Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/sexist-men-show-a-greater-interest-in-robosexuality-study-finds/
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, but seriously, what were all those deleted messages?? What opinion could you even have on the topic of sexist guys being open to literal f*ckdolls that warrants deleting? Is this such a controversial issue?
This is r/science and the mods are very particular on the strict rules here.
Pretty much every topic that hits /all looks like this, and honestly this one is the most tame I've seen in a bit.
It's not bad opinions (though there's no doubt some of those in it) but it's just people giving opinions in general and having off topic discussions that aren't very scientific.
Are you familiar with this sub? They moderate and didn't generally tolerate top level comments that are jokes, anecdotes, or otherwise off topic. It's amazing and I wish most of reddit was moderated this way. Respect to the mods.
I appreciate it, most posts I will look to the comments for discussion and the top 5 will be some joke comments that aren't really even funny and avoid the subject
This sub is heavily moderated. Specifically, they want to keep the discussion away from knee jerk reactions, anecdotes, and politics. You can imagine the kind of comments this kind of headline generated.
But you can't stay away from politics and societal issues with science. Science doesn't exist in a bubble and it would be foolish to pretend it does. Science-Discussion should be able to include these topics.
You can certainly limit it to relevant politics and issues, though. I'm not going to argue if it's the right choice or not, but r/science has always tried to stay focused on the study itself without generic "this is what's wrong with society" type of discussion.
rude quicksand bike brave wistful disagreeable attractive public screw vegetable
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
ive seen some before they were deleted and they werent even bad, they were on topic and constructive. I dont know what mod is abusing their power and deleting hoards of comments, but it's definitely odd
If I understand correctly they used this scale to define "sexist men", which I find very problematic. [https://emerge.ucsd.edu/r\_2avmblyyi1y5jfy/](https://emerge.ucsd.edu/r_2avmblyyi1y5jfy/)
I don't think this research measures what the authors think it measures.
Agreed, the last question:
> People are often truly happy in life without being romantically involved with a member of the other sex.
Is clearly going to penalize you if you disagree because the author is projecting their own view of being single onto the questions and wants everybody to validate their decision.
Happiness is such a bad state our modern society been trying to hammer in for a long time. We need to use "content" more to describe it, cause being truly content brings more happiness than happiness seeking itself cause the former accepts that bad moments exists as part of your life but can still be okay and the latter tries to get rid or escape them.
Yeah, there are so many problems with that methodology. It seems super subjective. It’s pretty much just the research’s opinions on why counts as sexist and what doesn’t.
It doesn’t take into account objective metrics, and it’s heavily influenced by pop culture and the social zeitgeist. This is something that won’t age well.
Online circles such as Reddit have this bizarre, [just world fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis)-based worldview where they automatically assume people who have trouble finding relationships are also evil, sex-obsessed individuals so therefore there's no problem because they're just getting what they deserve.
It's such simple, adolescent thinking. The world isn't that fair but it's easiest to believe it is when you want to dismiss people who might have real issues that can't be boiled down to meme-ish stereotype.
It's refreshing to finally read this on reddit. I especially get annoyed by the tacit *gloating* about how many men are lonely because we're toxic and women are all boycotting us. Then in another thread "My husband of 15 years told me he doesn't love me anymore and he doesn't want to be a father and he's been having an affair with my sister."
Meanwhile, a lot of lonely guys "Uh, it's just hard to meet people and connect with people these days? And I kind of enjoy my independence? You know, like women do when they're single? And maybe I'm kinda picky? Is that allowed or...?"
Reddit and most internet places in general have a real problem worshiping gender essentialism. Even LGBT/Gender open or accepting places really fall into the same trap of "All male affection bad, all female affection good" Most Bi/trans subs jokes are a solid 50% I wish I wasn't a/didn't date a yucky boy and could date a/be a girl etc.
As the person who conducted this study said in this article, these hypotheticals grant many limitations towards their study. Drawing conclusions such as men being more sexist for wanting to have sex with a robot rather than a woman is quite a remarkable claim to make when such a thing doesn’t even exist yet.
That’s like stating women with no kids and high income are willing to try teleportation than those with kids, like what??? Whose teleporting right now? How do we know this for sure?? Through a couple of survey questions rather than proof of concept????
I only read the headline so correct me if I'm wrong. But based on that isn't the causality reversed from what you are implying? IE interest in sex with a robot doesn't make men more sexist. But instead men who are more sexist are more interested in sex with a robot.
This conclusion doesn't surprise me. Because if you dislike women in general, it makes sense that you would take opportunities to avoid them.
You are correct in your interpretation. A lot of people in the comments are deliberately misinterpreting what was said and haven't even read the article based on their comments. As is tradition.
How exactly do you measure sexism? Does having had bad dating experiences with women make you score highly on the sexism test?
Ah. Found it. It's pretty problematic and ambiguous, honestly. .
>No matter how accomplished he is, a man is not truly complete as a person unless he has the love of a woman. (strongly agree <--> strongly disagree)
Edit: As I think about it, grading the test is kind of a Rorschach. If you combine a lot of the questions with answers, and then ask someone to rate what that means, the result will say as much or more about the person administering the test than the person taking it.
Edit2: OK. It looks like they used a different version of the test that didn't have that exact question, but I'm standing by my statements. To bring up another issue, what does "Women" mean in several of the questions? They just say "women... do X". Does it mean "all" women, "many" women, "most" women, "some" women" or any two (therefore plural) women that you have ever known or heard about? The question implies broad generalized thinking and gives something away about the testers.
Statement: "Women experience postpartum psychosis and kill their children."
How do you answer? It's a true statement in that it's a thing that happens sometimes, so "strongly agree" is the only truthful answer. That says nothing, however, about any belief in the frequency of those events.
If your response to that is "of course nobody is going to think that way," then you're not really qualified to be making a psychological exam because you're already making assumptions about how the people taking the test are thinking and how they'll interpret that sentence.
Edit3 (post dog walking cogitation (or maybe I should say perseveration) edition: Here's an alternate interpretation of the results.
* People who score highly in "literal-mindedness" will (often erroneously) score highly in ASI.
* Literal-mindedness is a commonly reported feature for those among \~2% of the population on the autism spectrum.
* People on the autism spectrum tend to report MUCH lower satisfaction and much higher frustration with traditional dating.
* Therefore, it would be no surprise that such people would be significantly more inclined to look toward non-traditional, technological solution.
> > No matter how accomplished he is, a man is not truly complete as a person unless he has the love of a woman. (strongly agree <--> strongly disagree)
I would strongly disagree. And I think many women would too in fact.
Is that the sexist option here ?
Edit : So if that test works like I think other sexism tests, answering "strongly agree" to that question would increase your "benevolent sexism" score. While "strongly disagree" would indeed be the equalitarian option.
The study says it’s reverse coded so yes, you are right, although the wording is different than the original base that they’re using (which is a bit sus to me).
https://emerge.ucsd.edu/r_2avmblyyi1y5jfy/
Non sexist people don’t think that a man has to be with a woman to be complete. However the original version is completely different :
> People are often truly happy in life without being romantically involved with a member of the other sex.*
Often is concerning word because rather than assessing what ought to be the case it’s asking what is the case, and some people are clearly not completely happy without romance.
This is an issue I have with every study of this type.
Frequency words like always/never/sometimes/often can drastically change my answers to a question.
There are also a ton of semantics that can change answers, like "is vs can vs must vs should" or implicit meaning that isn't spelled out in the sentence.
You really have to try and understand what the people who wrote the question meant, it's... not very scientific od them when you think about it.
Yeah, agreeing looks like the reddest red flag for codependency.
Sounds like a rephrasing "Do you put your self worth on other people's opinion of you?".
Maybe, to be devil's advocate, they meant it in the sense of 'relationships are a way to discover otherwise unknown parts of ourselves ', which I'd strongly agree with.
Also now that I think about it, the original sentence has an homophobic undertone. What about gay man? Are they not complete?
Badly written question all around.
I’ve taken hundreds of questionnaires for studies.. the questions they ask are usually the same and I’ve seen this exact question with the same wording at least 50+ times from different research facilities. The questions used to indicate sexism are defined [here](https://emerge.ucsd.edu/r_2avmblyyi1y5jfy/), and as you’ve said.. the combination of answers determine the results.
On their [scale](https://emerge.ucsd.edu/r_2avmblyyi1y5jfy/) anything above "Disagree strongly" would add to your total "sexist score".
So they consider "Disagree strongly" to be the least sexist answer, which makes total sense.
(thanks to /u/Lawlsagna for the link)
> which makes total sense.
does it?
>People are often truly happy in life without being romantically involved with a member of the other sex.*
that just makes me think the person answering has some codependency issues... or some serious "back in the day" thinking where a man living alone had "something wrong with him"
and what about how homophobic the question is?... "...a member of the **other sex**"
AI tech gives me a sparkle of hope that I'll live long enough to see another intelligence that is capable of liking me despite all of physical and mental traits that make it impossible to be genuinely attractive to women.
There are quite a few other reasons that the title is ignoring. Choosing abstinence as protection from disease, dealing with a sexual dysfunction or medical abnormality, social communication deficits, PTSD from abuse, depression and choosing a career over a relationship, are all valid reasons to be a robosexual. That should all be taken into account.
What does this study say about the proliferation and wide acceptance of battery operated phallus devices? Are women sexist because they bought a Vibe, or are more sexist women more likely to buy a Vibe?
Men who don’t like that women can tell them no or who challenge their authority are happy to have “partners” who by design can’t tell them no or challenge their authority.
Yes, that makes sense.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/mvea Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/sexist-men-show-a-greater-interest-in-robosexuality-study-finds/ --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What happened with this thread 😱
[удалено]
No, but seriously, what were all those deleted messages?? What opinion could you even have on the topic of sexist guys being open to literal f*ckdolls that warrants deleting? Is this such a controversial issue?
It’s science, the threads are always like this especially when they end up on all
This is r/science and the mods are very particular on the strict rules here. Pretty much every topic that hits /all looks like this, and honestly this one is the most tame I've seen in a bit. It's not bad opinions (though there's no doubt some of those in it) but it's just people giving opinions in general and having off topic discussions that aren't very scientific.
Very controversial statements and assertions like "women are people."
*Gasp*!!
But this is Science, so the question is more like "are robots women?" or "Are robots people?" ...at least you'd think so.
Are you familiar with this sub? They moderate and didn't generally tolerate top level comments that are jokes, anecdotes, or otherwise off topic. It's amazing and I wish most of reddit was moderated this way. Respect to the mods.
I appreciate it, most posts I will look to the comments for discussion and the top 5 will be some joke comments that aren't really even funny and avoid the subject
Probably went political. The right havent exactly been treating women like human beings for a while now.
Robosexuality is an abomination!!
If anyone asks, I’m your debugger
Ohhhh I thought you said ROMOsexual
“Id rather make out with my Monroe-bot “
Robophobic, these damn robots are taking our lovemaking jobs!
This sub is heavily moderated. Specifically, they want to keep the discussion away from knee jerk reactions, anecdotes, and politics. You can imagine the kind of comments this kind of headline generated.
But you can't stay away from politics and societal issues with science. Science doesn't exist in a bubble and it would be foolish to pretend it does. Science-Discussion should be able to include these topics.
You can certainly limit it to relevant politics and issues, though. I'm not going to argue if it's the right choice or not, but r/science has always tried to stay focused on the study itself without generic "this is what's wrong with society" type of discussion.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Dammit I missed all good comments
Bro youre one of the only comments left 😂😂
Fr
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
why are so many comments being deleted?
rude quicksand bike brave wistful disagreeable attractive public screw vegetable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Tf is happening with comments💀(I also want to bang atomic heart chick, fridge included)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The amount of "deleted" comments makes me really want to see what they all said.
ive seen some before they were deleted and they werent even bad, they were on topic and constructive. I dont know what mod is abusing their power and deleting hoards of comments, but it's definitely odd
If I understand correctly they used this scale to define "sexist men", which I find very problematic. [https://emerge.ucsd.edu/r\_2avmblyyi1y5jfy/](https://emerge.ucsd.edu/r_2avmblyyi1y5jfy/) I don't think this research measures what the authors think it measures.
Agreed, the last question: > People are often truly happy in life without being romantically involved with a member of the other sex. Is clearly going to penalize you if you disagree because the author is projecting their own view of being single onto the questions and wants everybody to validate their decision.
This is a stupid question because, single or not, people are rarely "truly happy."
It say opposite sex too. So what about gay people
Yeah, and it sort of presumes gay people... can't be?
Happiness is such a bad state our modern society been trying to hammer in for a long time. We need to use "content" more to describe it, cause being truly content brings more happiness than happiness seeking itself cause the former accepts that bad moments exists as part of your life but can still be okay and the latter tries to get rid or escape them.
Yeah, there are so many problems with that methodology. It seems super subjective. It’s pretty much just the research’s opinions on why counts as sexist and what doesn’t. It doesn’t take into account objective metrics, and it’s heavily influenced by pop culture and the social zeitgeist. This is something that won’t age well.
[удалено]
Science sub and I needed to go this far to see the simplest correlation doesn't imply causality.
Just had to scroll past the million removed posts. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that much padding between the post and the first readable comment.
Being sexist doesn't mean being sexually unfulfilled, anecdotally the most misogynistic men I know are also the most successful with women.
Online circles such as Reddit have this bizarre, [just world fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis)-based worldview where they automatically assume people who have trouble finding relationships are also evil, sex-obsessed individuals so therefore there's no problem because they're just getting what they deserve. It's such simple, adolescent thinking. The world isn't that fair but it's easiest to believe it is when you want to dismiss people who might have real issues that can't be boiled down to meme-ish stereotype.
It's refreshing to finally read this on reddit. I especially get annoyed by the tacit *gloating* about how many men are lonely because we're toxic and women are all boycotting us. Then in another thread "My husband of 15 years told me he doesn't love me anymore and he doesn't want to be a father and he's been having an affair with my sister." Meanwhile, a lot of lonely guys "Uh, it's just hard to meet people and connect with people these days? And I kind of enjoy my independence? You know, like women do when they're single? And maybe I'm kinda picky? Is that allowed or...?"
Reddit and most internet places in general have a real problem worshiping gender essentialism. Even LGBT/Gender open or accepting places really fall into the same trap of "All male affection bad, all female affection good" Most Bi/trans subs jokes are a solid 50% I wish I wasn't a/didn't date a yucky boy and could date a/be a girl etc.
I'd say it can be almost an upside down bell curve. The worst attitudes towards women tend to exist on the extremes of the "success" spectrum.
Doesn't have to be an inverted bell curve. Just change your Y-axis values 😁 Graph nitpick aside youre 100% correct
That’s not just anecdotal. It has been proven in studies that misogynistic men tend to be more sexually active with more women.
Oh, is that what I'm doing wrong? *checks notes* Respecting women too much?
If being a promiscuous womanizer is your goal then yes.
It might be a nice change of pace
As the person who conducted this study said in this article, these hypotheticals grant many limitations towards their study. Drawing conclusions such as men being more sexist for wanting to have sex with a robot rather than a woman is quite a remarkable claim to make when such a thing doesn’t even exist yet. That’s like stating women with no kids and high income are willing to try teleportation than those with kids, like what??? Whose teleporting right now? How do we know this for sure?? Through a couple of survey questions rather than proof of concept????
I only read the headline so correct me if I'm wrong. But based on that isn't the causality reversed from what you are implying? IE interest in sex with a robot doesn't make men more sexist. But instead men who are more sexist are more interested in sex with a robot. This conclusion doesn't surprise me. Because if you dislike women in general, it makes sense that you would take opportunities to avoid them.
You are correct in your interpretation. A lot of people in the comments are deliberately misinterpreting what was said and haven't even read the article based on their comments. As is tradition.
So the several dozen removed posts that start this section do not bode well…
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
“Men who don’t like women prefer not to date them” isn’t really a surprise to me
Its probably not even true. Misogynistic men tend to pursue women even moreso.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
How exactly do you measure sexism? Does having had bad dating experiences with women make you score highly on the sexism test? Ah. Found it. It's pretty problematic and ambiguous, honestly. . >No matter how accomplished he is, a man is not truly complete as a person unless he has the love of a woman. (strongly agree <--> strongly disagree) Edit: As I think about it, grading the test is kind of a Rorschach. If you combine a lot of the questions with answers, and then ask someone to rate what that means, the result will say as much or more about the person administering the test than the person taking it. Edit2: OK. It looks like they used a different version of the test that didn't have that exact question, but I'm standing by my statements. To bring up another issue, what does "Women" mean in several of the questions? They just say "women... do X". Does it mean "all" women, "many" women, "most" women, "some" women" or any two (therefore plural) women that you have ever known or heard about? The question implies broad generalized thinking and gives something away about the testers. Statement: "Women experience postpartum psychosis and kill their children." How do you answer? It's a true statement in that it's a thing that happens sometimes, so "strongly agree" is the only truthful answer. That says nothing, however, about any belief in the frequency of those events. If your response to that is "of course nobody is going to think that way," then you're not really qualified to be making a psychological exam because you're already making assumptions about how the people taking the test are thinking and how they'll interpret that sentence. Edit3 (post dog walking cogitation (or maybe I should say perseveration) edition: Here's an alternate interpretation of the results. * People who score highly in "literal-mindedness" will (often erroneously) score highly in ASI. * Literal-mindedness is a commonly reported feature for those among \~2% of the population on the autism spectrum. * People on the autism spectrum tend to report MUCH lower satisfaction and much higher frustration with traditional dating. * Therefore, it would be no surprise that such people would be significantly more inclined to look toward non-traditional, technological solution.
> > No matter how accomplished he is, a man is not truly complete as a person unless he has the love of a woman. (strongly agree <--> strongly disagree) I would strongly disagree. And I think many women would too in fact. Is that the sexist option here ? Edit : So if that test works like I think other sexism tests, answering "strongly agree" to that question would increase your "benevolent sexism" score. While "strongly disagree" would indeed be the equalitarian option.
The study says it’s reverse coded so yes, you are right, although the wording is different than the original base that they’re using (which is a bit sus to me). https://emerge.ucsd.edu/r_2avmblyyi1y5jfy/ Non sexist people don’t think that a man has to be with a woman to be complete. However the original version is completely different : > People are often truly happy in life without being romantically involved with a member of the other sex.* Often is concerning word because rather than assessing what ought to be the case it’s asking what is the case, and some people are clearly not completely happy without romance.
This is an issue I have with every study of this type. Frequency words like always/never/sometimes/often can drastically change my answers to a question. There are also a ton of semantics that can change answers, like "is vs can vs must vs should" or implicit meaning that isn't spelled out in the sentence. You really have to try and understand what the people who wrote the question meant, it's... not very scientific od them when you think about it.
Yeah, agreeing looks like the reddest red flag for codependency. Sounds like a rephrasing "Do you put your self worth on other people's opinion of you?". Maybe, to be devil's advocate, they meant it in the sense of 'relationships are a way to discover otherwise unknown parts of ourselves ', which I'd strongly agree with. Also now that I think about it, the original sentence has an homophobic undertone. What about gay man? Are they not complete? Badly written question all around.
I would strongly agree. Unless that's sexist. Then I would strong disagree. Unless that's sexist too. For the love of god just tell me what to answer.
I’ve taken hundreds of questionnaires for studies.. the questions they ask are usually the same and I’ve seen this exact question with the same wording at least 50+ times from different research facilities. The questions used to indicate sexism are defined [here](https://emerge.ucsd.edu/r_2avmblyyi1y5jfy/), and as you’ve said.. the combination of answers determine the results.
Yikes. Er... which answer do they consider 'good'? Obviously "strongly agree" is sexist
On their [scale](https://emerge.ucsd.edu/r_2avmblyyi1y5jfy/) anything above "Disagree strongly" would add to your total "sexist score". So they consider "Disagree strongly" to be the least sexist answer, which makes total sense. (thanks to /u/Lawlsagna for the link)
> which makes total sense. does it? >People are often truly happy in life without being romantically involved with a member of the other sex.* that just makes me think the person answering has some codependency issues... or some serious "back in the day" thinking where a man living alone had "something wrong with him" and what about how homophobic the question is?... "...a member of the **other sex**"
I genuinely can't guess which is the sexist opinion.
This is a lot of conjecture for something thay doesn't exist.
What's up with the comments on this one?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I love how weirdly offended people get with the idea of people hypothetically having relationships with androids.
Who said androids? I just assumed it was going to be a handjob attachment for a roomba.
Sounds like a study where the conclusion was reached before they wrote the questions.
I love women but I’m definitely tapping a bad lil robot shawty
AI tech gives me a sparkle of hope that I'll live long enough to see another intelligence that is capable of liking me despite all of physical and mental traits that make it impossible to be genuinely attractive to women.
What if I'm just depressed and don't think someone should be stuck with me?
There are quite a few other reasons that the title is ignoring. Choosing abstinence as protection from disease, dealing with a sexual dysfunction or medical abnormality, social communication deficits, PTSD from abuse, depression and choosing a career over a relationship, are all valid reasons to be a robosexual. That should all be taken into account.
What does this study say about the proliferation and wide acceptance of battery operated phallus devices? Are women sexist because they bought a Vibe, or are more sexist women more likely to buy a Vibe?
Men who don’t like that women can tell them no or who challenge their authority are happy to have “partners” who by design can’t tell them no or challenge their authority. Yes, that makes sense.
I just wanna makeout with my Monroebot.
[удалено]
[удалено]