Hypermasculinity & Sexual Assault

 Today we'll be having a look at the following questions: "Explain how sexual behaviour could be socialized in males. Do you think that males who commit sexual assault are "hyper-masculine"? Why and where do men learn "hyper-masculine" behaviour?" These questions are a little more open-ended than some of the other questions we've had a look at, so I'll answer more with my own experiences and things I've seen or heard other people experience, rather than my usual online sources. Note that my thoughts and opinions are being formed just after reading this, this, and this article.

Sexual behaviour is socialized in males by their peers and the media they consume. Boys develop their "sexual attitude" based on how they hear the people around them talk about sex. If, for instance, a guy hears his friends talking about sexually aggressive behaviour and listens to music that promotes sexual aggression, he will likely adopt those beliefs himself and may be more likely to commit a sexual assault. On the other hand, if he were to receive a proper sex education and surround himself with people who are less sexually aggressive, he will likely have a more respectful and realistic view on sex.

I feel the next question is a little too boolean. I think that some males who commit sexual assault are hypermasculine. The term hypermasculine is defined as "the exaggeration of male stereotypical behavior, such as an emphasis on physical strength, aggression, and sexuality." Think of behaviours and activities that are commonly deemed "manly" or "macho" for a good example of hypermasculinity. Hypermasculinity can definitely play a part in sexual assault for a few reasons. If a man believes that sexually assaulting a woman would prove him to be stronger and gain admiration from his peers, he may be more likely to do so. Even if he doesn't care what his peers think, he may commit sexual assault to reaffirm his own "manliness" or masculinity to himself. 

Hypermasculinity can begin to develop as early as early childhood. Boys who are more aggressive as children may often learn that aggressive behaviour is more likely to get them what they want in the short term. This behaviour is further promoted throughout developmental years by advertising and other media. I would presume that advertising for men's products has a particularly strong influence, as there have been some fairly "questionable" widespread ads. The introduction of this paper alone does a great job of demonstrating that nearly everybody has a pretty similar of what a "real man" looks like, and so this expectation demonstrates and promotes hypermasculinity.

Now that we've had a look at hypermasculinity and sexual assault, let's see if we can't find the motive behind and an actual sexual assault. This news article from Global News reports a groping at Lynn Canyon. Because this was just a groping and not a full-on rape, it's unlikely that the motivation was sexual. Reportedly, the perpetrator walked away laughing, suggesting that he thought this behaviour was funny and okay. Thinking this behaviour is funny could suggest hypermasculinity. He clearly doesn't think that this behaviour is as harmful as it is, or doesn't really care, which is likely indicative of the kinds of people he is surrounded by and the media he consumes. The motivation was just for a bit of fun for the perpetrator, because he has been influenced to believe that minor sexual assaults are funny and may even find amusement in doing something illegal and unethical.

What's so attractive about violence?

 Today we'll be taking a look at 6 questions relating to violence, and why people seem to enjoy seeing violence sometimes. I'll be both providing my own thoughts and opinions, as well as trying to take an objective look through studies and statistics.

1. What is the attraction of violent videogames and movies?

In my experience most games that are violent aren't actually mainly interesting or enjoyable because of the violence. The violence is usually just a means to encourage a competitive environment between players. That said, there definitely are games where the violence is one of the main selling points, such as doom eternal. I think that the reason these sorts of games are so popular is because they're inherently enjoyable. There is some part of the brain that just naturally enjoys problem solving through violence, and indulging that part of the brain can be a great stress reliever. It's much the same concept for movies; seeing somebody else solve problems through violence not only subverts modern expectations, but is inherently interesting and to some degree enjoyable. The reason for this likely has to do with survival instincts left over from a more primitive time. This interview/article suggests that violence has survival value for any species, and seeing violence can give a sort of adrenaline rush, which can be really exciting in a safe environment.

2. Is there more violent imagery in media now as opposed to the past? Why?

I wouldn't necessarily say that the intensity of the violence has increased, but the availability certainly has. You'd have a very slim chance of opening a news site and not seeing anything violent. Even on the average scroll through social media, you're very likely to see something that at least suggests violence. There will always be something violent happening in the world, and people will always be talking about whatever the newest and biggest violent thing happens to be. Media in general has never been as readily available as it is today, and so it makes natural sense that increased access to media means increased access to violent media.

3. What kinds of people are drawn to violent imagery? What kind of violent images draw them to that form of entertainment?

Alright first of all this question is phrased in such a way that doesn't make much sense. But I'll still try to answer it. According to this video here, anyone from anywhere around the world is likely to be attracted to violence. This website proposes that violence is learned through exposure to violence at a young age and through the environment that surrounds us. If this is the case, people who were exposed to violence at a young age or regularly in their day-to-day life may be more likely to be drawn to violent media. 

The type of violent imagery that draws people in would greatly depend on the person and what they're trying to get from the media. People may be more likely to prefer sexual violence, physical violence, property crimes, etc depending on what fantasies they're trying to fulfill, or what they have been exposed to in the past.

4. What is morbid curiosity?

This article here just about sums it up and explains it. Morbid curiosity is the urge we get to subject ourselves willingly to seeing violent or otherwise unpleasant things. The article I linked before suggests that the reason for morbid curiosity stems once again from survival instincts. In order to avoid danger, we need to see the results of that danger. Seeing someone else get hurt may help us to make better informed decisions in the future to keep ourselves alive, and so we feel an urge to look.

5. Are there any equally satisfying substitutions for violent entertainment?
 It is well known that the two things that sell are sex and violence. If that's the case, then clearly these two must be nearly equivalent in satisfaction value. While they're likely equal, they are in most cases quite different, and satisfy different parts of our brains and nature.

6. What draws our attention to violent media events that are not intended to entertain?

This one likely once again connects back to morbid curiosity and survival instincts, as well as a need to feel informed on what's happening in the world around us. Humans are also inherently drawn to conflict and conflict resolution, due to our pattern seeking problem solving brains, and where there is violence there is most certainly conflict. 

How does crime impact the victim?

 

[Note: I was not here on Friday and didn't see the law & order episode. As such, I am basing my statements on my personal understanding and sources such as this documentation.]

We all know that crime has a large impact on the victim. What may not be obviously apparent is that a crime will usually have some lasting impact on the victim for the rest of their lives. Immediately, once the initial shock of the crime on the victim wears off, the victim is likely to experience a vast range of emotions. Victims can feel anger, fear, confusion, frustration, guilt, shame, grief, or really any strong emotion. The emotions the victim feels will depend on the type and circumstance of the crime, as well as the type of person the victim is. The victim may feel difficulty getting the help they need to understand and process these emotions, as they may be unsure of who they can trust and rely on. Long term, the victim is likely to suffer from episodes of PTSD and revictimization. The victim may be prone to intrusive thoughts relating to the crime, and may seek to numb these thoughts through substance abuse and other socially deviant behaviour.

Victims are also likely to have a physical reaction to the crime, some short term and some long term. Immediately they will likely have an increase in adrenaline and heart rate. Long term, they may suffer effects such as insomnia, loss of appetite, muscle tension, nausea, lethargy or headaches. Depending on the severity of the crime, and on the victim, these effects may last for a few months or for the rest of the victim's life. Victims may obviously also sustain physical injuries in the event of an assault or attempted murder. In the event of disfigurement or disability, victims may suffer additional prolonged psychological effects.

The physical and psychological effects that crimes have on victims can also easily lead to financial and social issues for the victim. Because victims are likely to suffer from insomnia and emotional outbursts, they will likely need to take time off work, and will lose money as a result of their time spent away from work. Victims may also need to pay for legal, medical, or property fees. The victim's social life is also likely to suffer due to their unstable emotional state.


Tl;dr, crime can affect just about every aspect of a victim's life, sometimes permanently. Short term the victim will suffer mentally, physically, financially and socially. It ultimately depends on the severity of the crime and how the victim responds to it, but the emotional distress and physical damage may last the victim the rest of their life. 



Now let's look at an actual crime and think about how it would have impacted the victim. This article details a woman's struggles with losing her husband to a stabbing weeks before their wedding. Note that while she is not the direct victim of the crime, she is still a victim, as she was negatively impacted by the crime. In her interview she brings up the devastation she felt seeing the casket being carried. These effects also clearly lasted, as they are still mentioned four years later at the perpetrator's sentencing. It should also be mentioned that she had to quit her studies due to her inability to focus, effectively derailing her entire life plan. She states that she hasn't wanted to be alive since his murder, suggesting possible depression and suicidal thoughts. 

This article interestingly also demonstrates the "cycle of violence"; that a victim of a crime is more likely to be a criminal themselves. Apparently, the criminal in this case had also been a survivor of a shooting at age 17, and was acting out of fear due to being reminded of his own victimization. This perfectly demonstrates the long term effects of victimization, as the perpetrator of this case was suffering from PTSD from being shot years ago. His reaction to a crime that happened to him at age 17 was strong enough to cause him to take the life of another human being. Supposedly, he also showed sincere deep remorse for his actions.

This article perfectly highlights the short and long term mental effects on two victims of crime, as well as the cycle of violence that these effects contribute to.

To mitigate these effects, victims need to be able to feel safe. They need a healthy way to express and understand their emotions. They need to be reassured that it wasn't their fault, and to understand what will come next. Victims should be assisted by family and friends in getting the help they need from people such as therapists and doctors to professionally mitigate the psychological and physical effects of the crime on the victim.

Could school be the most dangerous place for youth?

 Having considered the statistics, it seems clear that school is likely the most dangerous place a young person will regularly go. Let's begin by looking at some of these statistics, considering what exactly they mean, and finish up by thinking about why the statistics look the way they do. 

This article states "According to a survey conducted by Mission Research for CBC News, more than one-third of students between the ages of 14 and 21 say they were physically assaulted at least once before reaching high school." Over one third BEFORE high school. Considering that high school (arguably) has the most intense social pressure a young student will face in their school life, it's particularly surprising that so many assaults are happening before high school. The same article also says "In high school, one in five boys surveyed say they were threatened with a weapon." One fifth of the male high school population has apparently had their life seriously threatened. I'm not certain on the statistics, but I'd suspect that the number of boys threatened inside of school is much, much higher than the number threatened outside of school. 

While boys are mostly facing issues with assault in school, the girls get to deal with sexual assault. This article here says that 15% of female students have been sexually assaulted. 15%. While these statistics will vary from school to school, for the sake of consideration let's take that 15% as the average and look at how many people worldwide may have been sexually assaulted. According to this website here, there are ~1,008,023 females between the ages of 15-19. 15% of that number is 151,203. Now obviously statistics will vary, and not all people in this age demographic will even be attending school, but that number is still going to be very high considering that we're only looking at sexual assaults by school peers.

So we know now that statistically, a lot of crime is taking place between school peers. Let's think about why these crimes are happening in schools. Firstly, students spend lot of their time at school. I believe it's fair to suggest that school is one of the only places where a student is likely to have any kind of "social power" that they care about, and so youths who are already likely to commit crimes are willing to commit those crimes for some sort of benefit in their school lives. In addition, it is well known that crimes like assault and sexual assault are way more likely to happen between two people that already know each other. Because young people spend so much of their time at school, it's where they get to know most of the new people they meet. Because students are more likely to know other students, they are probably more likely to commit the aforementioned crimes towards other students than towards strangers or other acquaintances. 

In conclusion, school is dangerous for young people because they spend so much of their time there, and it is arguably the most prevalent social structure in their minds. Because of this, students are more likely to commit crimes against one another for a perceived benefit in their school lives. 

My theory on crime

 My personal theory is that almost every crime can be sorted into three categories. The criminal may have wanted material gain, such as money, food, or shelter. They may not want somebody else to have something, be it out of fear, jealousy, or any other reason. Lastly, they may be committing the crime for some form of satisfaction, such as attention or pleasure. Ultimately what these categories have in common is some form of unmet need or desire.

Clearly this is very general and crime can be much more complicated than it seems, but these 3 categories should be able to encompass most crimes. I believe that every choice that humans make are out of some form of need or want, and crime is no different. A crime will occur when the criminal feels some unmet need, weighs the benefits against the potential penalties, and consider their other options to be either harder or less likely to succeed. Thus, because I believe crime to be a product of thought and choice, difference in brain structure will obviously have an effect on the likelihood of an individual choosing to commit a crime. Because everybody processes information differently, a set of circumstances which would lead one person to commit a crime may not lead another to commit a crime. 

If we are to believe that crime is a product of unmet needs and desires, it stands to reason that crime could be reduced by providing easier alternatives for would-be criminals. Helping to provide people with the materials they need to survive and feel fulfilled should reduce the likelihood that they deem it necessary to commit a crime in order to obtain these things. Ultimately there will still be people who want more and are willing to commit crime to gain more, but the aforementioned measures should see a decrease in crime.

Let's look at an actual crime as an example to see how it fits this theory and how it could have been avoided. This article actually already does a great job of explaining what happened, why they think it happened, and how it could have been avoided. A 13 year old boy shot and killed a 15 year old boy the day after stealing from a drugstore. This set of crimes would seem to fit into the satisfaction and material gain parts of my theory. The boy robbed the store for the material gain of the things he was stealing, and likely also to build a reputation for himself. His actions were driven by a sense of need for what he was stealing and the attention it would bring him. This could likely have been avoided if  the boy's family had been in a more stable financial position, and if the boy had received more positive attention from his peers. A more stable financial position would have made him less desperate for what he was stealing, and a better social life would have made him less desperate for the reputation it would provide him with, and with both the big factors taken care of he wouldn't have felt the need to commit the crime.

Tl;dr - Crime is a product of circumstances and how those circumstances are processed. Somebody will commit a crime when an outside influence causes them to feel an unmet need, and the criminal deems that crime will be the best or easiest option. Providing resources to would-be criminals to ensure their survival and fulfillment should reduce the likelihood that they feel the need to commit crime.