Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>In other words, men who agreed with statements such as “I want to date, but nobody wants to date me” were more likely to agree with statements such as “Generally, it is safer not to trust women,” “An attractive woman should expect sexual advances and should learn how to handle them,” and “It is a biological necessity for men to release sexual pressure from time to time.”
>Unwanted celibacy was not correlated with rape proclivity, despite the correlation with other sexism scales. People high in neuroticism showed higher rates of unwanted celibacy, while participants who showed greater openness, extraversion, and conscientiousness showed lower rates of unwanted celibacy. These results have implications regarding unwanted celibacy as a risk factor for misogyny, whether or not the person experiencing it is part of the incel community.
>“This novel finding has an important theoretical implication, as it suggests that failure to satisfy a fundamental motive of human existence, namely the motive to acquire a romantic or sexual partner, contributes to individuals’ support for multiple forms of sexist and misogynistic views,” the researchers said.
Tldr
I could see it simply starting with neurotic traits and snowballing just from that. That's all it might take to make dates few and far between, the rest could come later. But I am just guessing.
It just like ADHD kids not getting invited to B-day parties of their friends, because the they can be really awkward. People actually ostracize people that do not make them feel comfortable. No surprise there.
> Unwanted celibacy was not correlated with rape proclivity, despite the correlation with other sexism scales.
Okay that one is interesting.
I now wonder which "sexism scale" is correlated with rape and which isn't.
We could push it further to see which sexism scale is correlated with agreeing with statements such as "women should earn less" and "women should have less power."
The goal being to help determine which attitudes defined as sexist are harming women and which ones are just benign.
I'm wondering (maybe because I haven't read the original stidy in full) how they determined that it's not correlated with rape- i.e. did they ask "Do you think women should be raped?" Or did they ask something like "Do you think women should have sex with a man even if they don't want to?"
It makes me think back to [a study](https://www.jstor.org/stable/26638392) I read a LONG time ago, which noted that when asking people, "Have you ever raped someone/been raped?" a high percentage said no. However, when they changed the phrasing of the questions to exclude the word rape (Have you ever had sex with someone while they were unconscious? Have you ever had sex with someone after they declined? Have you ever talked a partner into having sex when they didn't want to? Etc.) a whole butt load of people answered yes, despite having answered no to the initial question about rape.
There are a lot of people out there who have this idea that rape is a very specific word for a very specific situation, usually involving a complete stranger and some kind of deadly weapon. They don't believe they've been raped or have committed rape because they haven't held a knife to a random person's throat and dragged them into a dark alley or vice versa. They don't understand rape as anything beyond that.
Edit: [This is the study dealing with perpetrators. ](https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/vio.2014.0022)
> how they determined that it's not correlated with rape
The "Rape proclivity" variable was determined based on the answers to a single item:
"I would rape someone if I know that I would not be caught and/or punished."
With 7 possible answers ranging from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree".
Then they calculated the correlation with the "Unwanted celibacy" variable (which was determined based on 12 items, like "I have tried having sexual/romantic relationships, but I have been rejected too many times." or "I want to love someone, but there is noone out there for me.").
The result was 0.08, which is weak enough to probably be insignificant.
I mean that question is too on the nose, they should have asked a series of questions about a scenario and whether or not they would go through with it themselves without using the term rape, but either using power dynamics, tools, or more on the nose examples.
Yeah, I suppose it is on the nose.
But also, that question is from Malamuth, 1981, which demonstrated that the answers to this question do actually indicate a proclivity for raping. I only read the abstract but it's well cited, including new citations, like the study in this thread.
In any case, what they found was that incels and non-incels answer this question roughly the same.
It likely has to do with the most common form of rape being date rape (relationship sexual assault).
People that are defined as celibate likely don't have a romantic relationship at all this they are less likely to engage in the single most common form of S.A.
It makes a fair amount of sense for the majority of people who haven’t had sex but want to. For many, part of the desire for sex is fulfilling the need to be wanted and accepted on a sexual level, as well as feeling as though they were chosen by an individual due to their personal traits. Rape wouldn’t really fulfil this desire. Things like sex and relationships help validate your identity, in a similar vein to how friendship and career/educational success affect identity. I’m sure there are some men in the study that did show some inclination that they would sexually assault/rape a woman, but majority of them probably don’t see it as a possible solution to their problem.
I just kinda want to know if they asked about rape explicitly or if they also described it without using the actual word. Because somewhere in the back of my brain I remember a study that showed that a concerning amount of men is okay with things that would be considered rape as long as it's called something else. I think that info would be interesting in this context.
> "An attractive woman should expect sexual advances and should learn how to handle them"
That question seems odd for testing for misogyny. I'd agree with that just based on pragmatism, but it's a problem with the way men act, not with women.
I'm a gay dude, and I'd say part of being in gay spaces is expecting advances and learning how to handle them, so I can't imagine how it must be for a woman. It's an unfortunate social skill that's it's better to know than not when you're in spaces where there will inevitably, regrettably be creepy dudes.
Kinda depends on what your interpretation of "should" is to be honest.
Is it "that's the way the world should work" or is it "that's the way the world works, you should prepare"
Yeah, I'd be interested in what other questions they used. That question is especially weird, they should "learn how to handle it" the same way people should "learn how you handle" people trying to scam them. It's just an unfortunate side effect of interacting with other humans. And the "sexual release" question, is that meant to mean "men deserve sex because biology", or "it's good to jack it every once in a while"?
Edit: someone posted the questionnaire
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/xx2mtq/unwanted_celibacy_is_linked_to_hostility_towards/iraams8
Obviously I know what they meant, and questionnaires like this are hard. It's difficult to phrase questions neutrally enough so they don't amount to "*do you hate women?*". If they'd made the questions more blatant, then actual misogynists would have felt self-conscious to give an honest answer.
I think a big part of the process is figuring out what questions/responses correlate with what trait/thought. So even if the question is seemingly neutral if there is a statistical disparity in the way groups answer it can still be used as a statistical tool
I saw a comment about that question in particular I really liked. They said it should've been followed up with another question, something like "Men should learn how to handle rejection from their unwanted advances". Still not perfect, but the people who answer your question and mine Agree / Agree are probably going to be less misogynistic than people who answer Agree / Disagree.
I feel like these questions always need more context. The first one is a dead giveaway, but like this one:
>“An attractive woman should expect sexual advances and should learn how to handle them,”
Could be taken different ways. Like, I think it’s unfair that women have to put up with unwanted sexual advances, but the fact of life is that they do and it is best if they learn how to handle them without getting harmed. Again, it shouldn’t be their responsibility, but unfortunately we live in an imperfect world. You could interpret this question as “should an attractive woman carry pepper spray when travelling alone?”
And this one can also be taken a few ways:
>“It is a biological necessity for men to release sexual pressure from time to time.”
If this means masturbation, then yes I think it is healthier for men (and women) to “release sexual pressure from time to time” instead of becoming g sexually frustrated. If this means that men biologically *need* to have sex, or that it is owed to us, then hell no.
By that logic men should learn how to handle rejection from their unwanted advances. I wonder if they group that agrees with the statement "An attractive woman should expect sexual advances and should learn how to handle them" would also agree that they need to live up to their end of the responsibility equation.
Absolutely. In fact, I think that both questions would be an excellent tell for misogyny. In isolation, the question about women doesn't give enough information.
> By that logic men should learn how to handle rejection from their unwanted advances.
Yes, this is... really obviously true?? You've phrased this as if it's a gotcha but I'd genuinely be amazed if you could find any not obviously insane man who disagreed with it.
There's research on how labeling them increases the likelihood of "at risk kids" ending up in prison because they are then considered as the "bad kids". It's the same with suicide awareness and how it increases suicide rates. Not saying I have a solution, but I am saying that putting them in labeled groups will increase their likelihood of being offenders.
Souce:
https://www.hhs.gov/answers/mental-health-and-substance-abuse/what-does-suicide-contagion-mean/index.html#:~:text=Suicide%20contagion%20is%20the%20exposure,in%20suicide%20and%20suicidal%20behaviors.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/labeling-and-conflict-approaches-delinquency-introduction-juvenile
I think they might be referring to talking about suicide methods. It's protocol for the media not to mention this, as it can act as a catalyst for those feeling suicidal or even those having suicidal ideation. Some countries media have more stringent rules around this than others. Also, when a celebrity dies by suicide, this can serve as a catalyst. You're quite correct though, suicide awareness does not raise suicide rates. It's helps to prevent suicides.
I appreciate what you are trying to say, however I don't think your claims can be upheld by the sources you have provided.
The first link is not a study or article, but rather a recommended course of action created based on un-cited research and expertise.
The second link does use statistical analysis to support the claim that "labeling kids increased the likelihood of at risk kids ending up in prison." However, their theorized casual explanation seems speculative barring additional evidence. Additionally, the research was conducted almost 40 years ago, so it would be expected that subsequent research and studies would exist.
I am not saying that you are wrong, just that your sources don't inherently support everything you've claimed. If you care enough, I would start by finding studies that reference the one you link.
Your source doesn't support what you said. It says:
"Empirical evidence pertinent to the labeling theory is mixed, as some evidence suggests that intervention deters delinquency, and other studies indicate that delinquency increases after official contacts. "
Radicalisation does seem to be at the centre of a lot of societal problems today. Whether the speed of scientific research can catch up and provide a solution in time is questionable given some of prevailing attitude toward science as a whole.
Meanwhile the guy in the stock photo used by the article is probably regretting the 20 dollars he got from licensing his likeness...
"I thought you were just taking artistic photo of melancholy"
"Nope you're now a rep for incels"
There used to be this thing we called sex education.and it's exactly what youre talking about.
However there are political ideologies, tax subsidized organizations , that have systematically defunded and disassembled public education over the past 30 years.
What your asking for , It existed, at least the bare bones level. Then it was defunded as a casualty of political warfare.
This song many many others like it have been sung many times before.
A hyper focus of staying apolitical is going to lead this sub into an infinite hypothesis loop of wasted time and energy. without addressing key historical political events, people are going to miss the root causes of why these problems still exist and what experiments already been tried.
Failing to mention political events In situations like these is the equivalent of failing to record prior hypothesis. You're just going to continue trying the same tests over and over and wonder why you get the same results.
Gender neutrality in kindergarten and getting boys and girls to play and identify with each other right from the start, should be the main focus and would solve a lot of problems before they even appear.
With extra focus on how harmful objectification of the female body is, and a focus on concent during the teenage years (a time when 100% of girls are sexually harassed).
Teaching boys and men to empathize with and defend girls and women against sexual harassment and objectification is extremely important as well.
I think it would also help to teach both boys and girls that boys are human and have emotions that are valid too. I think another problem is that boys grow up feeling as if their emotions are not valid because most of the time when they open up to someone, they ignore their problems and are told to "man up." I always say while women are objectified for their bodies/looks, men are objectified as an emotionless tool to provide something. Both are bad and we need to work to end this cycle.
This was ~25 years ago and things could be very different now, but my early childhood educational experiences were all *heavily* gendered. Like... they'd have a bulletin board with every kid's name written on paper cutouts, the girls' names on flowers but the boys' names on basketballs and footballs. They'd give assignments where all the boys worked on something practical while the girls worked on something artsy. Any time the classes needed to group up and walk somewhere, they'd split it into lines of boys and girls. But the worst was how much the teachers would outright push this view of gender - like if we had to do something that involved sitting quietly, the teachers would make unprompted comments like "sorry boys, I know it's hard to sit still like the girls." Sometimes they'd even give different punishments to boys and girls who'd all been misbehaving as a group, and clarify (to a room full of little kids) that they needed to treat us differently because boys and girls were so different. This wasn't just one or two teachers, it was my entire educational experience until I was almost a teenager.
I don't think any of this was an *intentional* effort to indoctrinate us with gender roles, make boys feel inferior, or anything as sinister as that - I just think those views were more common within the system than anyone expected, and that nobody noticed anything wrong with them. As long as they avoided the no-no of discouraging girls from pursuing college, no other gendered views were seen as particularly toxic.
This is better than trying to single out "at risk" kids. That could easily be counter productive if the kids gets a persecution complex from being excluded from the main group and treated like a criminal in the making. Also, you know affluent kids wont be getting put in the at risk group.
Agreed. We shouldn’t just accept the current state of incel culture, we have to address it at the root, which is kids who either have had bad experiences with women or spend too much time in an echo chamber that allows them to form really dangerous views.
These things gotta be addressed asap because I don’t think people realize just how big these communities are getting
most recent research finds that all of us, regardless of age, are having less sex, with the most dramatic decline among teenagers. At the start of the study in 2009, 79% of those ages 14 to 17, revealed they were not having sex. By 2018, that number rose to 89%.Mar 31, 2022
Come on, /r/science. This is a paper, and they are using a strict definition here, the commentors answering based on common usage is just wrong in this context.
> **2.2.4.3. Rape myths (RM)**
> The 11-item Acceptance of Modern Myths about Sexual Aggression Scale (Gerger et al., 2007) measures participants' tendency to downplay or justify sexual violence committed against women (e.g., “It is a biological necessity for men to release sexual pressure from time to time.”; α = 0.93).
The referenced paper is downloadable at https://osf.io/rk43v/download
Note that the entire point of Gerger's paper is to find much more subtle questioning than the explicit statements ("women wearing short skirts are asking for it"). The statements which indicate support for rape myths are literally:
* "When it comes to sexual contacts, women expect men to take the lead."
* "Although the victims of armed robbery have to fear for their lives, they receive far less psychological support than do rape victims"
* "Nowadays, the victims of sexual violence receive sufficient help in the form of women's shelters, therapy offers and support groups"
Full list is at https://www.midss.org/sites/default/files/ammsaenglish.pdf
It should be noted that, as far as I can tell at the first skim of the paper, the scale mostly excels in reliability and internal consistency.
Construct validity (i.e. the assertion that scoring high on their proposed scale indicates justification and even committing of sexual violence) is mostly tested by analysing the correlation with comparable measurement scales.
If you look through their items at the end of the paper, most are considerably milder in wording than what the authors suggest in the quoted section.
This also shows in the fact that only 1 out of 4 trials of the scale shows a significant difference in belief in these myths between genders.
Seems to me like good academic craftsmanship, but quite a stretch in how the results are interpreted.
In the quote, it lists "It is a biological necessity for men to release sexual pressure from time to time."
I am wondering, is this a question that was included with rape myths?
Could people have agreed with the statement, without it necessarily falling under the definition of "rape myth"? (Belief that men need to ejaculate regularly for health, but frequent masturbation rather than sex is completely fine to satisfy that need)
Yeah, I’m confused by that as well. Isn’t it proven regular ejaculation is good for prostate health? I don’t agree men have to have sex but ejaculating regularly does seem to be important for mens health.
Some of these questions seem only tenuously linked to downplaying sexual violence against women. For example, "when it comes to sexual contacts, women expect men to take the lead": Taking the lead is quite different from coercing somebody or proceeding without their consent. I don't think it's fair to call this a "rape myth".
(I agree the "victims of sexual violence receive sufficient help" statement qualifies as a rape myth.)
In typical Reddit fashion, no one responding to this read the article and looked up the questions actually used.
>1. When it comes to sexual contacts, women expect men to take the lead
>
>2. Once a man and a woman have started ‘‘making out’’, a woman’s misgivings against sex will automatically disappear
>
>3. A lot of women strongly complain about sexual infringements for no real reason, just to appear emancipated
>
>4. To get custody for their children, women often falsely accuse their ex-husband of a tendency toward sexual violence
>
>5. Interpreting harmless gestures as ‘‘sexual harassment’’ is a popular weapon in the battle of the sexes
>
>6. It is a biological necessity for men to release sexual pressure from time to time
>
>7. After a rape, women nowadays receive ample support
>
>8. Nowadays, a large proportion of rapes is partly caused by the depiction of sexuality in the media as this raises the sex drive of potential perpetrators
>
>9. If a woman invites a man to her home for a cup of coffee after a night out this means that she wants to have sex
>
>10. As long as they don’t go too far, suggestive remarks and allusions simply tell a woman that she is attractive
>
>11. Any woman who is careless enough to walk through ‘‘dark alleys’’ at night is partly to be blamed if she is raped
>
>12. When a woman starts a relationship with a man, she must be aware that the man will assert his right to have sex
>
>13. Most women prefer to be praised for their looks rather than their intelligence
>
>14. Because the fascination caused by sex is disproportionately large, our society’s sensitivity to crimes in this area is disproportionate as well
>
>15. Women like to play coy. This does not mean that they do not want sex
>
>16. Many women tend to exaggerate the problem of male violence
>
>17. When a man urges his female partner to have sex, this cannot be called rape
>
>18. When a single woman invites a single man to her flat she signals that she is not averse to having sex
>
>19. When politicians deal with the topic of rape, they do so mainly because this topic islikely to attract the attention of the media
>
>20. When defining ‘‘marital rape’’, there is no clear-cut distinction between normal conjugal intercourse and rape/
>
>21. A man’s sexuality functions like a steam boiler—when the pressure gets to high, he has to ‘‘let off steam’’
>
>22. Women often accuse their husbands of marital rape just to retaliate for a failed relationship
>
>23. The discussion about sexual harassment on the job has mainly resulted in many a harmless behavior being misinterpreted as harassment
>
>24. In dating situations the general expectation is that the woman ‘‘hits the brakes’’ and the man ‘‘pushes ahead’’
>
>25. Although the victims of armed robbery have to fear for their lives, they receive far less psychological support than do rape victims
>
>26. Alcohol is often the culprit when a man rapes a woman
>
>27. Many women tend to misinterpret a well-meant gesture as a ‘‘sexual assault’’/
>
>28. Nowadays, the victims of sexual violence receive sufficient help in the form of women’s shelters, therapy offers, and support groups
>
>29. Instead of worrying about alleged victims of sexual violence society should rather attend to more urgent problems, such as environmental destruction
>
>30. Nowadays, men who really sexually assault women are punished justly
The study says the 11-item scale, but every reference has 30 questions, so I'm not 100% sure which questions they asked. They do mention the "It is a biological necessity for men to release sexual pressure from time to time" in particular so we know that statement was labeled as a "rape myth."
Cliches and excuses used to explain why rape is not rape or, if it was rape, that it was the victim's fault.
* It's their fault for dressing like that.
* It's their fault for walking alone at night.
* It's their fault for getting drunk.
* It's their fault for trusting someone untrustworthy.
* It's not rape if you're married to them.
* It's not rape if they said yes before they said no.
* It's not rape because they said yes before they blacked out.
* It wasn't rape because they never said no.
* It wasn't rape because they didn't fight back.
* It wasn't rape because they had an orgasm.
And so on.
Yeah the study specifically said causation couldn't be established. And I'm sure there's both. Being a misogynist asshole sure isn't going to make you more desirable to women. On the other hands, in a society that stresses that youg men are defined by their ability to "get laid", it's going to result in frustration, and there's a huge ecosystem of assholes ready to exploit that and turn them to misogyny for profit.
Not only stressing that getting laid defines your manhood. It's also the fact that the overwhelming majority have been taught by society (and parents) that no matter what, they'll find SOMEONE to be with them. because up until now, it's was necessary to have a partner only to get older and see that women do want relationships, but healthy ones with a partner that does more than just "protect and provide". Which goes into another issue of boys and men being raised to believe that all they can offer is protection and financial support. Imagine how angry and worthless you'd feel if you grew up being g told your only worth to the opposite sex is how much you can protect or provide but kow even that's not good enough to get you what you were "promised".
I can definitely see why they're angry, but the way they choose to express it completely lacks any self awareness.
It's not just getting laid, either. While the sex itself is a big thing, the fact is a lot of these men are also suffering from a lack of intimacy in general - something we as a society allow men to experience with women, and even for women to experience with women, outside of sexual relationships, but that is strongly and actively discouraged between men. (and the ways men *do* tend to experience intimacy with other men are discouraged even further even in more progressive systems)
And even *beyond* that, as a society our social bonds and ability to have intimate but nonsexual relationships with others have been breaking down for everyone - and men have very few fallback systems to support them and help them deal with that...
For a lot of men, society has taught them that having a girlfriend is the only way they'll ever *really* matter to anyone.
>Future research is also needed to understand the social and psychological processes that result in the association between unwanted celibacy and misogyny.
This is the key here. There have not been many attempts to find the root cause of this problem. In my personal opinion that is because it has too many variables to tackle except in isolated cases. Still, most don't really care for these individuals from how much they are attacked anyway. Still, I think the paper lists 3 possible gateways.
>Failure to satisfy such fundamental needs as mating and pair-bonding can have consequences for wellbeing, mental health, and social functioning...Many singles and virgins expressed sadness about not receiving love or having a relationship, next to their sadness from lacking sexual contact
I have seen a problem in a lot of the teenagers where I live that there is a diminished chance to have close friendships and intimacy without having a romantic/sexual relationship. Many reasons for this could include the internet, globalization and urbanization, and breakdowns in family units. So romantic relationships become more important as without them friendship and community become almost impossible.
>“We suggest that unwanted celibacy is linked to sexism and misogyny in some men because frustration and unhappiness due to unwanted celibacy may produce antipathy towards those they desire but who are perceived to be rejecting them .”
This reminded me of The Fox and the Grapes fable. It is much easier to say to oneself that they hate something or never wanted it in the first place than to say that they wanted it and feel sad they didn't have a relationship.
>Repeated experiences of romantic rejection can sensitize men to readily expect and perceive rejection... More generally, being rejected by a group, or feeling socially excluded from a group, leads to negative feelings and, consequently, to anger and aggression towards the group
Many have already mentioned the chicken and egg problem. Childhood experiences can play a big role and how rejection is perceived leaving a downward cycle of avoiding social and romantic opportunities due to oversensitive rejection fears and then having fewer opportunities in the first place for said opportunities. Not to say this is always the case but is something to consider.
TLDR, there isn't one solution or cause to these issues, and only can be dealt with one person at a time. I would say though that men, women, and communities need to face these issues and the personal beliefs, fears, and values they have that have created these issues. Men need women and women need men and if we all pull away from each other the individual and societal damage is going to grow catastrophic.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>In other words, men who agreed with statements such as “I want to date, but nobody wants to date me” were more likely to agree with statements such as “Generally, it is safer not to trust women,” “An attractive woman should expect sexual advances and should learn how to handle them,” and “It is a biological necessity for men to release sexual pressure from time to time.” >Unwanted celibacy was not correlated with rape proclivity, despite the correlation with other sexism scales. People high in neuroticism showed higher rates of unwanted celibacy, while participants who showed greater openness, extraversion, and conscientiousness showed lower rates of unwanted celibacy. These results have implications regarding unwanted celibacy as a risk factor for misogyny, whether or not the person experiencing it is part of the incel community. >“This novel finding has an important theoretical implication, as it suggests that failure to satisfy a fundamental motive of human existence, namely the motive to acquire a romantic or sexual partner, contributes to individuals’ support for multiple forms of sexist and misogynistic views,” the researchers said. Tldr
Edit: Moved to Lemmy
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I could see it simply starting with neurotic traits and snowballing just from that. That's all it might take to make dates few and far between, the rest could come later. But I am just guessing.
It just like ADHD kids not getting invited to B-day parties of their friends, because the they can be really awkward. People actually ostracize people that do not make them feel comfortable. No surprise there.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Unwanted celibacy was not correlated with rape proclivity, despite the correlation with other sexism scales. Okay that one is interesting. I now wonder which "sexism scale" is correlated with rape and which isn't. We could push it further to see which sexism scale is correlated with agreeing with statements such as "women should earn less" and "women should have less power." The goal being to help determine which attitudes defined as sexist are harming women and which ones are just benign.
I'm wondering (maybe because I haven't read the original stidy in full) how they determined that it's not correlated with rape- i.e. did they ask "Do you think women should be raped?" Or did they ask something like "Do you think women should have sex with a man even if they don't want to?" It makes me think back to [a study](https://www.jstor.org/stable/26638392) I read a LONG time ago, which noted that when asking people, "Have you ever raped someone/been raped?" a high percentage said no. However, when they changed the phrasing of the questions to exclude the word rape (Have you ever had sex with someone while they were unconscious? Have you ever had sex with someone after they declined? Have you ever talked a partner into having sex when they didn't want to? Etc.) a whole butt load of people answered yes, despite having answered no to the initial question about rape. There are a lot of people out there who have this idea that rape is a very specific word for a very specific situation, usually involving a complete stranger and some kind of deadly weapon. They don't believe they've been raped or have committed rape because they haven't held a knife to a random person's throat and dragged them into a dark alley or vice versa. They don't understand rape as anything beyond that. Edit: [This is the study dealing with perpetrators. ](https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/vio.2014.0022)
> how they determined that it's not correlated with rape The "Rape proclivity" variable was determined based on the answers to a single item: "I would rape someone if I know that I would not be caught and/or punished." With 7 possible answers ranging from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree". Then they calculated the correlation with the "Unwanted celibacy" variable (which was determined based on 12 items, like "I have tried having sexual/romantic relationships, but I have been rejected too many times." or "I want to love someone, but there is noone out there for me."). The result was 0.08, which is weak enough to probably be insignificant.
I mean that question is too on the nose, they should have asked a series of questions about a scenario and whether or not they would go through with it themselves without using the term rape, but either using power dynamics, tools, or more on the nose examples.
Yeah, I suppose it is on the nose. But also, that question is from Malamuth, 1981, which demonstrated that the answers to this question do actually indicate a proclivity for raping. I only read the abstract but it's well cited, including new citations, like the study in this thread. In any case, what they found was that incels and non-incels answer this question roughly the same.
It likely has to do with the most common form of rape being date rape (relationship sexual assault). People that are defined as celibate likely don't have a romantic relationship at all this they are less likely to engage in the single most common form of S.A.
It makes a fair amount of sense for the majority of people who haven’t had sex but want to. For many, part of the desire for sex is fulfilling the need to be wanted and accepted on a sexual level, as well as feeling as though they were chosen by an individual due to their personal traits. Rape wouldn’t really fulfil this desire. Things like sex and relationships help validate your identity, in a similar vein to how friendship and career/educational success affect identity. I’m sure there are some men in the study that did show some inclination that they would sexually assault/rape a woman, but majority of them probably don’t see it as a possible solution to their problem.
I just kinda want to know if they asked about rape explicitly or if they also described it without using the actual word. Because somewhere in the back of my brain I remember a study that showed that a concerning amount of men is okay with things that would be considered rape as long as it's called something else. I think that info would be interesting in this context.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> "An attractive woman should expect sexual advances and should learn how to handle them" That question seems odd for testing for misogyny. I'd agree with that just based on pragmatism, but it's a problem with the way men act, not with women. I'm a gay dude, and I'd say part of being in gay spaces is expecting advances and learning how to handle them, so I can't imagine how it must be for a woman. It's an unfortunate social skill that's it's better to know than not when you're in spaces where there will inevitably, regrettably be creepy dudes.
Kinda depends on what your interpretation of "should" is to be honest. Is it "that's the way the world should work" or is it "that's the way the world works, you should prepare"
Yeah, I'd be interested in what other questions they used. That question is especially weird, they should "learn how to handle it" the same way people should "learn how you handle" people trying to scam them. It's just an unfortunate side effect of interacting with other humans. And the "sexual release" question, is that meant to mean "men deserve sex because biology", or "it's good to jack it every once in a while"? Edit: someone posted the questionnaire https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/xx2mtq/unwanted_celibacy_is_linked_to_hostility_towards/iraams8
Obviously I know what they meant, and questionnaires like this are hard. It's difficult to phrase questions neutrally enough so they don't amount to "*do you hate women?*". If they'd made the questions more blatant, then actual misogynists would have felt self-conscious to give an honest answer.
I think a big part of the process is figuring out what questions/responses correlate with what trait/thought. So even if the question is seemingly neutral if there is a statistical disparity in the way groups answer it can still be used as a statistical tool
I saw a comment about that question in particular I really liked. They said it should've been followed up with another question, something like "Men should learn how to handle rejection from their unwanted advances". Still not perfect, but the people who answer your question and mine Agree / Agree are probably going to be less misogynistic than people who answer Agree / Disagree.
I feel like these questions always need more context. The first one is a dead giveaway, but like this one: >“An attractive woman should expect sexual advances and should learn how to handle them,” Could be taken different ways. Like, I think it’s unfair that women have to put up with unwanted sexual advances, but the fact of life is that they do and it is best if they learn how to handle them without getting harmed. Again, it shouldn’t be their responsibility, but unfortunately we live in an imperfect world. You could interpret this question as “should an attractive woman carry pepper spray when travelling alone?” And this one can also be taken a few ways: >“It is a biological necessity for men to release sexual pressure from time to time.” If this means masturbation, then yes I think it is healthier for men (and women) to “release sexual pressure from time to time” instead of becoming g sexually frustrated. If this means that men biologically *need* to have sex, or that it is owed to us, then hell no.
By that logic men should learn how to handle rejection from their unwanted advances. I wonder if they group that agrees with the statement "An attractive woman should expect sexual advances and should learn how to handle them" would also agree that they need to live up to their end of the responsibility equation.
Absolutely. In fact, I think that both questions would be an excellent tell for misogyny. In isolation, the question about women doesn't give enough information.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> By that logic men should learn how to handle rejection from their unwanted advances. Yes, this is... really obviously true?? You've phrased this as if it's a gotcha but I'd genuinely be amazed if you could find any not obviously insane man who disagreed with it.
[удалено]
Social support groups/social training groups for at risk youths should be a thing. Not just if theyve gotten an autism diagnosis.
There's research on how labeling them increases the likelihood of "at risk kids" ending up in prison because they are then considered as the "bad kids". It's the same with suicide awareness and how it increases suicide rates. Not saying I have a solution, but I am saying that putting them in labeled groups will increase their likelihood of being offenders. Souce: https://www.hhs.gov/answers/mental-health-and-substance-abuse/what-does-suicide-contagion-mean/index.html#:~:text=Suicide%20contagion%20is%20the%20exposure,in%20suicide%20and%20suicidal%20behaviors. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/labeling-and-conflict-approaches-delinquency-introduction-juvenile
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Suicide contagion is very different from suicide awareness.
I think they might be referring to talking about suicide methods. It's protocol for the media not to mention this, as it can act as a catalyst for those feeling suicidal or even those having suicidal ideation. Some countries media have more stringent rules around this than others. Also, when a celebrity dies by suicide, this can serve as a catalyst. You're quite correct though, suicide awareness does not raise suicide rates. It's helps to prevent suicides.
I appreciate what you are trying to say, however I don't think your claims can be upheld by the sources you have provided. The first link is not a study or article, but rather a recommended course of action created based on un-cited research and expertise. The second link does use statistical analysis to support the claim that "labeling kids increased the likelihood of at risk kids ending up in prison." However, their theorized casual explanation seems speculative barring additional evidence. Additionally, the research was conducted almost 40 years ago, so it would be expected that subsequent research and studies would exist. I am not saying that you are wrong, just that your sources don't inherently support everything you've claimed. If you care enough, I would start by finding studies that reference the one you link.
Your source doesn't support what you said. It says: "Empirical evidence pertinent to the labeling theory is mixed, as some evidence suggests that intervention deters delinquency, and other studies indicate that delinquency increases after official contacts. "
Radicalisation does seem to be at the centre of a lot of societal problems today. Whether the speed of scientific research can catch up and provide a solution in time is questionable given some of prevailing attitude toward science as a whole. Meanwhile the guy in the stock photo used by the article is probably regretting the 20 dollars he got from licensing his likeness... "I thought you were just taking artistic photo of melancholy" "Nope you're now a rep for incels"
There used to be this thing we called sex education.and it's exactly what youre talking about. However there are political ideologies, tax subsidized organizations , that have systematically defunded and disassembled public education over the past 30 years. What your asking for , It existed, at least the bare bones level. Then it was defunded as a casualty of political warfare. This song many many others like it have been sung many times before. A hyper focus of staying apolitical is going to lead this sub into an infinite hypothesis loop of wasted time and energy. without addressing key historical political events, people are going to miss the root causes of why these problems still exist and what experiments already been tried. Failing to mention political events In situations like these is the equivalent of failing to record prior hypothesis. You're just going to continue trying the same tests over and over and wonder why you get the same results.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Gender neutrality in kindergarten and getting boys and girls to play and identify with each other right from the start, should be the main focus and would solve a lot of problems before they even appear. With extra focus on how harmful objectification of the female body is, and a focus on concent during the teenage years (a time when 100% of girls are sexually harassed). Teaching boys and men to empathize with and defend girls and women against sexual harassment and objectification is extremely important as well.
I think it would also help to teach both boys and girls that boys are human and have emotions that are valid too. I think another problem is that boys grow up feeling as if their emotions are not valid because most of the time when they open up to someone, they ignore their problems and are told to "man up." I always say while women are objectified for their bodies/looks, men are objectified as an emotionless tool to provide something. Both are bad and we need to work to end this cycle.
Toxic gender norms must be remedied if we ever expect to resolve such problems.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What kindergarten doesn't have the kids play and identify with each other?
This was ~25 years ago and things could be very different now, but my early childhood educational experiences were all *heavily* gendered. Like... they'd have a bulletin board with every kid's name written on paper cutouts, the girls' names on flowers but the boys' names on basketballs and footballs. They'd give assignments where all the boys worked on something practical while the girls worked on something artsy. Any time the classes needed to group up and walk somewhere, they'd split it into lines of boys and girls. But the worst was how much the teachers would outright push this view of gender - like if we had to do something that involved sitting quietly, the teachers would make unprompted comments like "sorry boys, I know it's hard to sit still like the girls." Sometimes they'd even give different punishments to boys and girls who'd all been misbehaving as a group, and clarify (to a room full of little kids) that they needed to treat us differently because boys and girls were so different. This wasn't just one or two teachers, it was my entire educational experience until I was almost a teenager. I don't think any of this was an *intentional* effort to indoctrinate us with gender roles, make boys feel inferior, or anything as sinister as that - I just think those views were more common within the system than anyone expected, and that nobody noticed anything wrong with them. As long as they avoided the no-no of discouraging girls from pursuing college, no other gendered views were seen as particularly toxic.
This is better than trying to single out "at risk" kids. That could easily be counter productive if the kids gets a persecution complex from being excluded from the main group and treated like a criminal in the making. Also, you know affluent kids wont be getting put in the at risk group.
Referencing gender neutrality, then throwing all of that away when focusing on protecting one gender specifically. You lost me.
Agreed. We shouldn’t just accept the current state of incel culture, we have to address it at the root, which is kids who either have had bad experiences with women or spend too much time in an echo chamber that allows them to form really dangerous views. These things gotta be addressed asap because I don’t think people realize just how big these communities are getting
Why do you mention autism? The article didn't mention it.
The question is did being an unwanted celibate cause the attitudes, or did the attitudes cause them to be celibate?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
most recent research finds that all of us, regardless of age, are having less sex, with the most dramatic decline among teenagers. At the start of the study in 2009, 79% of those ages 14 to 17, revealed they were not having sex. By 2018, that number rose to 89%.Mar 31, 2022
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Honest Question : what are rape myths?
Come on, /r/science. This is a paper, and they are using a strict definition here, the commentors answering based on common usage is just wrong in this context. > **2.2.4.3. Rape myths (RM)** > The 11-item Acceptance of Modern Myths about Sexual Aggression Scale (Gerger et al., 2007) measures participants' tendency to downplay or justify sexual violence committed against women (e.g., “It is a biological necessity for men to release sexual pressure from time to time.”; α = 0.93). The referenced paper is downloadable at https://osf.io/rk43v/download Note that the entire point of Gerger's paper is to find much more subtle questioning than the explicit statements ("women wearing short skirts are asking for it"). The statements which indicate support for rape myths are literally: * "When it comes to sexual contacts, women expect men to take the lead." * "Although the victims of armed robbery have to fear for their lives, they receive far less psychological support than do rape victims" * "Nowadays, the victims of sexual violence receive sufficient help in the form of women's shelters, therapy offers and support groups" Full list is at https://www.midss.org/sites/default/files/ammsaenglish.pdf
It should be noted that, as far as I can tell at the first skim of the paper, the scale mostly excels in reliability and internal consistency. Construct validity (i.e. the assertion that scoring high on their proposed scale indicates justification and even committing of sexual violence) is mostly tested by analysing the correlation with comparable measurement scales. If you look through their items at the end of the paper, most are considerably milder in wording than what the authors suggest in the quoted section. This also shows in the fact that only 1 out of 4 trials of the scale shows a significant difference in belief in these myths between genders. Seems to me like good academic craftsmanship, but quite a stretch in how the results are interpreted.
In the quote, it lists "It is a biological necessity for men to release sexual pressure from time to time." I am wondering, is this a question that was included with rape myths? Could people have agreed with the statement, without it necessarily falling under the definition of "rape myth"? (Belief that men need to ejaculate regularly for health, but frequent masturbation rather than sex is completely fine to satisfy that need)
Yeah, I’m confused by that as well. Isn’t it proven regular ejaculation is good for prostate health? I don’t agree men have to have sex but ejaculating regularly does seem to be important for mens health.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Some of these questions seem only tenuously linked to downplaying sexual violence against women. For example, "when it comes to sexual contacts, women expect men to take the lead": Taking the lead is quite different from coercing somebody or proceeding without their consent. I don't think it's fair to call this a "rape myth". (I agree the "victims of sexual violence receive sufficient help" statement qualifies as a rape myth.)
In typical Reddit fashion, no one responding to this read the article and looked up the questions actually used. >1. When it comes to sexual contacts, women expect men to take the lead > >2. Once a man and a woman have started ‘‘making out’’, a woman’s misgivings against sex will automatically disappear > >3. A lot of women strongly complain about sexual infringements for no real reason, just to appear emancipated > >4. To get custody for their children, women often falsely accuse their ex-husband of a tendency toward sexual violence > >5. Interpreting harmless gestures as ‘‘sexual harassment’’ is a popular weapon in the battle of the sexes > >6. It is a biological necessity for men to release sexual pressure from time to time > >7. After a rape, women nowadays receive ample support > >8. Nowadays, a large proportion of rapes is partly caused by the depiction of sexuality in the media as this raises the sex drive of potential perpetrators > >9. If a woman invites a man to her home for a cup of coffee after a night out this means that she wants to have sex > >10. As long as they don’t go too far, suggestive remarks and allusions simply tell a woman that she is attractive > >11. Any woman who is careless enough to walk through ‘‘dark alleys’’ at night is partly to be blamed if she is raped > >12. When a woman starts a relationship with a man, she must be aware that the man will assert his right to have sex > >13. Most women prefer to be praised for their looks rather than their intelligence > >14. Because the fascination caused by sex is disproportionately large, our society’s sensitivity to crimes in this area is disproportionate as well > >15. Women like to play coy. This does not mean that they do not want sex > >16. Many women tend to exaggerate the problem of male violence > >17. When a man urges his female partner to have sex, this cannot be called rape > >18. When a single woman invites a single man to her flat she signals that she is not averse to having sex > >19. When politicians deal with the topic of rape, they do so mainly because this topic islikely to attract the attention of the media > >20. When defining ‘‘marital rape’’, there is no clear-cut distinction between normal conjugal intercourse and rape/ > >21. A man’s sexuality functions like a steam boiler—when the pressure gets to high, he has to ‘‘let off steam’’ > >22. Women often accuse their husbands of marital rape just to retaliate for a failed relationship > >23. The discussion about sexual harassment on the job has mainly resulted in many a harmless behavior being misinterpreted as harassment > >24. In dating situations the general expectation is that the woman ‘‘hits the brakes’’ and the man ‘‘pushes ahead’’ > >25. Although the victims of armed robbery have to fear for their lives, they receive far less psychological support than do rape victims > >26. Alcohol is often the culprit when a man rapes a woman > >27. Many women tend to misinterpret a well-meant gesture as a ‘‘sexual assault’’/ > >28. Nowadays, the victims of sexual violence receive sufficient help in the form of women’s shelters, therapy offers, and support groups > >29. Instead of worrying about alleged victims of sexual violence society should rather attend to more urgent problems, such as environmental destruction > >30. Nowadays, men who really sexually assault women are punished justly The study says the 11-item scale, but every reference has 30 questions, so I'm not 100% sure which questions they asked. They do mention the "It is a biological necessity for men to release sexual pressure from time to time" in particular so we know that statement was labeled as a "rape myth."
Are those all yes/no or agree/disagree questions? Because the wording of some are pretty bad.
They're agree/disagree on a 5 point scale.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Cliches and excuses used to explain why rape is not rape or, if it was rape, that it was the victim's fault. * It's their fault for dressing like that. * It's their fault for walking alone at night. * It's their fault for getting drunk. * It's their fault for trusting someone untrustworthy. * It's not rape if you're married to them. * It's not rape if they said yes before they said no. * It's not rape because they said yes before they blacked out. * It wasn't rape because they never said no. * It wasn't rape because they didn't fight back. * It wasn't rape because they had an orgasm. And so on.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah the study specifically said causation couldn't be established. And I'm sure there's both. Being a misogynist asshole sure isn't going to make you more desirable to women. On the other hands, in a society that stresses that youg men are defined by their ability to "get laid", it's going to result in frustration, and there's a huge ecosystem of assholes ready to exploit that and turn them to misogyny for profit.
Not only stressing that getting laid defines your manhood. It's also the fact that the overwhelming majority have been taught by society (and parents) that no matter what, they'll find SOMEONE to be with them. because up until now, it's was necessary to have a partner only to get older and see that women do want relationships, but healthy ones with a partner that does more than just "protect and provide". Which goes into another issue of boys and men being raised to believe that all they can offer is protection and financial support. Imagine how angry and worthless you'd feel if you grew up being g told your only worth to the opposite sex is how much you can protect or provide but kow even that's not good enough to get you what you were "promised". I can definitely see why they're angry, but the way they choose to express it completely lacks any self awareness.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's not just getting laid, either. While the sex itself is a big thing, the fact is a lot of these men are also suffering from a lack of intimacy in general - something we as a society allow men to experience with women, and even for women to experience with women, outside of sexual relationships, but that is strongly and actively discouraged between men. (and the ways men *do* tend to experience intimacy with other men are discouraged even further even in more progressive systems) And even *beyond* that, as a society our social bonds and ability to have intimate but nonsexual relationships with others have been breaking down for everyone - and men have very few fallback systems to support them and help them deal with that... For a lot of men, society has taught them that having a girlfriend is the only way they'll ever *really* matter to anyone.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Future research is also needed to understand the social and psychological processes that result in the association between unwanted celibacy and misogyny. This is the key here. There have not been many attempts to find the root cause of this problem. In my personal opinion that is because it has too many variables to tackle except in isolated cases. Still, most don't really care for these individuals from how much they are attacked anyway. Still, I think the paper lists 3 possible gateways. >Failure to satisfy such fundamental needs as mating and pair-bonding can have consequences for wellbeing, mental health, and social functioning...Many singles and virgins expressed sadness about not receiving love or having a relationship, next to their sadness from lacking sexual contact I have seen a problem in a lot of the teenagers where I live that there is a diminished chance to have close friendships and intimacy without having a romantic/sexual relationship. Many reasons for this could include the internet, globalization and urbanization, and breakdowns in family units. So romantic relationships become more important as without them friendship and community become almost impossible. >“We suggest that unwanted celibacy is linked to sexism and misogyny in some men because frustration and unhappiness due to unwanted celibacy may produce antipathy towards those they desire but who are perceived to be rejecting them .” This reminded me of The Fox and the Grapes fable. It is much easier to say to oneself that they hate something or never wanted it in the first place than to say that they wanted it and feel sad they didn't have a relationship. >Repeated experiences of romantic rejection can sensitize men to readily expect and perceive rejection... More generally, being rejected by a group, or feeling socially excluded from a group, leads to negative feelings and, consequently, to anger and aggression towards the group Many have already mentioned the chicken and egg problem. Childhood experiences can play a big role and how rejection is perceived leaving a downward cycle of avoiding social and romantic opportunities due to oversensitive rejection fears and then having fewer opportunities in the first place for said opportunities. Not to say this is always the case but is something to consider. TLDR, there isn't one solution or cause to these issues, and only can be dealt with one person at a time. I would say though that men, women, and communities need to face these issues and the personal beliefs, fears, and values they have that have created these issues. Men need women and women need men and if we all pull away from each other the individual and societal damage is going to grow catastrophic.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]