the average number ever used was 8.94

i don't think this is terribly unbelievable, given the numbers of men who use some of these strategies.

Like what I mean is, shouldn't it be higher if the other numbers are correct?

The implication is of someone pestering and bugging til you finally give in, but this could also describe a practice of verbal consent.

i think it's more likely that american and canadian men read it as the former rather than the latter.

Neither of us can know for sure, which is why the questionnaire needs to be validated before conclusions can be drawn.

i think the numbers might be overinflated for a reason i'll get to later, but i think the psl's statements on the recent controversy show that it's not as rare as you might think. i don't really think it's 45% but i also don't think it's as low as you might assume.

Well, idk what you might assume I might assume. I'm not trying to downplay how common SA/SV are.

I wouldn't post a a study claiming that 95% of all illness is caused by pathogens, even though I do believe in germ theory of disease. Even if 1% of men areremoveds, that is still a lot of men. We are certain to come across them in organizing, so we still need a plan to deal with them.

I remember hearing about some kind of survey which did not exclude women, and found that they also endorsed high rates of non-consensual behaviors.

i think this reinforces the point that there are more ghislaine maxwells than one might initially believe

What I meant is that the women said they themselves were the perpetrators of non-consensual sexual activity (not that they were helping men). But it was a long time ago and I can't find it.

Maybe men will always check x% items on any list of sex acts, to retain masculinity

this is a great point and segues well into the reason i think the numbers might be overinflated. the survey was published and promoted in communities that are explicitly misogynistic, including reddit's r/theredpill.

Do you mean the respondents were actually recruited from those forums? Or shared post-publication? The paragraph where they are mentioned, is about the background and prior work.

This is the methods:

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

Qualtrics gets respondents from "Facebook advertisements and Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk" according to a relevent footnote.

"We want to get your side of the story" sounds like a Good Cop, I wonder who was fooled by that.. It sounds kind of priming to me.

i do believe it's foundational. i haven't found another one of its kind, which is why i chose to link this one. if there's a better one, i certainly would rather go around linking that one instead.

It isn’t helpful to go around saying that 95% of men areremoveds. I do not think it is true. More, it isn’t what was found in this study.

this might call for a moment of self-reflection from me. i linked it offhand as evidence of the prevalence of sexual assault in the usa. i do believe it is very prevalent, but i didn't give the study as much nuance as it deserved. overall, i think it's still a useful link because it's the only one of its kind, but i should have treated it with more thoughtfulness than just saying "up to 95%"

The thing about science, is that is is an iterative, collective process. There is really no reason to pay attention to a study (especially a unique one) unless you are a person in the field. One study can't "prove" anything, it cannot even rise to "demonstrate". "Possibly suggest" would be the most generous language I could use (not in this case). But really, it requires replication.

If it is "95%", isn't it hopeless? And how could any woman every trust any man? Or trust any woman with male friends? I would say we should organize gender-segregated in that case.

I searched the primary author, O'Sullivan, and found a 2018 non-academic article, We need to learn from the men whoremoved where she describes her desire for research just like the study at hand.

However, one feature that emerges from the few studies that we do have in hand is that men who knowingly assault tend to do so repeatedly. They often have well-formulated strategies and, with the vanity of the con artist and bully combined, can be induced in some contexts to tell all. Or tell alot. And we need that information in order to make a difference.

The link is dead, but I think it is this (2002): Repeatremoved and Multiple Offending Among Undetectedremoveds (sci-hub):

Pooling data from four samples in which 1,882 men were assessed for acts of interpersonal violence, we report on 120 men whose self-reported acts met legal definitions ofremoved or attemptedremoved, but who were never prosecuted by criminal justice authorities. A majority of these undetectedremoveds were repeatremoveds, and a majority also committed other acts of interpersonal violence. The repeatremoveds averaged 5.8removeds each.

This one has 6% of men asremoveds. It is using a narrower definition.

I also found this one (2009) while I was looking, because it is mis-labeled: [Reports ofremoved Reperpetration by Newly Enlisted Male Navy Personnel]](https://archive.org/details/RepeatRapeAndMultipleOffedingAmongUndetectedRapists)

Overall, 13% (n = 144) reported engaging in sexual behavior that approximates legal definitions of ACR [attempted and completedremoved] since the age of 14. Among those men, most (71%) reperpetrated ACR incidents (M = 6.36, SD = 9.55). Demographic variables were unrelated to perpetration history. Regardless of time period, respondents reported perpetrating primarily completed rather than attemptedremoved, perpetrating multiple ACR incidents rather than a single incident, using substances to incapacitate victims more frequently than force, and knowing their victim rather than targeting a stranger in completedremoved incidents.

So acknowledging different definitions, there is significant overlap. Their result is 13% for all methods lifetime. It includes use of drugs and alcohal. Which in your study, about 85% endorsed in the last 4 years.

It is a massive discrepancy. I would guess the variation is at least somewhat due to the expansive, falsely equivalent language used in the posted study. Which is more reflective of reality? Idk.

Also they are saying (and discuss it more later) that acquaintance SV is more common than for strangers, which I think we all know about. So it is a weird choice in that study to limit it only to stranger women, and to include the tactic of targeting someone who is unknown, when targeting someone who is known is more common by a wide margin.

I don't know why it isn't mentioned by O'Sullivan's study. Especially if the existing work is really so shallow. Maybe the author isn't credible, or its been refuted, or something else.

Anyway, it doesn't prove anything, it's just a single study. You'd need to follow the citation web to see the prior and subsequent research. Or better, read a summary of evidence by an expert, ideally for a non-expert audience.