To respond to the request for a citation on those numbers:
I was talking about this post by Kimstu, and specifically, the other research mentioned. I found it interesting, and that it was too bad the conversation hadn’t gone further into looking at the implications of men experiencing these fantasies, perhaps as often or more often than women do. Not to mention how Kimstu’s post helpfully pointed out the actual details behind the numbers in the first study, instead of citing the most sensationalist (OMG 62% of women!) without context.
There is a very high demand for dominant women within certain… sub-communities, and there’s surely a reason if not a number of varied reasons for that.
And I imagine we can come up with a just-so simple story for how this fits with evo psych too, if we stretch our minds enough. But it’s not really worth continuing to converse with someone who is so scattershot all over the place instead of focusing on one issue, aside from the vague manifesto that “science” (as a whole, single voice, speaking at once!) has declared “Incels are right about everything.” I don’t have the energy to keep chasing back and forth between topics. Also, I’m bored, and god help us if this idiocy is “TheFuture.”
But you just have a super day, there, buddy. After all, you are *right *about everything, and who can claim that? Other than a moron or liar, I mean.
Other than accusing us of being emotional, can you think of any reason why a person might want to see the original source material rather than a summary from a third party? Any reason at all? I’ll help you. Summaries are incomplete, may be inaccurate, and are informed by the bias of their creator. We would like to see the original material because we want to see the entirety of the story, not just what’s been cherry-picked by individuals with a very clear agenda. Further, in the cases where people have looked at your studies, material is presented out of context, the summary is incomplete, and/or other errors of fact or omission render the cite as used by the incel wiki meaningless.
Your persistent refusal to acknowledge the errors in the wiki, along with your refusal to make an argument, with cites, on your own, make debating with you about as pointless as spitting into the wind.
In general, folks have been very well behaved, despite the presence of this thread in the Pit. I personally see no reason to continue to try and engage in an intellectual discussion with you.
Wow more insults from Sunny Daze. What a surprise. I don’t think you’ve spent much time reading science if you think that’s the case. Abstracts are summaries. Review articles are summaries written by people who didn’t write the articles. Textbooks are summaries written by people who didn’t write the articles. Encyclopedias and Wikipedia are summaries written by people who didn’t write the articles.
The whole point of writing a summary is that you must reference your sources. If the sources are referenced, then I don’t see an issue.
For example, for that race one I just posted: Here’s the formal abstract summary from the authors and journal that published it:
Asian American men and women have been largely neglected in previous studies of romantic relationship formation and status. Using data from the first and fourth waves of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health), we examine romantic and sexual involvement among young adults, most of who were between the ages of 25 to 32 (N=11,555). Drawing from explanations that focus on structural and cultural elements as well as racial hierarchies, we examine the factors that promote and impede involvement in romantic/sexual relationships. We use logistic regression to model current involvement of men and women separately and find, with the exception of Filipino men, Asian men are significantly less likely than white men to be currently involved with a romantic partner, even after controlling for a wide array of characteristics. Our results suggest that the racial hierarchy framework best explains lower likelihood of involvement among Asian American men.
Here’s how that incel page summarized it:
Data from the data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) was evaluated to examine romantic and sexual involvement among young adults, most of who were between the ages of 25 to 32 (n = 11,555).
Overall, white men had the highest odds of being in a relationship, followed in order by Hispanic, black and Asian men. In fact, it was found that Asian men were half as likely as white men to be currently involved with a romantic partner, even after controlling for a wide array of characteristics. Asian women by contrast did not suffer any reduced odds of being in a relationship compared to white women.
Researchers concluded that the dramatically lower odds of an Asian man finding a relationship are due to the racial hierarchies women employ in judging men.
Data:
Man’s Race Odds Ratio of Being in a Romantic/Sexual Relationship
White 1.0
Hispanic 0.895-0.967
Black 0.738-0.769
Asian 0.474-0.586
Quotes:
Asian women were half as likely as Asian men to be unpartnered (i.e., 18% versus 35%).
Asian men, but not black or Hispanic men, exhibit significantly lower odds of involvement than white men. Specifically, they have roughly half the odds of current involvement as white men.
We found no evidence that socioeconomic resources or physical characteristics were driving the lower levels of involvement among Asian men. Instead, our findings are consistent with the notion that Asian American men are at the bottom of the racial hierarchy when it comes to the different-sex dating market.
If “Asian cultural values” account for differences in romantic partnership formation, we would have found similar patterns for Asian women as Asian men. In fact, the opposite was true.
Our results suggest that the racial hierarchy framework best explains lower likelihood of involvement among Asian American men.
A racial hierarchy explanation suggests that Asian American men will be less likely than Asian American women to be partnered, as Asian American men face gendered cultural stereotypes barring them from entry into romantic partnerships.
The average length in those studies was at or slightly below the world average. So much for the myth of larger penis size for men of African heritage.
You are citing personal anecdotes as evidence that condoms are smaller in Japan. How about this article citing a statistic from a manufacturer of “male masturbatory devices” (I’m not sure what those are and didn’t look into details) that claims to have measured sizes for over 50,000 males, and found the Japan average larger than the American average. Now, I don’t claim that this is a rigorous scientific study like my previous cites, but it’s still better than a single person’s anecdote.
So this study is demonstrating that Japanese penises are disproportionately large relative to body size? I would have assumed it was roughly proportional worldwide.
I think it’s just saying they’re not small, contrary to the prevailing “wisdom”. In general the average size seems about the same everywhere, with only minor deviation.
Congratulations. You finally did one, sort of. You missed the part where you state your position, but you’re learning.
Yes, clearly you do feel that way. Several us have repeatedly explained to you why someone else’s summary is not adequate.
I’m not the one with logic problems. I also see no need to avoid pejoratives. If you want a thread without bad words, start one out of the Pit.
I did take a look at the cite. I’d like to note that the study looked at men and women, not only men.
The study looked at 3 areas:
[ul]
[li]Structural - [/li][QUOTE]
It may be that those who are not currently involved simply lack both economic and physical resources necessary to form a romantic relationship. In addition, structural explanations highlight the role that imbalances in local sex ratios (e.g., the number of men per 100 women in a metropolitan area) in shaping the availability of potential romantic and sexual partners (Fossett and Kiecolt 1991).
[/QUOTE]
[li]Cultural - [/li][QUOTE]
In contrast, cultural explanations suggest that the norms and values of some racial and ethnic groups (e.g., strict parental control over dating, obligation to the family) impede their romantic relationship involvement (Schneider and Lee 1990; Smith 2006; Espiritu 2001).
[/QUOTE]
[li]Race Hierarchies - [/li][QUOTE]
we add to the literature by considering a third explanation that emphasizes the role of racial hierarchies in shaping romantic involvement.
[/QUOTE]
[/ul]
These authors are the first to propose “racial hierarchies” as causative in the forming of relationships.
Key quotes:
People with better economic prospects have a better chance at dating, co-habitation, or marriage.
Social expectations among groups can cause differences in when and how people form relationships.
Again, different social norms cause different behaviors.
Many of these cites are older, but it seems likely that media plays a role in public perception of desirability.
Note that they are pulling data from internet daters (methodology would be important to know) who expressed a preference on race. How many did or did not?
They’ve noted themselves that this is a key metric.
The data they used does not provide them a way to measure social group expectations, which they have also noted are important.
The data they used does not permit empirical measurement of their proposed racial hierarchy. Any conclusions taken from this paper are purely theoretical.
tl;dr the study doesn’t say what you think it does. The authors proposed a new metric, social hierarchy, but had no way to test for it. Testing that has occurred actually supports other factors, such as socioeconomic and cultural, as being relevant determiners of romantic prospects.
It led to repeated demands, all of which you have ignored, to state what claim(s) you think that specific study proves. Here’s two, there have been others:
It is also bullshit to say that nobody’s told you why we want direct links to the studies. We don’t trust your wiki’s links to go to the actual studies, and we don’t trust your wiki’s summaries to be accurate.
And we are in the Pit. The only possible reasons I can see for you to be so insistent that people click on links on an incel wiki page are
– 1) that you know those links don’t go direct to the studies but to some other incel page(s) that you either want clicks for or hope we’ll believe the lies on and/or
– 2) that as you’ve been consistently all through the thread posting links that go to a live incel page under the guise that you’re claiming they’re links to the studies (despite the fact that once early on in an 11 page thread you posted a link to an archive of the page), what you’re actually doing is trying very hard to get people to that specific page either because you want clicks for it or because you hope we’ll believe the lies on it or that
– 3) you’re too massively ignorant to understand the difference between an actual study and somebody’s biased description of it, and are exactly the sort of person the sites hope to be able to delude into destroying themselves.
Either of the first two reasons would mean you’re arguing in bad faith.
If it’s the third reason, the first thing you ought to do is to get away from those incel sites. They’re playing you, and they’ll think it’s funny when you flame out, whether or not you do damage to others besides yourself on the way.
It led to repeated demands, all of which you have ignored, to state what claim(s) you think that specific study proves. Here’s two, there have been others:
It is also bullshit to say that nobody’s told you why we want direct links to the studies. We don’t trust your wiki’s links to go to the actual studies, and we don’t trust your wiki’s summaries to be accurate.
And we are in the Pit. The only possible reasons I can see for you to be so insistent that people click on links on an incel wiki page are
– 1) that you know those links don’t go direct to the studies but to some other incel page(s) that you either want clicks for or hope we’ll believe the lies on and/or
– 2) that as you’ve been consistently all through the thread posting links that go to a live incel page under the guise that you’re claiming they’re links to the studies (despite the fact that once early on in an 11 page thread you posted a link to an archive of the page), what you’re actually doing is trying very hard to get people to that specific page either because you want clicks for it or because you hope we’ll believe the lies on it or that
– 3) you’re too massively ignorant to understand the difference between an actual study and somebody’s biased description of it, and are exactly the sort of person the sites hope to be able to delude into destroying themselves.
Either of the first two reasons would mean you’re arguing in bad faith.
If it’s the third reason, the first thing you ought to do is to get away from those incel sites. They’re playing you, and they’ll think it’s funny when you flame out, whether or not you do damage to others besides yourself on the way.
You have yet to tell us what about incels that studies prices they’re right about, or what that study has to do with, well, anything, so you’ve left us guessing. And “data showing men want to be raped even more than women” is a nonsensical thing to write if you don’t think women want to be raped. So by all means clarify what, specifically, you think that study tells us.
“Our results suggest” is not the same thing as “researchers concluded”.
The lengthly “summary” which you quoted from the incel page commits lies by omission. It leaves out portions both of that abstract and of statistics given in the report itself; and including the parts that it leaves out provides a very different picture.
I believe the study is itself otherwise flawed, though not as flawed as that summary; and will give further detail if you will – is this the fifth request by me, plus multiple requests by others? – say what specific incel claim(s) you think the study is backing.
You still haven’t provided any cite for any of the “many feminists” who allegedly “cannot abide and simply will not accept” a particular research finding about human evolutionary development.
And of course, there needs to be a distinction between “not accepting solidly confirmed findings of scientific research” and “not accepting speculative inferences about what scientific research of unknown quality may ‘suggest’ as summarized in a fifteen-sentence article for a general lay audience”.
It’s a metastudy of 50 studies, carried out at a Pac-10 “Research 1” school. To argue that sociologist feminists would be open to this kind of research is either disingenuous or shows you don’t know feminist sociologists. (I am the son of one and the husband of another.) And we have seen people right on this board who have dismissed the entire field of evolutionary psychology, providing no basis for doing so other than a vague sense that they don’t like its implications.
I read the link. I haven’t run the numbers, but I suspect that the difference is not statistically significant. Also, the numbers in the table aren’t broken down by gay men or straight men. I strongly suspect that gay male rape fantasies are far more prevalent than heterosexual male rape fantasies. There are enough gay and bi people in the survey population to influence the results, especially because the percentages are fairly small.
Even so, I agree that fantasies are not a reflection of true desires, and that if a group of men think they are and fail miserably at attracting women based on this, we shouldn’t be surprised.
I’m not questioning the study itself (which I haven’t seen); I’m just pointing out that without seeing the study itself we can’t know whether the fifteen-sentence non-technical popular article you linked to is an accurate summary of its actual findings.
Those accusations are also not actual cites for any of the alleged “many feminists” who allegedly “cannot abide and simply will not accept” a particular research finding about human evolutionary development. In case you’ve forgotten, it’s actual cites to that effect that you were asked for.