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

[ruby sparks]

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

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

It did become far far far more rare. Violence of that sort is at an all time low and continuing to decrease.

And for all I know, something similar might be said of rape and serious sexual assault? I would feel less confident about 'lesser' things such as harassments, unwanted behaviours and so on, but my guess would be that even those have decreased in many 'western' developed societies, especially in terms of degree if not extent. They are at least more proscribed, socially and legally.

Which, if true, is surely or arguably a good and encouraging thing, as you would probably agree. It shows us that change for the better is readily possible over relatively short timescales, if the conditions are right. We are not necessarily prisoners to biological evolution.

 

[laughing dog]

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

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

It did become far far far more rare. Violence of that sort is at an all time low and continuing to decrease.

But according to RVonse, since it has not died out, murder must not be such a bad thing.

 

[ruby sparks]

It did become far far far more rare. Violence of that sort is at an all time low and continuing to decrease.

But according to RVonse, since it has not died out, murder must not be such a bad thing.

I'm not sure he said, implied or meant that. I doubt he did.

 

[laughing dog]

It did become far far far more rare. Violence of that sort is at an all time low and continuing to decrease.

But according to RVonse, since it has not died out, murder must not be such a bad thing.

I'm not sure he said, implied or meant that. I doubt he did.

Of course he did. It is an application of his reasoning about how toxic masculinity is not such a bad thing since it has not died out since the neanderthals.

 

[ruby sparks]

Of course he did. It is an application of his reasoning about how toxic masculinity is not such a bad thing since it has not died out since the neanderthals.

I'll leave you to discuss that with him. I suspect he might have meant so-called 'bad boy' characteristics were not necessarily such a bad thing. It's not clear what he meant or means by 'toxic masculinity'. Which is understandable, it's a complicated and modulated concept at times, and partly depends on what sort of characteristics, attitudes and behaviours we are including or not.

Or, if he meant that he thought that even things like rape and serious sexual assault are not such a bad thing, he could explain what he means by 'not bad'. 'Not bad' for the survival, continuance or increase in population of the species? Or morally not bad? I can't imagine he would suggest the latter. Possibly not even the former, though there might be some uncomfortable accuracy in it. Many other ape (and other) species have evolved similar 'coerced-sex' behaviours. Evolution doesn't care about morality.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's a thought. The fact that women prefer high testosterone/high aggression males, doesn't that mean that women are training men towards, so called, "toxic masculine" behaviours? It's plain to anyone who's ever been to a bar or a nightclub which men girls prefer. Especially very attractive girls who have their pick. They almost exclusively go for the high testosterone/high aggression men. Why wouldn't men with less testosterone do their best to copy the aggressive strategies for getting women, since it obviously is working?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Of course he did. It is an application of his reasoning about how toxic masculinity is not such a bad thing since it has not died out since the neanderthals.

I'll leave you to discuss that with him. I suspect he might have meant so-called 'bad boy' characteristics were not necessarily such a bad thing. It's not clear what he meant or means by 'toxic masculinity'. Which is understandable, it's a complicated and modulated concept at times, and partly depends on what sort of characteristics, attitudes and behaviours we are including or not.

Or, if he meant that he thought that even things like rape and serious sexual assault are not such a bad thing, he could explain what he means by 'not bad'. 'Not bad' for the survival, continuance or increase in population of the species? Or morally not bad? I can't imagine he would suggest the latter. Possibly not even the former, though there might be some uncomfortable accuracy in it. Many other ape (and other) species have evolved similar 'coerced-sex' behaviours. Evolution doesn't care about morality.

Obviously all women would prefer it if their partners were nice to them. Who wouldn't? Unless they're suffering from some sort of serious mental illness. Women like men who are capable of defending themselves, (and thereby also her). We also like to feel special. We don't like partners who are nice to everybody. We like partners who are selective in who they are generous to. It shows that they are able to be hard when necessary and soft when necessary. I don't think women are attracted to men who behave badly. It's just that in our culture it's only the "bad boys" who display their aggression. So they win by default. Men aren't taught how to behave "manly". We're fed old Christian, not sexy, values. It creates are market where idiot douchebags get a free pick. If ordinary men weren't socialised to be like women bad boys wouldn't be as attractive to women. That's my hypothesis.

 

[ruby sparks]

Here's a thought. The fact that women prefer high testosterone/high aggression males, doesn't that mean that women are training men towards, so called, "toxic masculine" behaviours?

I think that is what was already being suggested more than once, starting quite a while back by Trausti, seemingly picked up on by Rvonse for example, and maybe one or two others, and many of my recent comments can be seen as already responding to it.

It's plain to anyone who's ever been to a bar or a nightclub which men girls prefer. Especially very attractive girls who have their pick. They almost exclusively go for the high testosterone/high aggression men. Why wouldn't men with less testosterone do their best to copy the aggressive strategies for getting women, since it obviously is working?

Not necessarily, because that does not seem to be the overall picture. See previous posts and all the points therein, as a whole. It's just one scenario among many, according to evidence which is, unlike yours, more than anecdotal. Though there may be some truth in it, up to a point. I accept that.

It's not even what I would say, at all, about bars and nightclubs either, if I were to be similarly anecdotal about my experiences, and I have been in a lot of bars and a lot of nightclubs. And of course bars and nightclubs are only two places where people meet potential partners, albeit common ones in recent decades. But still, a lot of people meet partners, and certainly used to meet partners, even a few decades ago, in other, different social contexts. Plus, in bars and nightclubs, people tend to be intoxicated, which might (would) affect behaviours, and the background noise levels might favour certain types of behaviour, social skills and interactions, over others. And we are, I think, often (but not always) talking about initial meetings, often with strangers.

Has anybody seen the UK Channel 4 tv series 'First Dates' where the initial meeting is intimate, across a restaurant dinner table and there is no loud music or other distracting noise in the background and where conversational and other social skills, and demeanours, come to the fore? I have watched it quite frequently over a number of years. I myself have not noticed a pattern of women falling for macho/toxic or aggressive men in that. Often, the prospective couples have been 'matched' as regards several things, including physical appearance among others (and indeed sexual orientation). One good thing about that show is that we get to see what people actually (with reality tv caveats) do, rather than what they say they do or what they report generally as their preferences.

- - - Updated - - -

If ordinary men weren't socialised to be like women bad boys wouldn't be as attractive to women. That's my hypothesis.

And I think it's somewhat awry. It does not seem to fit the available facts though. See previous posts and all the points therein, as a whole.

For example, one online 'reporting' study, involving 1200 German women, apparently (I only read an article in Psychology Today, I could not find the study itself) showed results that those women were more likely to prefer 'macho/aggressive' men either during ovulation or when considering short-term dates, and to prefer less 'macho/aggressive' men when considering either a long term relationship or marriage.

The Allure of Aggressive Men
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/head-games/201305/the-allure-aggressive-men

And I would not agree with that article in all respects. It says women have to choose between 'dads' and 'cads'. I doubt many women actually have to make that binary choice. Most potential candidates are going to be a blend, mostly somewhere near the middle of a relevant bell curve distribution.

And that result is just an example of one of a number of variations and complexities. And, as ever, it only means some women, of a certain demographic and age group. If a majority, then a slight majority. For one characteristic in isolation. And has to be seen in the context of other real-world factors affecting choice of partner and there are many, because in the real world, men (and women) come in different packages with different pros and cons. An experiment splits choices, often into one thing versus another, and so is artificial compared to variegated reality. And it's only one study, for one scenario. Other studies show different, sometimes contrary results. Get out there and start reading around. Things might not be as you think, or accord with your own personal, anecdotal evidence and hypotheses. The devil is often in the detail, and almost everything about human behaviour is capricious and very complicated.

Finally, almost all sorts of (straight) men and all sorts of (straight) women get together, get it on, live together, get married and have children. We don't live in overtly polygamous groups like some other animals do, where one male can readily corner most females (or vice versa) at the expense of other males (or vice versa, there is an interesting type of sea squid, or perhaps it's an anemone, where the female keeps lots of tiny males in little pouches on the sides of her body and only lets them out to have sex). Jolly noted that murder (for example) is far less common than it used to be. Humans may not be being sexually selected for the traits they once were. And certain types of selection can operate over very short timescales.

All in all, we can't make much of a justification, especially not a moral one, out of such things anyway. At best, they may help to explain. In that sense, I think people should be willing to incorporate such things, where they are true and to what extent, into their understandings, even if they don't like them. There is no need to politicise or moralise them. But this is separate from questions about what to do or what can be done about toxic masculinity, particularly when it comes to serious issues such as rape and sexual assault in particular, because we are not prisoners of evolution. The example of violence generally could be appropriate here. And remember, things like rape are not, it seems, about attraction, though they may be about other aspects of so-called 'toxic masculinity'. And/or they might be about other things. The term 'toxic masculinity' does not explain all 'deviances', I don't think. I see it more as a useful tool/concept to explore and possibly address some things, that's all, and definitely not necessarily as part of a particular, for instance Feminist, paradigm. And of course, 'masculinity' and 'femininity' are moveable feasts themselves, as terms, since they have to do with norms and roles, which are not static and not separate things anyway.



Also, saying that 'ordinary men are socialised to be like women' seems dubious, as a general explanation. I'm almost afraid, and certainly reluctant, to ask what you mean by that, and what it's based on.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think that is what was already being suggested more than once, starting quite a while back by Trausti, picked up on by Rvonse for example, and many of my recent comments can be seen as already responding to it.



No, because that does not seem to be the overall picture. See previous posts and all the points therein, as a whole. It's just one scenario among many, according to evidence which is, unlike yours, more than anecdotal. Though there may be some truth in it, up to a point. I accept that.

It's not even what I would say, at all, about bars and nightclubs either, if I were to be similarly anecdotal about my experiences, and I have been in a lot of bars and a lot of nightclubs. And of course bars and nightclubs are only two places where people meet potential partners, albeit common ones in recent decades. But still, a lot of people meet partners, and certainly used to meet partners, even a few decades ago, in other, different social contexts. Plus, in bars and nightclubs, people tend to be intoxicated, which might (would) affect behaviours, and the background noise levels might favour certain types of behaviour, social skills and interactions, over others. And we are, I think, often (but not always) talking about initial meetings, often with strangers.

Has anybody seen the UK Channel 4 tv series 'First Dates' where the initial meeting is intimate, across a restaurant dinner table and there is no loud music or other distracting noise in the background and where conversational and other social skills, and demeanours, come to the fore? I have watched it quite frequently over a number of years. I myself have not noticed a pattern of women falling for macho/toxic or aggressive men in that. Often, the prospective couples have been 'matched' as regards several things, including physical appearance among others (and indeed sexual orientation). One good thing about that show is that we get to see what people actually (with reality tv caveats) do, rather than what they say they do or what they report generally as their preferences.

- - - Updated - - -

If ordinary men weren't socialised to be like women bad boys wouldn't be as attractive to women. That's my hypothesis.

And I think it's somewhat awry. It does not seem to fit the available facts though. See previous posts and all the points therein, as a whole.

For example, one online 'reporting' study, involving 1200 German women, apparently (I only read an article in Psychology Today, I could not find the study itself) showed results that those women were more likely to prefer 'macho/aggressive' men either during ovulation or when considering short-term dates, and to prefer less 'macho/aggressive' men when considering either a long term relationship or marriage.

The Allure of Aggressive Men
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/head-games/201305/the-allure-aggressive-men

And I would not agree with that article in all respects. It says women have to choose between 'dads' and 'cads'. I doubt many women actually have to make that binary choice. Most potential candidates are going to be a blend, mostly somewhere near the middle of a relevant bell curve distribution.

And that result is just an example of one of a number of variations and complexities. And, as ever, it only means some women, of a certain demographic and age group. If a majority, then a slight majority. For one characteristic in isolation. And has to be seen in the context of other real-world factors affecting choice of partner and there are many, because in the real world, men (and women) come in different packages with different pros and cons. An experiment splits choices, often into one thing versus another, and so is artificial compared to variegated reality. And it's only one study, for one scenario. Other studies show different, sometimes contrary results. Get out there and start reading around. Things might not be as you think, or accord with your own personal, anecdotal evidence and hypotheses.

Finally, almost all sorts of (straight) men and all sorts of (straight) women get together, get it on, live together, get married and have children. We don't live in overtly polygamous groups like some other animals do, where one male can readily corner most females (or vice versa) at the expense of other males (or vice versa, there is an interesting type of sea squid, or perhaps it's an anemone, where the female keeps lots of males in little pouches on the sides of her body and only lets them out to have sex). Jolly noted that murder (for example) is far less common than it used to be. Humans may not be being sexually selected for the traits they once were. And certain types of selection can operate over very short timescales.

All in all, we can't make much of a justification, especially not a moral one, out of such things anyway. At best, they may help to explain. In that sense, I think people should be willing to incorporate such things, where they are true and to what extent, into their understandings, even if they don't like them. But this is separate from questions about what to do or what can be done about toxic masculinity, particularly when it comes to serious issues such as rape and sexual assault in particular, because we are not prisoners of evolution. The example of violence generally could be appropriate here. And remember, things like rape are not, it seems, about attraction, though they may be about other aspects of so-called 'toxic masculinity'. And/or they might be about other things. The term 'toxic masculinity' does not explain all 'deviances', I don't think. I see it more as a useful tool/concept to explore and possibly address some things, that's all, and definitely not necessarily as part of a particular, for instance Feminist, paradigm. And of course, 'masculinity' and 'femininity' are moveable feasts themselves, as terms, since they have to do with norms and roles, which are not static and not separate things anyway.



Also, saying that 'ordinary men are socialised to be like women' seems dubious, as a general explanation. I'm almost afraid, and certainly reluctant, to ask what you mean by that, and what it's based on.

The article lost me right at the beginning. Humans have evolved to live in tribal groups. They shared care for each other. Women do NOT invest more in the children than men do. While the women are pregnant the men will be caring for her. All the men. All the men of the tribe will care for all the children and women equally. That's how hunter gatherer societies work. If male care of the child was at all a factor women should be able to fuck any guy randomly and not care what the partner is. The fact that they do care who their partner is, means that something else is the prime factor for selecting partners. I think both men and women select partners purely based on getting desirable physical and psychological traits in the offspring.

Too many of these studies assume that nuclear families is the norm for humans. But we know that that was not how we evolved. So I reject the theory behind the study, even though I agree with the data.

It's also rare that a women who is in a relationship stops being horny for other men. So we've obviously not evolved for monogamy. Neither men nor women. So the term "partner" in that study is problematic. What exactly does it mean? I'd argue that a short term partner is not a partner at all. It's just someone we fuck. The word partner today has other connotations than just someone we fuck.

 

[ruby sparks]

The article lost me right at the beginning. Humans have evolved to live in tribal groups. They shared care for each other. Women do NOT invest more in the children than men do. While the women are pregnant the men will be caring for her. All the men. All the men of the tribe will care for all the children and women equally. That's how hunter gatherer societies work. If male care of the child was at all a factor women should be able to fuck any guy randomly and not care what the partner is. The fact that they do care who their partner is, means that something else is the prime factor for selecting partners. I think both men and women select partners purely based on getting desirable physical and psychological traits in the offspring.

Too many of these studies assume that nuclear families is the norm for humans. But we know that that was not how we evolved. So I reject the theory behind the study, even though I agree with the data.

It's also rare that a women who is in a relationship stops being horny for other men. So we've obviously not evolved for monogamy. Neither men nor women. So the term "partner" in that study is problematic. What exactly does it mean? I'd argue that a short term partner is not a partner at all. It's just someone we fuck. The word partner today has other connotations than just someone we fuck.

Imo, your thinking is all over the place.

Just as one small example, one minute you are suggesting that women may have inadvertently 'trained' men to have certain characteristics (which are not associated with parental or spousal care) and the next you're suggesting it's rubbish that men don't or didn't provide as much parental or spousal care.

And that's just one of your points, from that one post. I could have picked a few others.

All over the shop, is what you are. I really don't think you've thought through many of the things you come out with, and I doubt you've researched effectively either, if at all. You just seem to make it up as you go along. With a degree of simplicity and (apparent) sureness that is unwarranted. Not to mention often being inconsistent. As such, you are always partly right and partly wrong, imo, and it's a mess discussing with you.

At least you've gotten away from the Feminism thing, I'll give you that.

By the way. Parental/spousal care. Is that what 'ordinary men who are socialised to be like females' do? That was another of your explanatory ideas, while you were temporarily in 'bad boy toxicity is what works' mode.

And again, things like reproductive strategies and levels of attraction are only part of the OP topic, even if related to it. We could, if anyone wants to, including you, segue a little more back in that direction. Did you see the questions I asked you a few posts back?

Here's a more on-topic question for you. What sort of things do you think would be 'good' (useful) things to talk about at a men's retreat.? You don't have to say you'd go to one. Or, what things do you think would be 'good' (useful) to do about what I'm calling 'toxic masculinity' or so-called toxic masculinity, but which you might call, "common male behaviours that are unhelpful and sometimes damaging". Practical things. Not necessarily 'redesigning society' or at the other extreme merely buying certain razors.

Same questions to anyone reading.

Or, is criticism and dismissal and disagreement (with studies and articles I mean) too easy and being constructive and positive too hard, a lot of the time?

Go for it. You might as well, while you're here. You already touched on a few interesting things (such as agreeing there are undesirable common male behaviours and advocating for men's retreats and the like) and I'm trying to pick up on those specifically.

I'll start/restart by apologising if anything I said above was rude or unfair. Seriously, I do apologise. Sometimes I say things I should not, including criticisms. I do like you, I think you're a good guy (possibly even 'nice' but probably a mixture like most of us) and I appreciate you discussing stuff with me (few others seem to be as inclined as you are, while I rattle on incessantly, mostly and often deliberately talking to myself, lol) and accept that I might be getting you wrong. I'm sure I am to some extent. I don't know you. I also accept that if there's been any segues away from the OP directly, that I have made them as much as anyone.

Same questions (as per above quoted post) to anyone reading.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think both men and women select partners purely based on getting desirable physical and psychological traits in the offspring.

By the way, and not intending to go back to this particular strand of discussion (I'd rather do the questions, or get back closer to the OP) I think this is at least quite true. And I should try to agree with you where I can, or be inconsistent and contradictory myself.

But of course the latter, psychological traits, won't necessarily just be 'toxic' or 'masculine' even for sons or intended/hoped-for/possible sons.

And, people also (in tandem) seem to choose partners because of the likely/perceived roles they, the prospective partners or partners, might play after reproduction, and these are not necessarily or typically what we might call the 'toxically masculine' ones, in the case of men.

 

[ruby sparks]

One more afterthought. Not about the OP. Someone could start an interesting thread on what men find attractive, say they find attractive, and/or what sort of partners they actually choose (if and when they choose one and there is reciprocal agreement) and for what 'intended/unintended purpose' (sex versus life partner for example). I feel sure that we blokes are as unreliable in what we think we do and why we do it as women, generally, with the possible caveat that women might even in general be better than us in working out what they want and why they want it. I hope that last bit is not controversial. Studies do suggest women are more in touch with their 'selves' than men often are.

To balance that, I might have a feeling that when it comes to having sex, specifically, men might have more unfettered access to what they want as regards that (for a variety of reasons, including social stigmas not applying to men as often). In other areas ('deeper' feelings and emotions perhaps) women might be better. Just a guess. And generalising again.

For example, you know what they say, sometimes men say one thing when they mean a mother.

What non-CIS-gendered or non-straight-oriented people tend to think and do might be interesting too, obviously.

Different topic though. Don't reply here, anyone, unless you want to start a thread or want one started. I could oblige. At least if one was started, the (sadly, few) females here could get to chip in and tell us what they think men want, instead of the other way around, which may sometimes happen. Lol.

 

[DrZoidberg]

At least you've gotten away from the Feminism thing, I'll give you that.

My problem has never been with all feminism. Only with a very specific and narrow type of feminism which is in vogue now, which produced the "toxic masculinity" concept. Since this thread references toxic masculinity it is about this strain of feminism. You can't meaningfully separate them IMHO. I'm aware you disagree.

By the way. Parental/spousal care. Is that what 'ordinary men who are socialised to be like females' do? That was another of your explanatory ideas, while you were temporarily in 'bad boy toxicity is what works' mode.

No, that's not what I mean. Since we are a social species this means that it's important for us to coordinate and sometimes get others in our group to do things (or not do things) they would rather not. Social control. Men and women use different methods for social control. There's debate about whether these methods are learned or innate. But the fact remains that men and women are different in this regard. Before the 20'th century men and women didn't really mix. There was a sharp separation of male and female jobs. In the west in the 1960'ies we decided to start a grand sociological experiment where we opened up all jobs to both genders. But without acknowledging that it was a sociological experiment. We just assumed it would all work out smoothly. It's not until recently we've started to analyse what changed, and what was gained and lost.

Since women are better at picking up social cues and are in general more sensitive to moods and such, men have had to adapt. That's what I mean with socialisation have been feminised. Sure, there's been give and take on both sides. But right now whenever there's a conflict anybody displaying anything we associate with masculinity is automatically at fault. As far as work place efficiency it's probably for the better. There's been loads of studies with differences between male and female interaction. So I won't bore you with them. All we need to agree on is that there are differences. No, matter if they're learned or innate. It's the same effect

In the 1970'ies a woman was supposed to be strong and independent career woman, while at the same time supposed to be a devoted and chaste wife and mother, while also a free spirited slut free of shame. And of course do all the housework. It was an impossible situation. No matter what she did she would be a bad woman.

I think we've reached the same situation for men. Men are today supposed to be brave, strong and decisive men of action, while at the same time are never allowed to make social mistakes or cross social boundaries. We can't be expected to take big risks while simultaneously never be allowed to make mistakes. Or as a female friend of mine so aptly put it, men today are either fuckable monsters or unfuckable spineless good boys.

That's what I mean when I say that men today are socialised to behave like women, while at the same time women want men who dare being men.

 

[ruby sparks]

No, that's not what I mean. Since we are a social species this means that it's important for us to coordinate and sometimes get others in our group to do things (or not do things) they would rather not. Social control. Men and women use different methods for social control. There's debate about whether these methods are learned or innate. But the fact remains that men and women are different in this regard. Before the 20'th century men and women didn't really mix. There was a sharp separation of male and female jobs. In the west in the 1960'ies we decided to start a grand sociological experiment where we opened up all jobs to both genders. But without acknowledging that it was a sociological experiment. We just assumed it would all work out smoothly. It's not until recently we've started to analyse what changed, and what was gained and lost.

Since women are better at picking up social cues and are in general more sensitive to moods and such, men have had to adapt. That's what I mean with socialisation have been feminised. Sure, there's been give and take on both sides. But right now whenever there's a conflict anybody displaying anything we associate with masculinity is automatically at fault. As far as work place efficiency it's probably for the better. There's been loads of studies with differences between male and female interaction. So I won't bore you with them. All we need to agree on is that there are differences. No, matter if they're learned or innate. It's the same effect

In the 1970'ies a woman was supposed to be strong and independent career woman, while at the same time supposed to be a devoted and chaste wife and mother, while also a free spirited slut free of shame. And of course do all the housework. It was an impossible situation. No matter what she did she would be a bad woman.

I think we've reached the same situation for men. Men are today supposed to be brave, strong and decisive men of action, while at the same time are never allowed to make social mistakes or cross social boundaries. We can't be expected to take big risks while simultaneously never be allowed to make mistakes. Or as a female friend of mine so aptly put it, men today are either fuckable monsters or unfuckable spineless good boys.

That's what I mean when I say that men today are socialised to behave like women, while at the same time women want men who dare being men.

That's ok. I agree with nearly all that. With the caveat (sorry, there usually is a caveat or two) that some of it might be expressed too...what's the word....too much in black and white or binary terms. Some of the either or's, the always's and the automatically's could be replaced with words like, 'sometimes', 'often' or 'up to a point in some or many cases'. imo. It's not that I'm saying we can't generalise. I think we sort of have to, in some ways, but I don't mean that.

I might have to add another caveat.......your reply is not as directly on-topic as I'd prefer, now that I think (imo) we may have drifted away for quite a while, and I see you have not answered my questions. It's ok, you don't need to and it doesn't take away from anything that you have said that I agree with. But, I myself might not be following this particular strand of discussion (which I accept is related to the OP in some ways) especially if anyone else chips in more directly along OP lines. If they don't, I may resort to continuing along whatever lines are more popular. I use the word loosely. There's not many chipping in but you and me lately.

 

[RVonse]

Different topic though. Don't reply here, anyone, unless you want to start a thread or want one started. I could oblige.

If you really want off topic (yet really on topic) would be a discussion of the impact of the sex doll robots. They are not main stream yet but it wont be much longer.

If all a guy is really looking for is sex, why play the games with women. Furthermore poster Derec is 100% correct that current divorce laws mean you automatically lose in court if you have a penis. Im guessing a LOT of guys will buy a robot and forget about dealing with real women.

Will the women in general look forward to the sex dolls for guys so they will not have to deal with toxic masculinity? Will the women look forward to a reduction in potential mates in the dating market?

Then what about the toxic masculinity of the guy who breaks up with his gal, then buys a robot that looks just like her and beats the crap out of the robot. Will the feminist's want laws against that practice too?

 

[blastula]

Peak toxic masculinity is worrying about the legality of beating up your robot.

 

[ruby sparks]

Different topic though. Don't reply here, anyone, unless you want to start a thread or want one started. I could oblige.

If you really want off topic (yet really on topic) would be a discussion of the impact of the sex doll robots. They are not main stream yet but it wont be much longer.

If all a guy is really looking for is sex, why play the games with women. Furthermore poster Derec is 100% correct that current divorce laws mean you automatically lose in court if you have a penis. Im guessing a LOT of guys will buy a robot and forget about dealing with real women.

Will the women in general look forward to the sex dolls for guys so they will not have to deal with toxic masculinity? Will the women look forward to a reduction in potential mates in the dating market?

Then what about the toxic masculinity of the guy who breaks up with his gal, then buys a robot that looks just like her and beats the crap out of the robot. Will the feminist's want laws against that practice too?

Actually, that's arguably, as you suggest, potentially bang on topic, especially if we try to keep it within touching distance of so-called 'toxic masculinity'. It may not be a conventional response to the issue (that might involve things like education, sanctions, group talk, retreats, bystanders taking a more active role, etc etc) but....I think that's ok.

There are suggestions (I will post an article in a minute) that use of porn decreases, or plays a part in the decrease of, rape and/or serious sexual assault (specifically). I don't think it's established beyond doubt and I don't know much about it, so I won't comment on the likelihood of that being correct.

Evidence Mounts: More Porn, LESS Sexual Assault
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/...evidence-mounts-more-porn-less-sexual-assault

And something similar may be suggested for using sex workers, I don't know.

Of course, nowadays, or to date if you like, both porn and sex work tend mostly to involve actual people (women in the case of what/who straight males may use), though not always. There is already anime porn, probably CGI porn for all I know, and there have always been cartoons and fictional stories, and all sorts of masturbatory aids that don't (directly at least) involve actual people.

Possibly virtual-reality porn, or as you suggest, sex doll robots, are not too far away (if they are not already here in rudimentary form). I think your scenario requires us to imagine that the sexbots (or the virtual reality or whatever) are so convincing that they seem 'real'. So we are being hypothetical about that. Which I think is ok for the purposes of speculative discussion.

By the way, I'm not suggesting either use of or participation in either porn or sex work on the part of actual humans are bad things necessarily. In principle, they are not, though in reality there may often be issues of genuine and sometimes great concern.

As to whether women generally will welcome such things, I would only be guessing, but I guess it might depend. If it reduces the risk of being raped or assaulted because the potential attackers are either sated, partly-sated or distracted, then many women might be ok with that (if it's the case). On the other hand, a woman in a relationship or seeking one might not be ok with it.

I can't imagine anyone asking for there to be a law against assaulting a sex robot. But you never know. At some point, sex robots might get so like humans that they may be granted rights. It seems unlikely for at least the foreseeable though.

And not forgetting that there could easily be male robots to provide what women might want, including sex (but also housework, romance, conversations, empathising, etc). Sperm banks for actual reproduction and so-sophisticate- that-they-seem-real manbots for everything else, perhaps? And many men may similarly want a bot that is for more than sex too (also housework, romance, conversations, empathising, etc).

One issue, I think, is cost. But a financially-independent man or a financially-independent woman could be hypothetically assumed. For others, there may be issues.

I think it's all a bit futuristic, and we might ask what can be done in the reality of now. And I might go back to that.

Finally, I seriously doubt that Derec is 100% correct that current divorce laws mean you automatically lose in court if you have a penis, but I do not want to get into it here.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Then what about the toxic masculinity of the guy who breaks up with his gal, then buys a robot that looks just like her and beats the crap out of the robot. Will the feminist's want laws against that practice too?

That is actually an interesting legal question. Apparently, there's a market in China for sex dolls which look like celebrities. It's tough getting them into Western countries due to concerns about legal issues (or so I've heard ... through a friend ... not a good friend, barely an acquaintance really), but I'm not sure if those legal issues have ever been tested in court and if someone wanted a Gal Gadot sex doll, would Gadot be able block that and, if so, could a company then market a Woonder Wimen sex doll which totally has no association with anybody real or fictional and anyone who tells you it looks exactly like the actress is crazy?

If it wasn't a famous person with a large legal department behind her, but you just brought a picture into the company and said you wanted one which looked like this girl, would there be any restrictions on that? I'm sure that customization options would be a thing, so it would be tough to stop that sort of thing. Once you own it, there aren't any rules against hitting your personal property with a bat or setting it on fire, so that would likely be OK.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I find the argument that it's because of Christianity that the west is so successful unconvincing. I've read Guns, Germs, and Steel. I don't buy it.

Where in Guns, Germs, and Steel does it say Christianity is why the west is so successful? I read it a while back and it was making the opposite argument, that the reason is lucky geographic distribution of resources.

 

[laughing dog]

Will the women in general look forward to the sex dolls for guys so they will not have to deal with toxic masculinity? Will the women look forward to a reduction in potential mates in the dating market?

My guess is that guys who feel the need to use sex robots are not that appealing to most women anyways.

Then what about the toxic masculinity of the guy who breaks up with his gal, then buys a robot that looks just like her and beats the crap out of the robot. Will the feminist's want laws against that practice too?

No, but they will still push for UHC to cover treatment for psychological and mental issues that drive people to come up with such silly scenarios.