvited and possibly unwanted conversation, or touching women inappropriately in a nightclub or social situation, might be others. And yes I would take those things very seriously, even before we get to the arguably more serious issues of physical sexual assault and rape and other violence.

Bottom line: attempts to respond to, deal with, address and/or curtail what is called toxic masculinity (and/or just undesirable male behaviour, if you like) are attempts to steer social norms in a certain, deemed 'better' direction. And I am good with that, and think that we 'should' (and can) do it, and indeed have already, and can do more. And maybe we should set aside questions (that we can't fully answer yet) about biological evolution, and focus on something else instead, something we can do something about. Even if it is complicated, and/or involves hard work.

Or is all of that just restating the bleedin' obvious?

And is also saying that when it comes to bringing in 'what Feminists think' (or 'why Feminism is wrong about this' or even just being non-constructive, or picking holes, being negative, or making objections, especially perhaps because one feels that one's identity group or gender or sex are 'under attack' or being maligned unfairly) and getting embroiled in pointless, repetitive arguments along those lines, that there is a better way to respond? Is that stating the bleedin' obvious too?

[/gets on soapbox]





* If you don't believe me, watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8zk37SybAs

Not meant to start a separate discussion. Only meant to possibly illustrate how perhaps the two men in the discussion 'feel it is ok' to speak and behave in a certain way and have certain attitudes, in the context of what they feel are the social and cultural norms of the society of which they are members. In another society, the behaviour, especially of the man on the right, and possibly even the host, would likely be called sexual harassment, and quite possibly, imo, might even be validly called an instance or instances of toxic masculinity.

 

[ruby sparks]

And there are interesting aspects about what is acceptable/desirable and what is not. And something tells me the point I am about to make will be picked up on and agreed with more readily by more men here than some other points.

Setting aside rape and serious physical sexual assault, when it comes to some of the other behaviours and attitudes which are brought up, let's use an example a man trying to chat up a woman, in the street or in a bar or social situation (and obviously there will be differences between those).

The chances of success and reciprocation seem to depend on many things. For example, whether the woman is open to such an approach (from anyone) in the first place. She may be walking on the street or in a bar for entirely different reasons and may not be open to approach. Let's say that she is at least willing to be diverted from whatever she is doing (she could also be actively seeking approaches or merely half hoping for them, but that again might be slightly different). Then, the chances of success for the approacher, the instigator (and men are still, by and large expected to be the ones to make the effort to be instigators more often and as such have to deal with rejection more often in such situations) seem to depend on the woman's assessment (initial and ongoing) of whether the man is suitable and/or desirable (even for a chat, which may be all she is willing to have with him). I won't make a list because as per above it seems that there is great variety as to what suitable and desirable means to different women. Studies suggest that perceived status is one of them, for instance.

My point is just that what might be considered harassment in one case might not in another, even by the same woman in a particular society with particular social norms.

From the man's point of view, the best advice might be 'don't be an arse', or more politely and kindly, don't persist unless it is warranted by feedback, and in particular, take a declination as a declination, if expressed (either in body language or action or words). Try to objectively assess the reactions and understand (including the biggie, that the woman is probably much less likely to be interested in dating or having sex with you than you might falsely believe). And obviously, think carefully before assuming it's even appropriate to make an advance in the first place. That one, I agree, can be tricky, especially in social situations. As can knowing when to persist and when not to. Personally, I tend to cease after the first 'refusal' (or lack of expression of interest) but that's just me. I'm happy with it though. And it doesn't mean 'never try again', but it might mean, 'take note and definitely leave it for now and don't get your hopes up, even on a future occasion'. If there ever is a second occasion and I decide to try to instigate, with no success, two is usually enough and I'll quit.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Years of research both in and out of the lab suggests that there is a connection between young men drinking alcohol and making choices that destroy young women’s lives. But it’s not accurate to say alcohol causes sexual assault. Preventing rape will take more than simply convincing young men not to drink (let alone telling their victims to abstain). That’s because booze is only part of the problem. Every drink is downed amid cultural expectations and societally mediated attitudes about women and power. Those things — and how young men absorb them — have a stronger causal influence than the alcohol alone. When a man feels entitled to assault someone, he may get drunk before he does it, but the decision to act was ultimately his alone.

Testing what causes real-world sexual assaults is particularly complicated by the fact that the men who commit them have things in common with each other that go far beyond booze. If you compare men who have perpetrated sexual assault to those who have not, the perpetrator group always drinks more, Testa said. For example, one study found that 53 percent of men who reported committing sexual violence met a diagnosis for alcoholism, compared with 25 percent of sexually active men who did not report committing sexual violence. But the impact of these other variables — anti-social behavior, for instance, and negative views about women — are much stronger predictors of sexual violence than alcohol use. “And then alcohol is just sort of on top of it,” she said.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...ty-more-than-alcohol-leads-to-sexual-assault/

Bullshit. That's not what the study is about at all. The study was about whether or not alcohol was a deciding factor for sexual assault. The study showed that it wasn't. That does not imply toxic masculinity. The writer of that article just inferred that based on nothing.

I don't think "toxic masculinity" is a real thing. I think it's just a vacuous pop phrase thrown around. Here's something I'm confident is true. As long as we keep discussing toxic masculinity, as if it's a real thing, we can be sure as hell never to solve whatever it is that leads to sexual assault.

 

[RVonse]

Do Good Men Get Laid? Science Explains Who’s Having the Most Sex and Why
https://goodmenproject.com/featured...ains-whos-having-the-most-sex-and-why-hesaid/

"Bad boys have a reputation for great sex lives, but science has uncovered something surprising about who is actually getting the most (and best) sex."

When it comes to love: Personality matters
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181120125814.htm.

From the article : " Nope. And women don’t want that man either; not for long! In global research covering every continent but Antarctica, women place kindness, loyalty, and lovingness—i.e., being a Good Man—at the very top of their list of requirements for a mate.

In numerous studies, jerks are, by their own admission, less relationship-oriented, less friendly, less forgiving, less trusting, less helpful, less warm, less caring, less cooperative, and less sympathetic than non-jerks—precisely the opposite of the kind, loving, loyal heart women in 37 cultures and countries say they absolutely require in a mate. Jerks are less well-liked, they have more stress, and they have less happy lives. Basically, they have a little more money, and that’s it."

I totally dissagree with this. Yes, it is the way women might fill out their poll. But it is NOT how womens brains are wired. It just isnt.

When it comes to "too masculine" men that women say do not prefer , the women say one thing but act totally different in real life.

Women abhor nice rudderless guys. Despite what they are telling a poll.

 

[ruby sparks]

Bullshit. That's not what the study is about at all. The study was about whether or not alcohol was a deciding factor for sexual assault. The study showed that it wasn't. That does not imply toxic masculinity. The writer of that article just inferred that based on nothing.

I don't think "toxic masculinity" is a real thing. I think it's just a vacuous pop phrase thrown around. Here's something I'm confident is true. As long as we keep discussing toxic masculinity, as if it's a real thing, we can be sure as hell never to solve whatever it is that leads to sexual assault.

Bullshit.

 

[ruby sparks]

I totally dissagree with this. Yes, it is the way women might fill out their poll. But it is NOT how womens brains are wired. It just isnt.

When it comes to "too masculine" men that women say do not prefer , the women say one thing but act totally different in real life.

Women abhor nice rudderless guys. Despite what they are telling a poll.

Where did you get the word 'rudderless' from?

In any case, you surely know what way women's brains are wired.

Because you have information on what choices they actually make, and what preferences they have, away from polls, and about who gets more sex. Do you?

And even if you do (and it would be interesting) as noted, getting or not getting more sex is arguably not really the most important thing to discuss about being toxic or not.

And I think you somewhat missed the point of the first article anyway (regarding sex in marriage) and you didn't comment on the second.

 

[RVonse]

I totally dissagree with this. Yes, it is the way women might fill out their poll. But it is NOT how womens brains are wired. It just isnt.

When it comes to "too masculine" men that women say do not prefer , the women say one thing but act totally different in real life.

Women abhor nice rudderless guys. Despite what they are telling a poll.

Where did you get the word 'rudderless' from?

In any case, you surely know what way women's brains are wired.

Because you have information on what choices they actually make, away from polls, and about who gets more sex. Do you?

And as noted, getting or not getting more sex is not really the main thing about being toxic or not.

Thats is a fair point.

I base my statement on real life observation over 60 years that I have lived. I an certain that is how women act because I have seen it time and time again and with first hand observation. Women want to be with men that compliment them and that is NOT men that act like females. They inherently prefer so called toxic masculinity on the primal level that goes far deeper than their cognitive beliefs.

If toxic masculinity were such a bad thing it would have died out when the neanderthal's did. The fact it has not proves that it is very important to women. They are the ultimate gatekeepers of reproduction and what will be born and from who. That is how I know that toxic masculinity is here to stay.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Bullshit. That's not what the study is about at all. The study was about whether or not alcohol was a deciding factor for sexual assault. The study showed that it wasn't. That does not imply toxic masculinity. The writer of that article just inferred that based on nothing.

I don't think "toxic masculinity" is a real thing. I think it's just a vacuous pop phrase thrown around. Here's something I'm confident is true. As long as we keep discussing toxic masculinity, as if it's a real thing, we can be sure as hell never to solve whatever it is that leads to sexual assault.

Bullshit.

Care to develop your argument?

 

[untermensche]

Women abhor nice rudderless guys. Despite what they are telling a poll.

Men abhor a rudderless woman.

If you have ideas you want to be around somebody with ideas of their own and an intelligence that can check your ideas not merely accept them.

 

[ruby sparks]

Thats is a fair point.

Kudos.

I base my statement on real life observation over 60 years that I have lived. I an certain that is how women act because I have seen it time and time again and with first hand observation.

Fair enough. And I, and we all, could base stuff on that.

One thing worth noting, we all sometimes have confirmation bias, so it is possible that when we relate our personal observations, they are affected by that. If we think something is the case, we tend to count the hits, the instances of it, and not the misses.

Women want to be with men that compliment them and that is NOT men that act like females.

I don't think being 'non-toxic' means acting like a female though. No way. At least not necessarily.

They inherently prefer so called toxic masculinity on the primal level that goes far deeper than their cognitive beliefs.

I'm sure that's true to some extent and for some women, possibly for many or most women to at least a small degree. I don't actually know. But it is, apparently, a 'thing' to some extent. It is at least a thing that is widely believed to be the case (which is not necessarily the same as it actually being the case, or the case to the extent believed). But I would have to say that this is not what I have observed or experienced in my own 60 years, at all. Far from it. By the same token, I could suffer from confirmation bias too.

Or we may live and have lived in different contexts.

If toxic masculinity were such a bad thing it would have died out when the neanderthal's did. The fact it has not proves that it is very important to women. They are the ultimate gatekeepers of reproduction and what will be born and from who.

Possibly. It could also be a not useful byproduct of something that is useful. In any case, being useful to evolution, being 'natural' in that way, does not make something good.

That is how I know that toxic masculinity is here to stay.

It may be here to stay, or it may not, but it doesn't have to be as it is now or as prevalent as it is, where it is prevalent. Life could be better with less of it, that's all, for everyone, boys, girls, women, 'non-toxic behaviour' men and even 'toxic behaviour' men. In fact, those who are most toxically masculine, many of whom are criminals in prisons (a sort of enforced men-only 'retreat') could benefit the most. Where's that really awesome video I posted earlier about the group therapy exercises in prisons? Not for sexual crimes, necessarily.

In many ways, I don't blame such men. I think they have to be punished. But blame? Ok, only insofar as it does any good, which it often doesn't. Many of those men just had a really crap upbringing and stuff, with few or none of what I might call the (fortunate) privileges and breaks that I had. They are not all bad people, they just unfortunately ended up doing bad things. And even if some of them are 'bad' in terms of having certain traits and dispositions, they didn't ask to be born with those.

If I had, literally, had their life, I'd have ended up in the prison instead.

I've always believed that change, personal and societal, is possible. It's just hard work, mostly very hard work. Stuff persists, including norms. But there are also tipping points, where stuff changes.

 

[ruby sparks]

Care to develop your argument?

I'm very sure I already have, on previous occasions. As to now, I'm currently trying to focus on being more constructive about the issue, as a phenomenon, whatever it is called.

As to discussing it with you, even assuming you would even agree that it exists at all by any name, that has not really been very fruitful as far as I am concerned, and I think we disagree on too much that is foundational. Though I agree with you on many things, up to a point. But I'm probs not going to get into a debate with you though. I think we've been there done that.

 

[laughing dog]

If toxic masculinity were such a bad thing it would have died out when the neanderthal's did. The fact it has not proves that it is very important to women.

That is very poor reasoning. Using that logic, murder is not a such a bad thing, since it has not died out when the neanderthal's did.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yes, it is the way women might fill out their poll.

I meant to comment on this earlier.

Yes, what people (men or women) say in a poll may not necessarily accurately reflect either their actual preferences or what they would actually choose in real life. I would definitely be careful before suggesting that women more than men do not give accurate or true answers though, or claim which sex is more in touch with their inner/nonconscious desires.

Do you think that if you are polled, you can give accurate answers about what it is you find attractive? If so, I can't think of a good reason not to think that women can equally, and who knows, possibly better, because they say (and it seems to be the case to some degree) that women are more in touch with their inner feelings than men are, generally speaking.

Ah, I might hear you say, but not when it comes to something as basic as sexual attraction. For that, men have direct, unhindered access to the primal source, and women may not, because of societal and cultural restrictions (not wanting to self-identify as a slut or as merely promiscuous, for example, because of internalising such labels as applied by others, male and female). However, think of it another way. Perhaps when a man thinks he wants sex, he really wants love or acceptance? That is where men may fall foul of their own self-reporting. Possibly. Which would you rather have, 'from' (with) a woman, if you had to choose only one? Love and acceptance, or sex? Obviously, evolution does not and cannot care, and sex is arguably more vital for that, but we are more than just our base instincts, I believe. You may even have a different answer now than you might have had 40 years ago.

Anyhows, I'm only commenting to say you had a point about polls. I think I also mentioned issues with self-observing (we are somewhat unreliable narrators of our own minds).

Better than either are (a) experiments on actual behaviour, particularly in which the subjects do not know they are in an experiment and (b) measurement of attraction and arousal by physical means (brain activity, eye movement, skin conductance etc). And there may be others I'm not thinking of. And the results of such studies and experiments are truly fascinating and sometimes surprising. But I think it would be slightly off-topic to go into to them here.

I do have a relevant question for you though, regarding masculinity. And there is no judgemental agenda to my asking, other than pure curiosity and interest in the topic. But, why, do you think, do you seem (to me) to introduce pejoratives when describing non-toxic males? I'm thinking of words such as 'rudderless' and 'acting like a woman'. You are certainly not alone in doing so, obviously. I think I myself was 'lucky' in having two close sisters (one younger, one older) and a warm, intelligent and loving mother (albeit somewhat troubled and possibly damaged), while having a somewhat distant and uncommunicative (and depressed) father. I think, as a result, I didn't get 'brainwashed' by a 'dominant' man (a father or older brother) with traditional notions of what a boy, or a man, 'should be'. I may have developed other habits of mind as regards relating to men though, particularly 'father figures' (including one particular longtime boss at work) which I don't mind admitting have been problematical in certain ways.

 

[RVonse]

Women abhor nice rudderless guys. Despite what they are telling a poll.

Men abhor a rudderless woman.

If you have ideas you want to be around somebody with ideas of their own and an intelligence that can check your ideas not merely accept them.

Its very much more than that IMO. IMO women crave men who know exactly what they want and have passion and direction for getting it. They crave it. You will see many articles written calling this "men with confidence", but what it really says is men who have passion and direction. Men who have their hand on the rudder knowing exactly where their ship needs to go.

In my younger years I mistakenly figured women flocked around rock stars seeking money and fame. But what they actually crave is the passion and toxic masculinity.

 

[untermensche]

Women abhor nice rudderless guys. Despite what they are telling a poll.

Men abhor a rudderless woman.

If you have ideas you want to be around somebody with ideas of their own and an intelligence that can check your ideas not merely accept them.

Its very much more than that IMO. IMO women crave men who know exactly what they want and have passion and direction for getting it. They crave it. You will see many articles written calling this "men with confidence", but what it really says is men who have passion and direction. Men who have their hand on the rudder knowing exactly where their ship needs to go.

In my younger years I mistakenly figured women flocked around rock stars seeking money and fame. But what they actually crave is the passion and toxic masculinity.

People have to have compatibility to have more than a sexual fling. Woman generally just fantasize about rock stars they don't try to have a real relationship.

Woman want a relationship. They have physical criteria and intellectual criteria and social criteria and provider criteria.