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

@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."

@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".

@gabriel And you are definitely coming here to argue ‘not all men’.

@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.

@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.

@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

@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.

@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

@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.
@gabriel in no way does this data do any of that. This whataboutism is only serving to out you. Just stop.