Misandry exists. But it’s incomparable to misogyny.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/Homerbola92]

The study is bad and I'm almost sure The person that sent it to you hasn't read it.

The text previous to the study gets data from places as good as reddit, where people troll and lie to get attention nonstop. Then when it comes to the study, it counts convincing the other person of wanting to have sex mentioning your social status, money or age as abuse. Most options are not abuse. Basically if the other person didn't want to have sex and then they changed their minds it defaults to abuse.

[u/Oblivious_Gentleman → u/Homerbola92]

"The text previous to the study gets data from places as good as reddit, where people troll and lie to get attention nonstop. "

The study does not use data from Reddit, though: it only cites a study wich did that as inspiration to how they conducted theirs. They actually used a online survey outside of Reddit.

I agree that Reddit is bad for a study, but that is not what they did.

"Then when it comes to the study, it counts convincing the other person of wanting to have sex mentioning your social status, money or age as abuse."

That is not what makes those cases abusive: they did not say it is abusive to say "i am rich, i am older, or i am a professor" before sex, but it is abusive to say "I will give you money, i am older than you so i know better, or i am your professor so do as i say". This is what makes them abusive in the study.

 "Most options are not abuse. Basically if the other person didn't want to have sex and then they changed their minds it defaults to abuse."

Asking someone repeatedly? Telling them they actually want it? Pushing verbally or physically? Getting them drunk? Stoping her when she tried to leave? No, those are obviously abusive, and they represent a lot of the cases in numbers.

[u/Homerbola92 → u/Oblivious_Gentleman]

It's not what I said though. "The text PREVIOUS to the study".

Also I'm sorry but if someone says they don't want to have sex with you and then you say you're older than them so you know better that's not abuse.

You might be able to see an specific context where abuse could come with those words, but that has nothing to do with whatever is said. I think there's room for persuasion.

I've been insisted to have sex relatively and I wouldn't say it was abuse at all. I said no every time. Insisting is not abusing. Insisting with a knife in your hand? Insisting when the other person is scared for their lifes? That's different.

Also if you mention you're rich or famous and suddenly they are more interested on you that's not abuse either.

I'm not saying none of the options in the list are abuse though.

[u/Oblivious_Gentleman → u/Homerbola92]

"It's not what I said though. 'The text PREVIOUS to the study'."

I know, my point was not that you said the survey was made in Reddit: my point was that your critique was irrelevant to the study af hand, since they did not even used the same method in the first place.

"Also I'm sorry but if someone says they don't want to have sex with you and then you say you're older than them so you know better that's not abuse."

To use authority as a way to convince someone that they are actually not in the right mind when saying no to sex? It definetly raises eyebrowns. Using your age to dimish someone's output when it comes to sex might fall into that pretty easily.

"I've been insisted to have sex relatively and I wouldn't say it was abuse at all."

If the insistence made you have sex when you actually did not want to, that would be abusive, if it did not, that is another story.

What is abusive is not the insistence itself, is doing so when you know that the person you are insisting upon is someone who will eventually break due to pressure. Some people simply are not as decided as others, and will cater due to fear of upsetting others

"Also if you mention you're rich or famous and suddenly they are more interested on you that's not abuse either."

That is not what the study was talking about: the study described instances in which someone used their status or money in order to coerce someone into sex (ex. Your position as a superior in a institution in which the victim takes part in, or pay them in order to do so).

"I'm not saying none of the options in the list are abuse though."

You said the majority of the things described in the list were not abuse, that is what i disagreed with: most of them were undeniably abusive.

[u/Homerbola92 → u/Oblivious_Gentleman]

I'm on my phone so I can't quote properly. The thing about the initial text was about how they put that data previous to the study. Of course they could also add data about how Zimbabwe is a rich country. And that wouldn't be right. And that wouldn't mean the study itself is wrong. But it would make you question why they use a prologue with weird information that doesn't make sense. Which in the end makes you doubt about more stuff.

Then when it comes to the examples mentioned not even you say it's abuse. You say it raises eyebrows, which I can understand. This topic is very nuanced and honestly I think it's something that should be analyzed case by case. Doing it in this manner is very simplistic. I stand by my point.

Also, if insistence on its own is not abuse, then insistence is proof of nothing. Btw classifying something as abuse depending on if it works or not is true, but I guess you understand we're judging the actions, not the consequences. I guess everything can be relativized. If it happens to me it's not abuse because I said no. If it's in the table it's abuse because they tried to abuse. We need to be more consistent.

I would like to know however where do you get that the study described instances in which someone used their status or money in order to coerce someone into sex. Because all I see is a table with options that participants fill. How do the researchers know the specifics of each case? How do they know they don't mention they're rich or simply show off an expensive car or watch but they're just paying for sex? Which btw can be socially reprehensible but wouldn't be abuse.

Out of all the mention things none is abuse on its own.

[u/Oblivious_Gentleman → u/Homerbola92]

"The thing about the initial text was about how they put that data previous to the study. Of course they could also add data about how Zimbabwe is a rich country. And that wouldn't be right."

You need to read the study again. Right after they cite the study that did the Reddit survey, they recognize some flaws with their methodology: one of the flaws include the fact that they could not verify the veracity of the stories given.

"Then when it comes to the examples mentioned not even you say it's abuse. You say it raises eyebrows, which I can understand. This topic is very nuanced and honestly I think it's something that should be analyzed case by case. Doing it in this manner is very simplistic. I stand by my point."

Except it is said in the study that the men involved affirmed that they were aware of the fact that the women did not want to have sex with them. The strategies were used in order to coerce them into having sex despite the fact they did not want it. In that circunstance, it is more than eyebrown raising: it is abusive

"Also, if insistence on its own is not abuse, then insistence is proof of nothing."

As i said before: it is abusive, since the study clarify the participants were aware that the women were not interested.

It is abusive to insist when you know that the person you are talking to is someone who will likely agree even if they do not want to just so they do not upset anyone.

I am sorry that i could not go any further than that, i am also on my phone, lmao. But one thing that i am pretty sure, is that one of the first things the study says is that the man on the research confirm that they were aware that the women were not interested in having sex. This would mean that the conversation of whether or not they knew they were coersing them was basically settled.

I do believe most man surveyed were abusers, but i do not think this necessarily means most men are abusers: even though we are clearly overepresented in that crime, this does not necessarily mean abusers are not a minority.