Amy Diehl, Ph.D.1d ago
Study (N=2,689) of men (18-34) finds 95.1% reported using strategies to get a woman to have sex who they knew did not want sex & had not consented; 65% successful. Consistent physical pressure & verbal coercion common; overt force, physical restraint, pain also used. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08862605261432630
Show threadgabriel

@amydiehl OK, but the paper was focused on that demographic:

"This research was designed to focus on men who admit having intentionally and knowingly sexually aggressed against a woman who they knew did not want sex nor consented to it, including strategies to overcome her reluctance, circumstances, motivations, and positive and negative outcomes."

Apr 13 at 7:10pmWeb
Show threadgabriel1d ago

@amydiehl

I'm not coming to argue "not all men", but from reading the tooth one walks away with the idea that 95% of men force women to have sex, and that is not what the article says at all. What it claims is that of a population that admits to intentionally sexually aggressed woman, 95% report to use strategies to get a woman to have sex when she hasn't consented.

I mean, clearly the paper itself claims "not all men".

Show threadTomás Hradcky1d ago
@gabriel And you are definitely coming here to argue ‘not all men’.
Show threadgabriel1d ago

@TomasHradcky

As I say, not me, is what the paper says. You can read it yourself and make up your mind.

I think we need to understand the literature to be able to have strategies to curve this situation. It would be very different if we are talking of 95% of the population or if it the number is different.

Therefore it is important to clarify, in my mind, what the study actually claims.

Show threadRandom Walsh1d ago
@gabriel @TomasHradcky The nuance is important indeed. And this has nothing to do with "not all men". The study is not just about perpetrators' modus operandi, it's also about methodology (anonymity and non-judgemental approach), which are essential to understand if one is to grasp the fact that these men know what they're doing (otherwise they'd confess by accident, which they obviously don't). This tells volumes about their line of defense ("oh I lost control"). They don't lose control at all.
Show threadRandom Walsh20h ago
@gabriel @TomasHradcky Yet actually I'm quite surprised to read that "most men don't". For I'm afraid most men do. So my opinion on this is "while I think most men do, I also think that these study says the opposite (in which case I think it's interesting for the reasons stated above) , but at the same time it seems to say that most men are prepetrators". So honestly I don't know what to think ABOUT THIS STUDY (as far as masculinity is concerned I know what to think, unfortunately).
Show threadRandom Walsh20h ago
@gabriel @TomasHradcky But I'm pretty sure one doesn't have to be a masculinist to say or think that these study "doesn't say that". Tbh, before I commented, I was about to write "damn I knew it!". Discussion on this matter is legitimate. Should one be afraid to discuss this and that for fear that they might look suspicious ? Nobody here is impatient to take the study away with them and use it as an excuse to abuse women. All I see is people talking. So let's talk.
Show threadIrene (she/they, Sir/Mr.)8h ago

@ratel @gabriel as long as yall are "not" here to quibble about "not all men" you stopped reading before the directly relavant part:

"The study was described as exploring positive and negative interactions between men and women in sexual situations. The consent form indicated that the survey was men’s opportunity “to provide their side of the story given that we have heard so much from women” about male–female sexual interactions, repeatedly assuring them of their guaranteed anonymity."

So yeah, when framed as their chance to tell their side *without fear of personal consequences of any kind*, this is what they volunteered. This is a large and broad enough community sample to draw broad societal conclusions from. The researchers knowing in advance who and what they expect to find doesnt change the results or make these men suddenly victims of a smear campaign or anything else untoward. It means yes, measurably all men.

@TomasHradcky

Show threadgabriel8h ago

@Irenetherogue @ratel @TomasHradcky

Let's ask the authors, then, what they actually meant. Then we can move on and talk about what needs to be done to end sexual aggression.

Show threadIrene (she/they, Sir/Mr.)7h ago

@gabriel as far as what needs to be done, frame it as a good faith, sincere question and ive got a good faith, sincere answer ready to hand. Otherwise, youre just deflecting.

@ratel @TomasHradcky

Show threadgabriel7h ago
@Irenetherogue As I've said before, I'm talking in good faith. Furthermore, I think that the particular interpretation of the 95% number, besides being wrong, puts more women in danger. Since it deviates the conversation from: "there is a portion of men who are dangerous aggressors" towards "men are irredeemable". The latter closes any possibility of conversation between men and women, which terrifies me to be honest.
Show threadIrene (she/they, Sir/Mr.)7h ago
@gabriel in no way does this data do any of that. This whataboutism is only serving to out you. Just stop.
Show threadRandom Walsh8h ago
@Irenetherogue @gabriel @TomasHradcky Obviously. And I read this part too. What I struggle to understand is neither this part (who sounds quite realistic unfortunately) nor the "most men don't" part (which I can't believe) but what the reader is supposed to understand with these two views in the same article.
Show threadIrene (she/they, Sir/Mr.)7h ago

@ratel youre quibbling over a small point and in so doing deflecting from/missing the larger picture while also serving to make the very point youre quibbling over. If your point is "yes all men" and your argument as that the data make that same point, you already agree with the authors. Move on.

@gabriel @TomasHradcky

Show threadRandom Walsh7h ago
@Irenetherogue @gabriel @TomasHradcky Of course I agree. Just wanted to be sure I didn't miss something else than those conclusions I've already read elsewhere, as I generally do with any other topic. No bad faith on my side either.
Show threadDuckbilled Plattypus.1d ago

@gabriel

Again, you don't know it's not also 95% of all men. A number you claim is shocking to you.

And yet, you continue to insist 95% is too broad an assumption that upsets you because women might be asserting it's all men or a lot of men. No one except you brought up 100% all men. Then you got upset about it.

Sealion much?

I love that you insist on being blocked. Like 95% of all #Replyguys who responded to this post. 👍

@TomasHradcky

Show threadgabriel1d ago

@pattykimura

If it is 95% of all men, then this would also imply that _at least_ 95% of all men who had sex in the last two years had multiple sexual partners. I find this figure to be quite strange, given what other studies of sexual behavior of younger generations show.

Now, I am answering in good faith, because I think we are having a conversation. But if you feel differently, feel free to block, I do not need the validation of your attention.👋🏽

Show threadJoykill21h ago

@gabriel @pattykimura

What does having multiple partners have to do with this at all? Rape can happen in monogamous relationships too, you ghoul.

Show threadColman Reilly18h ago
@joykill @gabriel @pattykimura it specifies that they did not have a prior sexual/romantic relationship with the woman to separate out relationships.
Show threadaeva22h ago
@gabriel i just want to say that i appreciate that you took the time to read it and post the clarification
Show threadiwein18h ago

@gabriel
#notAllMen is the problem where this argument is used "to deflect attention away from men".

Imho you're not doing that.

Obviously, even if only a small fraction of men are doing this shit (and we know it's not a small fraction), all men are obligated to do better to make it stop. You didn't say anything against that. I wish you were not attacked over this and we could focus on the problem at hand with knowledge of the real data 🙇‍♀️

Show threadJuno Jove16h ago
@iwein @gabriel
The plea is rather "All Men until No Men", where #NotAllMen tries to turn the argument away from the systemic matter, absolving one or some individuals, while ignoring the fact that even "nice" men benefit quite significantly every day from a system that oppresses women.
Show threadJuno Jove16h ago
@iwein @gabriel
Analogy:
Just as the northern hemisphere's economy and way of life still benefits quite significantly from the past era of colonization, even in countries that participated less in it.
Show threadiwein16h ago

@jupiter thanks for the clarification. I copy pasted from Wikipedia, but your language is more clear. We do agree, right?

@gabriel

Show threadJuno Jove15h ago
@iwein @gabriel
I suppose :)
I wanted to add, not negate.
Show threadiwein13h ago

@jupiter
Thx. I definitely want to make sure that if I'm wrong on such issues, that I take the feedback and better myself 😁

@gabriel

Show threadLeslie Burns1d ago

@gabriel That is a misreading, IMO. The criteria for participation were, "Men were eligible if they self-identified as men, were in the age range 18 to 34 years, and reported having had a sexual encounter with a woman in the past 2 years."

Also, if it were only for those who admittedly coerced, etc., then the percentage would have been 100, not 95.1.

@amydiehl

Show threadgabriel1d ago

@LeslieBurns @amydiehl

I'm not misreading, I'm quoting the paper.

Also, there may be subtleties that lead to the question to not have 100%. Maybe someone identifies as a sexual attacker but not as a strategist. Or they were misidentified and they are not part of the universe. Or...

Show threadgabriel1d ago

@LeslieBurns @amydiehl

I'm not claiming that the percentage of men who have sexually assaulted women is not 95%. I'm claiming that this paper was not set up to answer that question. And the quote seems to point into that direction.

Show threadLeslie Burns1d ago

@gabriel You are quoting what the authors said the intention of the study was. I was quoting what the authors said the actual criteria for participation was.

@amydiehl

Show threadgabriel1d ago

@LeslieBurns @amydiehl

https://col.social/@gabriel/116399039808888180

Show threadLeslie Burns1d ago

@gabriel Pretty sure we heard you the first time.

I simply think you're wrong.

@amydiehl

Show threadgabriel1d ago

@LeslieBurns @amydiehl

That's fine, we can disagree. Have a nice evening.

Show threadflafflar 19h ago

@gabriel This is not a disagreement bro, you're straight-up misinterpreting the study

@LeslieBurns @amydiehl

Show threadTed Lemon1d ago

@LeslieBurns @gabriel @amydiehl

One interesting thing they don't correct for is men who didn't have sex during the two-year period prior to the study.

Also, I worry this will be used to conclude, a la Dworkin/McKinnon that men are just naturally this way, rather than that we are socialized to behave this way pretty much from birth, and have to learn our way out of it, hopefully before we do something awful. The most commonly reported coercive technique is "tells her what she wants to hear..."

Show threadTed Lemon1d ago

@LeslieBurns @gabriel @amydiehl

I mention this because it's been very clear to me for a long time that boys and young men need clear and explicit education on how to behave towards members of the desired sex (as do girls and young women).

And that ain't happening.

And bashing won't help.

Show threadgabriel1d ago

@abhayakara

I also concluded the same, that this could be used to argue that "men are this way". And while sexual aggression is a serious problem that is under-reported, a 95% is just too high. That's why I think it is important to clarify the number, and the context.

Show threadTed Lemon1d ago

@gabriel

Unfortunately if this goes viral that won't be effective, because the first message is what people generally remember.

I grew up during the Dworkin/McKinnon period, and bear the scars—that's why I remember their names.

The problem with their work is that they just figured out who to blame, not what to do to fix the situation, and those of us who took them seriously wound up hating ourselves for the misdeeds of others instead of doing anything about it.

Show threadスパックマン クリス1d ago

@LeslieBurns @gabriel @amydiehl

I believe you are correct. There are some language issues with the writing, imho, that may cause some confusion, but the paper clearly states that:

"Of the final sample of 2,689 men, 95.1% reported having recently used at least one of the strategies to force a woman to have sex" (Results section, para 1)

They then say that the ones who did not were demographically indistinguishable from the 95% group.

Likely the 95% group then received follow up questions.

Show threadスパックマン クリス1d ago

@LeslieBurns @gabriel @amydiehl

Certainly, the wording of the original request for participants may have turned off many men who would never use the strategies --- the wording was basically "let's hear the men's side of the story". If you have never been in a he-said / she-said situation, you may not have signed up for the research.

My feeling is that this is important research, and further research is needed.

Show threadgabriel1d ago

@chris_spackman

I think is really valuable work, and it is important to document in the literature the strategies that are used by aggressors to force woman to have sex.

But I also think that in this particular instance finding information towards their RQ1 (what % of men..) is in conflict with their other RQ (how effective are the strategies, etc).

Show threadスパックマン クリス1d ago

@LeslieBurns @gabriel @amydiehl

Let me emphasize the "may not have signed up". We don't know. (So, more research.)

BUT, the number of men who do these things should be as close to zero as nature / nurture allows. There will always be some who are willing to hurt others for their own selfish reasons. However, there is no ethically acceptable reason for the # in any given society to be in double digits, much less 60, 80, or 95%.

We can do better. Seems like we could barely do worse.

Show threadDuckbilled Plattypus.1d ago

@gabriel

You don't actually know, based on this study, what percentage of all males are in this self-identified category of sexually aggressive men. So maybe not all men, maybe 30% or 70% or 99%. What number is "not all men" enough for you? 1000 men responded to a similar study solicitation in 48 hours on reddit, according to this study.

You really did post simply to say "Not all men." Do you also post "Not all white people" too?

@amydiehl

Show threadgabriel1d ago

@pattykimura @amydiehl

I was shocked by the 95% figure, so I downloaded the paper. In it, I found out that the universe of the study is not "all men" but "men who identify themselves as aggressors". Now, when I claim "not-all-men" here, is not a way to deviate the conversation. Is to focus on what the intent of the paper is, and which conclusions can be taken from it. One of them, we need to know what the actual % is. Or focus on what aggressive men do, goal of this particular paper.

Show threadJenniferplusplus1d ago
@gabriel @amydiehl
Thank you. It's extremely relevant that the study population is not an unbiased distribution of all men
Show threadtheTangent.Space20h ago
@gabriel @amydiehl it says the study was designed to focus on men with this history, but I can't find anything that says having this history was an inclusion criterion.
Show threadJennifer Moore 😷16h ago

I just read the paper, and I'm not entirely satisfied with either mini-précis in the 2 toots above, or indeed the researchers' own framing.

"A sample of 3,011 self-identified men ages 18 to 34 (Mage = 27.31) was recruited in the Spring of 2023 using an online panel (Qualtrics Research Suite) that invited all men who met criteria into the study. The study was described as exploring positive and negative interactions between men and women in sexual situations. The consent form indicated that the survey was men’s opportunity “to provide their side of the story given that we have heard so much from women” about male–female sexual interactions, repeatedly assuring them of their guaranteed anonymity. ...

"Men were eligible if they self-identified as men, were in the age range 18 to 34 years, and reported having had a sexual encounter with a woman in the past 2 years. ...

"Participants were asked “In the past four years, how many times have you used any of the following strategies to get (or try to get) a woman to have some type of sex when she did not want to have sex or acted like she did not want to have sex? (Only women you have recently met—no sex or dating history with them beforehand).”"

So, @gabriel - yes the researchers were focusing on pressure tactics, but this cohort wasn't recruited _from_ people who _already_ said they had pressured women into sex.

On the other hand, @amydiehl, I think the "sexual encounter with a woman in the past 2 years" criterion is a significant distinction from men-of-that-age in general, because there will be men who aren't using the pressure tactics and _haven't_ had sex with a woman in the last 2 years - and those seem to me quite obviously _not_ independent variables. Young men who are just chilling with their friends, or who are "waiting for the right person", or indeed who are isolated and unhappy and never leave their house, simply aren't part of this cohort.

For this reason, even though the paper says
"RQ1: What proportion of men report a history of using strategies to force a woman to have sex?" ... I don't see how they think they're measuring that.

It's still valuable for the list of tactics and the relative prevalence of the tactics in relation to each other. And it does of course show that there are thousands of blokes who think it's okay to push reluctant women into sex, which is yikesy enough.

Open to contradiction if I've read it wrong!

#stats #sex #coercion

Show threadsuzanne14h ago

@unchartedworlds @gabriel @amydiehl
That makes more sense to me. 95% of men actively engaged in more casual sex not focusing on consent tracks closer to my experience than 95% of all men.

#stats #sex #coercion

Show threadgabriel12h ago
@unchartedworlds @amydiehl they say that they picked the men from Reddit, and that they used tactics as asking them to "tell their side" of the story. What I'm seeing is a bias in the sample. It is as if I go to the LGBT friendly park in a city and ask about sexual diversity and self-image. Chances are my sample is not representative of the city population as a whole.
Show threadJennifer Moore 😷12h ago

@gabriel

I get the principle of what you mean, but I think you've misread what they actually _did_ - in that the people who gave answers on Reddit weren't their main sample that they're reporting on.

It was more like: They used an analysis of the older Reddit answers to see what themes were there, to help them design the questions they would ask in the main bit. Then they got a different lot of people who were the main sample.

I'm not saying the main sample _wasn't_ biased - they describe some of the ways it was, like being primarily US-based, and their own specifications of age range & recent sexual history. But they did a better job than just going via Reddit.

Show threadgabriel11h ago

@unchartedworlds
I agree, they don't claim that the subjects were chosen via online forums. I was confused with the term "online panel". I don't actually know how they chose.

The sample clearly is biased. For instance, the number of men who have more than 1 sexual partner in the US is not 95%, see https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2767066.

Trends in Frequency of Sex and Number of Sexual Partners Among US Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years

This survey study of adults aged 18 to 44 years examines trends in reported frequency of sexual activity and number of sexual partners and the association between measures of sexual activity and sociodemographic variables.