this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
327 points (90.2% liked)

News

23367 readers
2991 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A team of researchers, including Binghamton psychology professor Richard Mattson and graduate student Michael Shaw asked men between the ages of 18–25 to respond to hypothetical sexual hookup situations in which a woman responds passively to a sexual advance, meaning the woman does not express any overt verbal or behavioral response to indicate consent to increase the level of physical intimacy. The team then surveyed how consensual each man perceived the situation to be, as well as how he would likely behave.

The work is published in the journal Sex Roles.

"A passive response to a sexual advance is a normative indicator of consent, but also might reflect distress or fear, and whether men are able to differentiate between the two during a hookup was important to explore," said Mattson.

The team found that men varied in their perception of passive responses in terms of consent and that the level of perceived consent was strongly linked to an increased likelihood of continuing or advancing sexual behavior.

"The biggest takeaway is that men differed in how they interpreted an ambiguous female response to their sexual advances with respect to their perception of consent, which in turn influenced their sexual decisions," said Mattson.

"But certain types of men (e.g., those high in toxic masculine traits) tended to view situations as more consensual and reported that they would escalate the level of sexual intimacy regardless of whether or not they thought it was consensual."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 38 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Some More News did a recent episode on toxic masculinity and the lack of good role models for young men and came up with the very simple solution (sorry, spoilers) to young men who have trouble getting girlfriends:

Make a female friend. Not a friend you hope will be a girlfriend, not someone you think about fucking, just a friend. A woman you can talk to like a buddy. Learn about how to talk to women from a woman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHkhTIEe254

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago

Never really thought about this but reflecting back on it nonsexual intimate conversations with women when I was a teen definitely gave me a lot of insights on a woman's perspective. Not only with friends but cousins around my age too, that was especially great around middle school because I was pretty nervous around girls then.

That being said I don't think it will help a ton with getting a girlfriend in the first place necessarily, but it will definitely help once you are in a relationship afterwards and just in any interaction with a woman.

Successfully starting a relationship is hard as fuck. It's a mixture of confidence, reading cues, timing, perseverance, and a ton more. The only sure way to learn how to do it is to try, take no for an answer, don't be pushy, accept rejection it will happen a lot, and TAKE BREAKS. It's pretty soul crushing when it doesn't work out and it probably isn't going to a majority of the time for many reasons. After getting consecutively rejected for so long you can start to develop some negative thoughts. When you start to feel like this just stop trying for a few months until you're mentally right again.

All that said I would 100% advocate for having a personal platonic relationship with a woman, it just may not be too helpful in learning how to get a relationship started.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

It is sad that great role models for men don't really exist right now. Who would most men look to for guidance? An actor? They're fine and all, but they're not usually symbols of greatness, they're actors...

Politicians? Definitely not, we all know there isn't a single politician that anyone can really look up to.

Corporate leaders? Selfish people at the least, destructive at worst. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos aren't anybody anyone should be going to for advice.

Online pundits? That's where men are finding themselves because those are the only people talking to men specifically. Their guidance is flawed (an understatement), but when they're the only ones addressing the problems men have, of course many young guys are going to gravitate toward them.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

There are plenty of good men out there. Teachers, bosses, coaches, etc.

Nobody gives a shit about them, because they aren't famous, rich, or complete piece of shit. Those are the only 'men' anyone looks up to.

The issue is that not there are no good male role models, it's that we have decided the only 'good' men are famous, and anyone else is subpar. Our cultural assumption is that all men are bad by default, and that only the best of the best rise above it.

Personally, I'm sick of this nonsense. The vast majority of men I have ever known are good men. But society loves to shit on them because they aren't sexy, popular, or wealthy. And we love to focus on the POS men who are, who cheat, lie, and steal their way to the top.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It’s quite similar to the issue women faced (face) for so long with old role models like blonde Barbie, etc etc. not equating experiences but it’s all about what media is trying to push as a standard. It doesn’t help that society does often look down on men expressing emotions (beyond anger) and other behaviors that are seen as feminine coded. I’m glad I have people around me that I do and live where I love so I can be myself a bit more.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

the standard that blows my mind is achievement gap.

a woman goes to college, gets an office job, gets a mid-managerial position, etc > she is amazing, awesome, superstar.

a man goes to college, gets an office job, gets a mid-manager position, etc > what a pathetic loser/failure

this is why we are setting so many men up to just give up at life. we have made the basic super hard to achieve for them, and told them that even if they obtain that, they are still pathetic losers.... so why even try?

[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 months ago

I agree. I don’t know if I care personally the standards set for women as compared to the ones set for me that I don’t like. The issue with standards in certain areas for men can easily stand on their own. I only say that because I’ve found it reverts to a fight about other standards held against women that ARE terrible and well documented. They are still 100% valid, just not the topic at hand per se. I’m probably rambling but just throwing out some of my own thoughts as I’ve worked through the things we’re talking about.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

He talks about that in the video. I actually brought it up in that post you replied to, the lack of good role models for young men.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

My role models, the people I aspired to be like as a kid, were always fictional characters.

The Doctor from Doctor Who, Jake from Animorphs, Tyrion Lannister.

I definitely never had anyone from real life who'd I consider worth emulating.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Same, but I also see a trope of men often being dumb or evil or both in a lot of current media. And that really doesn't help create role models

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

At least they still have uncle Iroh

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

National Tea Appreciation Day, anyone?