TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Article claims that 1/3 of all white college men are willing to rape

CWBECK

April 29, 2016
11 upvotes
/r/MensRights

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/college-men-commit-rape-study_n_6445510.html

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Article claims that 1/3 of all white college men are willing to rape
Author

CWBECK

Upvotes 11
Comments 38
Date April 29, 2016 6:16 PM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4h0qe5/article_claims_that_13_of_all_white_college_men/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/article-claims-that-13-of-all-white-college-men.950608
https://theredarchive.com/post/950608
Top posts by CWBECK

Thanks, UN.

4923 upvotes
March 8, 2017
/r/MensRights

"Men are whimps", says Daily Show on male birth control side effects

1095 upvotes
November 10, 2016
/r/MensRights

Huh. Never exactly expected such a popular Youtuber to have such openly controversial opinions.

900 upvotes
January 30, 2017
/r/MensRights

Look at what you've done, Bernie.

596 upvotes
May 8, 2016
/r/MensRights

Anyone notice how if a biological aspect is found in women that advantages them more then men it's an automatic sign of their superiority but if men are found with a biological advantage then it "must" be socially constructed?

388 upvotes
June 25, 2016
/r/MensRights

Wikipedia's "Father" article makes men look bitter and jealous; frustrated that "only women" are able to contribute to the creation of life.

279 upvotes
May 20, 2016
/r/MensRights

Study finds that as many as 88% of people would rather throw a man off a bridge than a woman.

194 upvotes
July 16, 2016
/r/MensRights

I'm kind of amazed that someone would write about how MRA's are whiny crybabies and than proceed to disable their comments because people were disagreeing with her.

189 upvotes
November 23, 2016
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]girlwriteswhat 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

If this is the study I think it is, it used a modified Malamuth scale.

That is, it asked a series of questions based on the preface, "if you could be sure that no one would ever find out and there would be no consequences, would you..."

There were items regarding cross dressing and anal sex, then "would rape a female", then after the item on rape, there was one worded as "would force a female do something she didn't want to do."

Positive responses, as deemed by the researchers, to either question were categorized as having "intent to rape". Even if someone said no to rape, and yes to "force a female to do something she didn't want to do," likely thinking it referred to something other than rape because rape had already been asked.

But that's not all.

The Malamuth scale sorts responses into 5 categories, where 1 represents "not at all" and 5 represents "very likely" (and Malamuth cautioned that even a 5 was not a reliable predictor).

The feminists who conducted this study used a modified version of this scale: 0 to 100, where 0 was "not at all" and 100 was "very likely". They counted any man who responded higher than 10 to either of the two questions as "having intent to rape a woman."

So, essentially, the "very unlikelies" and the "probably nots" were categorized as "having intent to rape a woman," even if they answered not at all to the rape question, and then 11 on the question "would force a woman to do something she didn't want to do" seconds later. So a man who was like, "OMG, NO, I would never rape a woman, zero zero ZERO! But you know, if I could force my girlfriend to wear that lingerie I bought her that she thinks makes her look fat and she wouldn't be upset with me the next day... hmmm... or if I could order her to stick her finger up my butt because I like that and she's squeamish... hmmm... still pretty unlikely that I'd do that, but you never know... I guess the possibility is there...I guess I'll answer 15 out of a hundred..."

Yeah. THAT guy would be included in the "having intent to rape a woman" group.

This study is one of the most egregious abuses of empiricism I have ever come across.

[–]CWBECK[S] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

So pretty much it was intentionally manipulated to get the result that they wanted.

[–]girlwriteswhat 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Oh yes.

[–]CWBECK[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It just seems so odd to me that people would come up with a seemingly complicated plan just to support this dumb narrative that "rape culture" exists, and the idiots in the comments section are eating this shit up.

Also apparently there have been past studies done before that have come to the same conclusion? I don't know what method they used, though.

[–]girlwriteswhat 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you could link the prior studies, I'll try to have a look at them.

There's an old but interesting series of articles in The Blade detailing how this type of research has evolved over the years.

Following the lead of Mary P Koss, rape researchers discovered they could uncover higher rates of prevalence of sexual assault by asking questions like, "have you ever had sex when you didn't want to because someone gave you drugs or alcohol?" Koss initially still asked respondents if they'd been raped or sexually assaulted (using those terms), but found herself having to explain why about 3/4 of the women she deemed to be "victims" answered no to those two questions.

Other researchers used her methodology. When The Blade asked one of them why he didn't ask women if they'd ever been raped in his study, he said that if people wanted that to be included, they could get their own grant and do their own study. His previous studies had asked this question, and come up with much lower prevalence (and they didn't make the news, either, quelle surprise). It was when he changed his methods and came up with "shockingly high rates of prevalence" that he ended up being interviewed by national news media, becoming something of a 15 minute celebrity.

Another researcher interviewed by The Blade said she felt tremendous pressure from all directions to uncover the highest numbers possible through similar manipulation of her survey instrument.

Think about human psychology and news media. Ever hear something like this at the start of the evening news?

"Could your fabric softener be making your family sick? Stay with us to learn if it's happening to you." Then they put that story at the end of the show. They scare you with a little teaser and tack it onto the end in order to convince you to watch the entire program.

Fear makes people pay attention, and people will actively look for things that scare them. There's a reason for this tied into our evolution--you're walking along in the woods and you see a snake. You jump away, and then realize it wasn't a snake, it was just a stick. No harm no foul. You're walking along in the woods and you see a stick. You step on it, and it bites you and you die because it was actually a snake.

Despite our world being safer than it has ever been, we're still programmed to seek out threats to our safety, and we prioritize the safety of women as much as we always have. The safer things get, the harder we have to look, and sometimes that impulse leads people to manufacture or exaggerate threats because it gives them a dopamine rush, and because it gets them attention.

Hope this helps.

[–]wzil 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Never trust a psychology study until you have checked its entire methodology.

[–]civilsaint 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

A survey showed 30% of women said they saw a ghost.

People lie on surveys, especially if the question is ridiculous.

[–]mwobuddy 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think a higher proportion of women tend to enjoy being "tricked" by their imaginations.

I knew a girl that said her mom could see bad spirits around her, and when we drove by a graveyard on the way to a trip, my other friend told me that was messed up because of her personal spiritual/religious feelings, e.g. her mom traumatizing her to believe evil ghosts are around her since childhood.

[–]Vance87 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Did they then have sex with said ghost?

[–]civilsaint 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A third of them said they would rape the ghost if they would get away with it.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Jesus, I'm reading through the study and the whole thing spews bias.

They pretty much already had an outcome in their head of what they wanted to prove, they tailored the questions of the survey to almost force the participants to seem like rapists, and they cited studies that proved their point, even though those studies had data points that have already been disproved.

EDIT: Wow, their entire research group came from ONE university; 86 males, 90% white, all of them straight. Nice representative sample you have there....

[–]CWBECK[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Also all the participants are conveniently white. Lucky that.

[–]orangorilla 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

I love it when that kind of research comes up, they ask questions like "Would you force a woman to do something in a sexual situation if there were no consequences." If I'm thinking "Sure I'd make her get on top." That checks the box of "PROBABLY A RAPIST"

[–]CWBECK[S] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Wouldn't anyone regardless of gender do terrible shit if they could get away with it?

[–]orangorilla 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Not from what I've seen of psychology research. Just getting away with it isn't enough, you have to be able to not blame yourself. Like if an authority figure told you to do something (auswitch), or the other person deserved it somehow. Getting away with it is just the last barrier.

[–]CWBECK[S] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

I just think this shit is fear mongering at this point.

[–]orangorilla 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Yeah. I don't have source right here, but if I were you I'd try to find out what constituted a yes. Earlier research coming to the same point, had anything over 10 on a 100 point scale constitute as a yes.

[–]CWBECK[S] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Oh yeah I've heard about that. The questions were EXTREMELY broad and you can sort of tell they were actively looking for the answers that they wanted. Some guy in the comments linked to a video about it but it got deleted.

[–]orangorilla 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Aw hell, that comment section is cancer. Fearmongering faith cancer.

[–]CWBECK[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Some of the shit lol

"NOTICE how everyone trying to disprove this article is male? coincidence? I think not"

[–]orangorilla 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

We're the infantry of the patriarchy I guess, it has resorted to this, because shitfights on the internet are more fun than censorship.

[–]CWBECK[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Actually now that I think about it, isn't it sort of fishy that they only interviewed WHITE dudes?

Like, no other race was included in the study. Just white. I know that whites are the majority in a lot of schools but are you telling me that they couldn't get any other non-white men to take part in it?

[–]mwobuddy 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

you force a woman to do something in a sexual situation if there were no consequences

no consequences for her as well?

[–]orangorilla 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Probably left open to interpretation, I don't really sit on the raw data so I can make proper conclusions.

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Its just funny that women want men to seduce them, to even control the way sex turns out a bit, by moving without asking, and then scream at them for being sex predators.

What women claim and what women really want are two different things. I was arguing with someone over a possible sexual assault/rape case in this sub, because he inserted his penis when she said she didn't want to without a condom, and this guy who said "no can turn into yes if you just push for it" got something like 20+ points.

I agree, that is how sexuality has been since the dawn of time. Women typically want to be wooed or otherwise convinced to do it, because they feel it makes them less of a whore than being bluntly asked if they want to fuck and then saying yes. Reminds me of "Taxi" where Deniro takes his date to a very mild porn film (by today's standards), and she runs out saying "its as romantic as saying 'let's fuck'".

Women don't like men being verbally sexual, or making blatant sex overtures. They like men "seducing" them, by escalating things into sex, which means that at every point they are "ambivalent".

Society's way of turning sexual harrassment, assault, rape, into thought crimes (its what she thinks, rather than facts of behavior), which is making sexuality impossible for males.

[–]orangorilla -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I don't fully agree here. Turning no into yes is something of course, and in general, women expect some wooing.

But I don't think men need to do that. A sexual dynamic requires two genders to work.

That's kind of where I see a point with MGTOW, if enough men sign out of that, the market will have to adapt. Hopefully to a less rapey dynamic.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

if you put 10 guys and 10 girls in a dating pool and then 5 guys say "hey, im not going to put up with this" and opt out, what happens is that the 10 girls lower their standards to be fuck buddies or in "open relationships", they don't suddenly say to themselves, "you know, this was all unfair, we should change things". The other 5 guys aren't so attractive and alluring that they can determine the dating scene by opting out.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-attraction-doctor/201203/why-women-cant-find-good-man

http://elitedaily.com/dating/youre-not-finding-nice-guy/969740/

http://www.eharmony.com/dating-advice/dating/how-to-spot-a-good-man/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704409004576146321725889448

http://acculturated.com/where-have-all-the-good-men-gone-ask-the-women-too/

http://studentsforliberty.org/blog/2014/07/31/the-economics-of-sex-where-have-all-the-good-men-gone/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/these-women-cant-find-enough-marriageable-men/

http://blog.adw.org/2015/10/men-are-more-disinclined-to-marry-than-ever-a-reflection-on-a-serious-problem/

http://www.vice.com/read/youre-single-because-there-arent-enough-men-253

There are plenty of good guys out there. They're on every street corner, in every work or class room, but women do not SEE them. They are invisible.

What Im pointing out is that in lieu of the obvious, they are blaming men for not being good enough and then "settling" for unstable relationships with other guys that already have someone on the side. I see it all the time.

Women have set the price of sex so low that men now have no incentive to compete for female favor. Unlike their forefathers, men today don’t need to have a solid job, good manners, be in top physical shape, or have a strong sense of honor to get sex.

They're blaming men instead of women's own choices.

[–]orangorilla 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

And this is what I'm talking about, as much as some men have checked out of the dating pool, people are starting to notice the problem. And some of these articles are saying the plainly obvious thing "You're looking at the wrong guys."

And that's also a reason I think things turn when people get older. There are fewer men around.

In your example, 5 men check out, and the 5 others have their turns being fuckbuddies with the 10 women. But things start to change, what if three of the men marry three of the women? Will the 7 remaining women accept being fuckbuddies with the 2 remaining men? Or will they try to look elsewhere?

I'm honestly not too concerned with the effects of MGTOW, I see the essence as people choosing their own happiness over social expectations.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Sure, but I guess my overall point was that many men out there aren't MGTOW or even aware they're "not doing it right" by choosing leisure over working to death for money. You'll notice women are blaming men for taking it easy (aka being man-children). I don't quite agree, you can take it easy and choose to live a womanly life (as stated in Hagakure, or Nietzsche's quotes, a man who chooses to live an easy life is more like a woman and gains no respect), and still be an adult by taking care of your business in a mature manner.

Think "The Dude", only less of a bum and works just enough to pay for his needs and continue enjoying a life of gaming or whatever else. A person can be very responsible and life that lifestyle at the same time, but women are complaining that a man who does that is a man-child.

What Im saying is, even guys who are like this are unintentionally MTGOW, because their behavior does cut them off as mating potential due to having "no future" or "no direction in life".

That hasn't really changed women's expectations, though.

[–]orangorilla 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I guess you're right that it hasn't changed much, what do you think is the reason here? Is women's expectations a static, or has there just been enough pressure on them yet?

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Expectations are not static to gender, inasmuch as you see hugely different expectations SEA, which is why a lot of guys ex-pat to there. Then you can see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCt7RYW8P8Q

Its not enough that the western women want men to act a certain way while at home, they then impart THEIR values on western and even eastern men overseas who like their women to act the way they do in those areas. Its actually quantified by western women as abuse or misogyny to desire a partner who is submissive or attentive in a number of ways that western women think might even be degrading.

Its a culture thing, and rather than letting males live their own way and choose not to be with western women (which should appeal highly to their sense of "MUH BUDY, MUH CHOIS" rhetoric), they seek ways to bring them back into the fold, by impugning their sexual or relationship tastes, by calling them at worst sick and woman hating, and at best man-children.

Its all just shaming language to get people to live a certain lifestyle that women want them to live. Can the same be said of men looking to shame women who don't conform to certain ways they're "supposed to be" for their gender?

I think the one major difference is that societies have always measured a man's worth based on his product, his value to society in terms of personal wealth and what he creates. Because of this, it is much easier to shame men who go MGTOW, even unintentionally, because we have thousands of years of pressure to be "the success", where rewards are access to women alongside praises from fellow men. The governments of the world certainly want men to work as long and hard as possible, to make the state stronger through taxes. That's why nobody really bats an eye when women write long essays in magazines and articles discussing the epidemic of men who wont marry, who are man-children, etc. It fits into the narrative of men as expendable who need to produce lots of wealth to be of value.

If I wrote an article in GQ or some other men's magazine saying women are just whores these days who won't marry a working class guy and settle down, because they think they should have it all, can you imagine the national outcry? But women can call men creeps or misogynists for wanting a submissive girlfriend/wife and choosing to date someone who is like that over trying to FORCE women in general to conform to that, or calling men children for choosing not to make much money and live in a cheap place, not get a house, and play video games all day and live the life they enjoy.

It is an ironic constant that whether a loud western woman who is trying to control all men, or a submissive eastern woman, both find you unattractive if you have no money. It is usually the mythology of being a wealthy foreigner that gets a man attention in SEA anyway, which just reinforces the notion that men are valued for their pocketbook.

[–]Rasalom72 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Does including multiple women at the same time make me a "potential serial rapist"?

[–]orangorilla 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, I think it has a system like murder. If you have sex three separate times you're a serial rapist, but if you have sex with two or more women at the same time, you're just a mass rapist.

[–]WillMeatLover 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I came here to say this comment. "Force them to do something" is open to interpretation and you can't conclude from it that anyone who says yes means "yes I would brutally assault and rape her".

[–]orangorilla 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, but you can, because they also think that in some circumstances, "a woman can use sex appeal to get free things" which is misogyni /s

[–]NUMBERS2357 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Someone actually called the person who did this study and posted what they said on r/oney a few months ago. The person who called found that the researchers asked people to click on a long bar the length of the screen, to show willingness to do various things, with clicking near the the left side meaning less likely, and the right side more likely. All the way at the left was a "0" on a scale of 0-100, and the right was "100". They counted any response 10 or higher as a "yes". That's how they got that 1/3rd number.

[–]CWBECK[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you don't mind can you post a link to the thread?

[–]Soldmammal7 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Anyone in any situation would do it if there were NO consequences. If there were no consequences I'd probably be a murderer but I'm not. You can't kill cucks and not go to jail.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter