Voluntary sex causes as many injuries as rape

That finding really surprised me at first:

Nature, frequency and duration of genital lesions after consensual sexual intercourse—Implications for legal proceedings - Birgitte Schmidt Astrup - 2011

The purpose of this study was to make a normative description of the nature and duration of genital lesions sustained during consensual sexual intercourse, using the three most commonly used techniques; visualisation using the naked eye, colposcopy and toluidine blue dye followed by colposcopy.
Methods

Ninety eight women were examined within 48 h of consensual sexual intercourse. Fifty of the women were examined twice again within the following 7 days of sexual abstinence after the first examination.
Results

The participants had a median age of 22.4 years and 88% were nulliparous. Lesions were frequent; 34% seen with the naked eye, 49% seen with colposcopy and 52% seen with toluidine blue dye and subsequent colposcopy. The lesions lasted for several days; the median survival times for lacerations were 24, 40 and 80 h, respectively.
Conclusions

The legal implications of these findings are that genital lesions by themselves do not corroborate a rape complaint. Genital lesions may, however, corroborate specific details of a case and should be documented as carefully as any other lesion in rape complaints.

This was featured in an article here but seems to be a different study:

An in-depth study of 39 rape victims on one side and 110 nursing students on the other reveals that voluntary sex causes vaginal injuries just as frequently as in rapes.

“The findings are extremely interesting,” says Birgitte Schmidt Astrup, a doctor and a PhD student at the Institute of Forensic Medicine at the University of Southern Denmark.

“The nursing students experience just as frequent vaginal injuries as rape victims, and so these injuries cannot be used for much more than to establish that intercourse has taken place,” she says, adding that in cases where convictions have been based on such injuries, one can reasonably discuss whether there has been a miscarriage of justice. [...]

The results showed that vaginal injuries were found in 36 percent of rape victims at the Centre for Rape Victims at Odense University Hospital, and in 34 percent of the nursing students.

However:

The researcher is keen to point out that this is still only a hypothesis, which is also based on hints in other studies.

American researchers, for instance, have shown that there are four to five times as many injuries in white women as in women of other races, and this could be due to a difference in the skin on the mucous membranes.

“It’s too early to come with a definitive answer because the research in this field has so far been very poor,” says Astrup.

Connecting the dots, In-group bias and gender roles

Like the headline said, borrowed from Girlwriteswhat:

This is the most common path to a positive male identity BECAUSE MEN LACK A MECHANISM FOR AUTOMATIC OWN-GROUP PREFERENCE. Simply put, they do not relate to other men automatically, just because they're men.

Women have this bias, which provides them a natural ability to form cooperatives, relate to other women, and seek consensus though their strong mechanism for own-group preference based on gender alone. Given their gender roles through most of human history, this mechanism makes sense. Their individual value as, to put it bluntly, breeders, meant that in a survivalist environment, you didn't throw a woman on the trash pile without a pressing reason. Adjustments were made when possible to keep as many women as you could within the sisterhood. This is where you find a ton of attention in female spaces given to things like "tone" and "being nice" and "getting along" even when there are disagreements. It's all about comfort level and feelings of acceptance.

Men, however, lack the hardwiring to form a preference for maleness based merely on maleness. And that only makes sense when you think about men's roles for the last couple million years or so--roles that involved things like beating the guys down the valley to a pulp when they threatened his women and children, and competing against other males within his community for a shot at the mating game. Given those roles, automatically siding with one's own gender over the other is...well, it just doesn't work.[...]

The myth among feminists that men will insult each other for displaying feminine traits because they see women as inferior is just that--a myth. Men do this because women have a trump card that bestows intrinsic value on them--their uteruses--and they retain that value even when they gender-bend a little. A woman who acts like a woman is not seen as inferior. A man who acts like a woman has always been seen not as a woman, but as a "woman without a womb". He has no female value, and he has no male value. Therefore, he has NO value at all. And unlike women, men who were not "useful" did--and still do--get thrown on the trash heap of society.

In the currency of reproduction, an ovum goes for a thousand bucks, a uterus is worth a cool mill, and an ejaculation about 10 cents. To be acceptable mating material, and worth keeping around, a man had to do more than generate sperm. And when the only thing keeping you from becoming completely disposable as an individual lies in differentiating yourself from the feminine, well, guys gonna enforce that shit.

This is why men have always tended to define themselves by their roles. Father, husband, working man, soldier, career man, family man, middle class man, politician, activist, etc...in other words, roles to exist in which allow them to relate to other men who also occupy those roles, and to derive a positive and meaningful identity from performing their masculinity through those roles.

Most Say Homosexuality Should Be Accepted By Society

I am not sure if it this is actually good news "Most Say Homosexuality Should Be Accepted By Society" or bad news "1/3 of Americans do not believe homosexuality should be accepted" (that is way too much). Anyhow, the times are (slowly) changing. The data:

While the public is divided over same-sex marriage, a majority of Americans (58%) say that homosexuality should be accepted, rather than discouraged, by society.

Among younger people in particular, there is broad support for societal acceptance of homosexuality. More than six-in-ten (63%) of those younger than age 50 -- 69% of those younger than age 30 -- say that homosexuality should be accepted. Far fewer of those ages 50 and older (52%) favor societal acceptance of homosexuality.

These are among the findings from the latest Pew Research Center political typology survey, released May 4, 2011. The survey, conducted in February and March of this year, showed that opposition to gay marriage has continued to decline.

Currently, 45% favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally while 46% are opposed. Two years ago, in April 2009, 35% supported same-sex marriage while 54% were opposed. [...]

The political typology survey also found a decline in negative views of the increasing number of gays and lesbians raising children. Today, 35% say that more gay parents is bad for society, 14% view this trend positively, while 48% say it does not make much difference. Four years ago, 50% viewed this trend negatively, 11% said it was a good thing and 34% said it made no difference.[...]

Two-thirds of Democrats (67%) and 63% of independents say that homosexuality should be accepted, compared with 40% of Republicans.

Among religious groups, substantial majorities of the religiously unaffiliated (79%), white Catholics (66%) and white mainline Protestants (65%) say that homosexuality should be accepted. However, just 29% of white evangelical Protestants agree, while more than twice as many (63%) say homosexuality should be discouraged by society.

There also are gender and racial differences: More women than men favor societal acceptance of homosexuality (64% vs. 52%). Hispanics (64%) and whites (58%) are more supportive of this than are African Americans (49%).

What if women don’t need guys any more, and guys don’t care?

I do not usually like opinion pieces, stuff with no hard data in it. However this one had a nice feel to it:

Except after a while I started wondering if it really was a bad thing after all. It only makes you nervous if you believe men are losing a position they aspired to: breadwinner, provider, working stiff. What if feminism only recognized half the problem, i.e. the female half? What if it wasn’t only women who’d been shunted into a role they didn’t want, what if men had as well?

[...I]t could also be that a great number of men – perhaps the majority – filled the roles they did because they felt it was expected of them. And in defining new roles for women – releasing them to be professionals and careerists – feminism also released men from the expectation that they must spend their lives in jobs they didn’t aspire to, fulfilling roles they didn’t ask for.

I can understand that. I don’t mind working for a living, but, given a choice, I could think of better things to do. I have a career because it was expected. There was never an option: you went to school and then you got a job. And if you got married, you paid the bills. Maybe if you were lucky your wife worked too and helped with the expenses, but she had a choice about it and you didn’t.

I suspect a lot of men are like that. A few were dying to get out of school, get into the workforce and make a lot of money. But quite a few more did what was expected. Ideally you found a job you liked that paid well. More likely you got one that paid OK and you could stand. Some put up with jobs they hated or bosses they loathed because the pay was too good or it was the best they could find. The worst-case scenario was a job you hated at crummy pay.[...]

Men weren’t there to pursue their dreams or fantasies, they were there to earn. [...]

Men, on the other hand, have largely been ignored, on the apparent assumption that they had what they wanted and didn’t need any special care. As long as you taught them to read and write, and maybe do a little math, they were set. They’d reach working age and automatically set out to earn a living, because it was in their nature. It’s what they wanted.

Except maybe not. While the little girls have been getting lessons in striving, the little boys have been absorbing the message that they no longer have to. (They may look like they’re not paying attention in class, but, really, they do pick up on these things). If there’s no stigma to little Betty growing up to earn a fat paycheque, maybe there’s also no shame to little Billy refusing to do so.

It sounds like a good answer to all the "OMG, MEN ARE SUCH SLOBS NOW!!11!!" post one sees on a daily basis.

(Found via reddit)

Sex differences in mate preferences

Something from the "That doesn't really surprise me department":

Is Traditional Gender Ideology Associated with Sex-Typed Mate Preferences? A Test in Nine Nations - 2006

As expected, these data replicated well-known sex differences in mate preferences: In general, women preferred
a mate older than themselves, men preferred a mate younger than themselves, women placed greater importance
on financial prospects in a mate, and men placed greater importance on good cook and housekeeper qualities in a
mate. Also, even with this small sample of nations, these cross-national data replicated the finding that the sex
difference in the preferred age of one’s mate decreased with increasing gender equality (Eagly & Wood, 1999).

At the participant level of analysis, these data confirmed our predictions about the relationship between traditional
gender ideology and mate preferences. First, for preferred age difference in a mate, all four forms of traditional gender ideology were associated with sex-typed preferences: Women with traditional attitudes preferred an older mate than did women with less traditional attitudes, whereas men with traditional attitudes preferred a younger mate than did men with less traditional attitudes. These men’s and women’s associations were significantly different from one another. Second, although traditional gender ideology was positively associated with the importance of good financial prospects in a mate for both men and women, for three of the four ideology measures it was a stronger predictor of women’s preferences. Third, although traditional gender ideology was positively associated with the importance of good cook and housekeeper qualities in a mate for both men and women, for three of the four ideology measures it was a stronger predictor of men’s preferences. In addition, an ipsative analysis revealed results consistent with the social role logic: To the extent that participants held traditional gender ideologies, women preferred good financial prospects in a mate more than other characteristics and men preferred a good cook and housekeeper more than other characteristics. These findings lend support to the hypothesis that traditional attitudes toward the roles of men and women serve to guide mate choice by fostering sex-typed mate preferences.

Difference of perception between gay men and gay women

Somewhat fascinating:

Gender Gaps in Public Opinion about Lesbians and Gay Men - GREGORY M. HEREK - 2002

Using data from a 1999 national RDD survey (N = 1,335), this article examines gender gaps in heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians, gay men, and a variety of topics related to homosexuality. Attitudes toward lesbians differed from attitudes toward gay men in several areas, and significant differences were observed between male and female heterosexual respondents. Survey participants generally were more likely to regard gay men as mentally ill, supported adoption rights for lesbians more than for gay men, and had more negative personal reactions to gay men than to lesbians. Overall, heterosexual women were more supportive than men of employment protection and adoption rights for gay people, more willing to extend employee benefits to same-sex couples, and less likely to hold stereotypical beliefs about gay people. Heterosexual men's negative reactions to gay men were at the root of these gender differences. Of all respondent-by-target combinations, heterosexual men were the least supportive of recognition of same-sex relationships and adoption rights for gay men, most likely to believe that gay men are mentally ill and molest children, and most negative in their affective reactions to gay men. Heterosexual men's response patterns were affected by item order, suggesting possible gender differences in the cognitive organization of attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. The findings demonstrate the importance of differentiating lesbians from gay men as attitude targets in survey research.

And also:

The Relation Between Gender and Negative Attitudes Toward Gay Men and Lesbians: Do Gender Role Attitudes Mediate This Relation? - John G. Kerns and Mark A. Fine - 1994

This study examined whether traditional gender role attitudes mediated the relation between gender and negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. One hundred and fifty-five heterosexual college students (59% female; 97%
Caucasian) completed questionnaires that assessed their attitudes toward gay men and lesbians and their gender role attitudes. Although males reported more negative attitudes toward gay men than females, there were no gender
differences in attitudes toward lesbians. Traditional gender role attitudes mediated the relation between gender and attitudes toward gay men. These findings suggest that attitudes toward gay men are more strongly related to
gender role attitudes than to gender. [...]

Although most studies that have used Herek's (1988) Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale (ATLG) have found
that men have more negative attitudes toward lesbians than women (Herek, 1994), the gender differences have been relatively small (Kite, 1984) and a few studies that did not use the ATGL found that men held more favorable
attitudes toward lesbians than women (Whitley, 1987, 1988).[...]

Consistent with previous research (Kite, 1984, 1994; McDevitt et al., 1990; Herek, 1994) heterosexual males had more negative attitudes toward gay men than did heterosexual females. However, although males had more negative attitudes toward lesbians than did females, this difference was not significant. This general pattern was consistent with previous research indicating that gender differences are greater in negative attitudes toward gay men than in attitudes toward lesbians (Herek, 1994; Kite, 1984, 1994). Further, although not a primary focus of our study, we also found that both male and female participants had more negative attitudes toward gay men than toward lesbians, with this difference being greatest for male respondents.

Collectively, these findings suggest that an aversion to male homosexuality may be a more central component of heterosexual males' traditional gender roles than is an aversion to homosexuality/n general (Herek, 1992; Mishkind et al., 1986). Violations from traditional gender roles may be particularly aversive to heterosexual males because these breaches are perceived as a threat to their social privilege and power. Within the context of attitudes toward homosexual individuals, gay men are apparently perceived by heterosexual men as deviating more from traditional gender roles than lesbians.[...]

Indeed, the most important and novel contribution of this study was the demonstration that traditional gender role attitudes mediated the relation between gender and negative attitudes toward gay men. When the traditional attitudes toward gender roles variable was entered into the regression equation, gender was no longer significantly related to negative attitudes toward gay men (i.e., males and females no longer differed in negative attitudes toward gay men). This finding lends support to our notion that a difference between heterosexual males and females in their adherence
to traditional gender role attitudes may be a mechanism that is partly responsible for the gender difference in negative attitudes toward gay men.

In addition, several tenets of our gender role socialization model were supported. Specifically, consistent with previous studies, heterosexual males endorsed more traditional gender roles than did heterosexual females (Kurdek,
1988; Stark, 1991) and negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians were positively related to traditional gender role attitudes (Kurdek, 1988; Stark, 1991).[...]

At the most basic level, our findings suggest that individuals' attitudes toward gay men [...] appear to be based less on their biological sex (i.e., male or female) than on their gender role attitudes.

Gender Stereotypes and Attitudes Toward Men

I really do love google scholar:

Gender Stereotypes and Attitudes Toward Women and Men - Alice H. Eagly - 1989

Attitude theory is used to provide a conceptual analysis of how attitudes toward men and women relate to gender stereotypes. Consistent with this analysis, attitudes toward the sexes related positively to the evaluative meaning of the corresponding gender stereo-types. In addition, attitudes and stereotypes about women were extremely favorable - in fact, more favorable than those about men. The findings also demonstrated that the Attitudes Toward Women Scale assesses attitudes toward equal rights for women not attitudes toward women, and therefore did not relate to the evaluative meaning of subjects' stereotypes about women.

And as a bonus:

The construction and validation of Attitudes Toward Men Scale - Iazzo, Anthony N. - 1983

Describes the construction and validation of the Attitudes Toward Men Scale (AMS). The initial 63 items were based on a review of the literature, which suggested 4 major content areas that define men: marriage and parenthood, sexuality, work, and physical and personality attributes. Factor analysis of responses of 104 18–63 yr old women indicated 4 factors that corresponded to these content areas. Good internal consistency and freedom from social desirability distortion were found. In criterion-related validation, the AMS scores of battered wives, rape victims, feminists, and lesbians clearly demonstrated more negative attitudes toward men than a control sample. In an exploratory study, the personality and psychopathology of the 1st 104 Ss were compared (via the 16PF and the Mini-Mult) and contrasted in relation to their attitudes toward men. Findings indicate that attitudes toward men depend largely on experience. (40 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)