Performing crimes in line with masculine norms are rewarded with higher social standing, whereas crimes counter to those norms leads to lower social standing, independent of personal subscription to those norms

Stern, Pär, and Timothy J. Luke. 2019. “The Crimes That Pay: Criminality as a Claim to Masculine Social Capital.” PsyArXiv. April 15. doi:10.31234/osf.io/4bwuq

Abstract: Can men use criminality as a means to assert their masculinity and thereby elevate their social standing? We report five studies that provide insight into that question. The first two studies focused on measuring how performing masculine or non-masculine behavior affected the social standing of the actor (i.e. their amount of social capital). The following two studies assessed the respondents’ estimation of how masculine committing 40 different crimes were perceived to be. In the final study, we built on the encouraging results of the first four and thus used the crime masculinity measures in context of how committing such a crime would affect the imagined criminal's amount of social capital. The respondents were asked to assess how the crime affected the change in social standing in three ways: to them personally, the actor's peers, and to society at large. The results suggest that performing crimes in line with masculine norms are rewarded with higher social standing, whereas crimes counter to those norms leads to lower social standing, independent of personal subscription to those norms. Additionally, subscription to masculine norms moderated the extent to which respondents themselves would reward the criminal behavior, such that those who subscribed to masculine norms more tended to ascribe more social capital to more masculine crimes.

Table 7: Means and standard deviations of the MCI-40 masculinity assessments

	Crime	M	SD
1	Fist fighting	6.97	2.12
2	Vigilantism	6.97	2.06
3	Street racing	6.95	1.75
4	Mob enforcer	6.87	2.15
5	Street fighting	6.67	2.44
6	Carrying a knife	6.21	2.04
7	Robbery	6.18	2.36
8	Assault	6.15	2.59
9	Armed robbery	5.97	2.51
10	Being a pimp	5.97	2.41
11	Carrying a gun without a permit	5.95	1.97
12	Car theft	5.92	2.21
13	Gun crime	5.90	2.11
14	Trespassing	5.82	1.80
15	Running an illegal gambling den	5.74	2.34
16	Fraud/Using a fake ID	5.59	2.05
17	Helmet law	5.47	2.36
18	Speeding	5.46	1.79
19	Reckless road rage	5.44	2.28
20	Incitement to riot	5.26	2.19
21	Burglary	5.13	2.47
22	Driving with suspended license	5.13	1.99
23	Public drinking	5.08	1.87
24	Drug dealing	5.00	2.21
25	Graffiti/Vandalism	5.00	2.36
26	Terrorist	4.82	2.43
27	Throwing rocks at cars	4.46	2.53
28	Insider trading	4.41	2.01
29	Drunk driving	4.38	3.16
30	Refusing to cooperate	4.21	2.34
31	Handling stolen goods	4.38	1.90
32	Embezzlement	4.31	2.17
33	Jewel thief	4.10	2.14
34	Shoplifting	4.05	2.14
35	Credit card fraud	4.03	2.01
36	Prank calling 911	3.95	2.31
37	Domestic abuse	3.85	2.67
38	Desertion *	2.95	2.49
39	Inability to pay child support *	2.92	2.07
40	Prostitution *	2.72	1.99

* = Crimes expected to be rated especially low

 
MCI = Masculine Crimes Inventory

Rough sex is triggered by curiosity & need for novelty; both men and women often initiate rough sexual behaviors; does not correlate with violence in the relationship or abuse, but happens more when male sexual jealousy is involved

The Rough Stuff: Understanding Aggressive Consensual Sex. Rebecca L. Burch, Catherine Salmon. Evolutionary Psychological Science, Apr 15 2019. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-019-00196-y

Abstract: Research on sexual behavior often characterizes rough sex as sexual aggression and as violent or abusive in nature. In a sample of 734 male and female undergraduates, we examined the extent of rough sexual acts in romantic relationships, the triggers for those acts, and how rough sex differs from “typical” sex. Participants were asked their definition of rough sex, questions regarding sexual aggression and behaviors during rough sex, and abusive behaviors in the relationship. Findings indicate that rough sex is triggered by curiosity and a need for novelty, and that both men and women often initiate rough sexual behaviors. Consensual rough sex typically results in little violence and only superficial injuries such as scratches, bruises, and welts. Rough sex does not correlate with violence in the relationship or abuse. However, rough sexual behaviors were increased in situations that involved male sexual jealousy. Being separated from a sexual partner was the second most common trigger for rough sex, particularly for men. Aspects of rough sex, such as increased semen displacement and decreased latency for female orgasm are discussed.

Keywords: Rough sex Sexual aggression Sexual jealousy Semen displacement


---
Typical behaviours, from more frequent to less:

                                     men   women

Scratching	18.75	35.00
Fast thrusting	25.00	10.00
Hard thrusting	6.25	17.50
Cutting	12.50
Pushing and pulling	12.50
Spanking		12.50
Loud noises	6.25	2.50
Hot wax	6.25
Name calling	6.25
Urinating	6.25
Aggressive behavior		5.00
Biting		5.00
Blindfolding		2.50
Handcuffs		2.50
Hickeys		2.50
Whips		2.50

Discussion

Definition of Rough Sex
Although the literature on rough sex in many cases places it in the category of sexual aggression or abuse(seeBuzash1989; Hanna 2000;Pa 2001; and Weinberg 2016, for reviews and arguments), our data indicate that rough sex is a behavior thatmen and women both willfully initiate as a means of recreation. When asked to define rough sex, most men and women report only slightly aggressive behaviors such as slapping, pulling hair, biting, and being pinned down. One of the more interesting findings is that even though participants were notexplicitly asked whether thrusting was a part of the definition of rough sex, participants submitted hard and fast thrusting asdefinitive behaviors (see further discussion).

Triggers for Rough Sex
While men and women agreed on some of the triggers for rough sex (wrestling, trying something new, teasing, playingout a fantasy), there was a clear sex difference in reporting triggers that involved sexual jealousy. Men reported triggersthat were clearly related to sperm competition significantly more than women did: being jealous, being separated from(and unable to monitor) their partner, thinking their partnercheated, and group sex. The majority of other triggers werefocused on curiosity and trying new things or physical play(wrestling). Renaud and Byers (1999) have reported that 96% of participants reacted positively to thoughts about sexual submission scenarios and 85% reacted positively to thoughts about dominance scenarios. They also reported that bondageor use of restraint was viewed positively by college students. These positive views of dominance/submission scenarios canlead to this curiosity, which can easily transition to mild dominance/submission fantasies which others have suggestedcan be arousing to men and women (Hazen1983).

Aggression During Rough Sex
The most common behaviors performed during rough sex,again, were less violent behaviors such as spanking, clawing, pushing, calling names, and tearing clothes. More violent behaviors, such as burning, threatening, or using weapons, were among the least common behaviors. Men do appear to engage in some rougher behaviors than women, but this may be based on their size and musculature (e.g., threw partner around). Likewise, women with their presumably longer nails reported scratching and clawing their partners more often. Additionally, the most aggressive/violent sexual behaviors occur either very rarely or not at all in this population. Likewise, unlike sexual aggression, rough sex results in little injury for men or women. This supports the argument put forth by Vogels and O’Sullivan that this aggression may be more instrumental than hostile, and better meets the criteria for "playful force" (Ryan and Mohr2005) than sexual aggression (Krahe et al.2015).

Light‐ & moderate alcohol consumption & non‐hazardous drinking were associated with the lowest risk of subsequent depression; hazardous drinking increased the risk of depression

Moderate alcohol consumption and depression ‐ a longitudinal population‐based study in Sweden. Katalin Gémes, Yvonne Forsell, Imre Janszky, Krisztina D. László, Andreas Lundin, Antonio Ponce de Leon, Kenneth J. Mukamal. Jette Möller. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, April 13 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.13034

Abstract
Background and aims: The inter‐relationship between alcohol consumption and depression is complex and the direction of the association is unclear. We investigated whether alcohol consumption influences the risk of depression while accounting for this potential bi‐directionality.

Methods: A total of 10,441 individuals participated in the PART study in 1998‐2000; 8,622 in 2001‐2003 and 5,228 in 2010. Participants answered questions on their alcohol consumption, symptoms of depression, childhood adversity, and sociodemographic, socioeconomic, psychosocial and lifestyle factors. A total of 5,087 participants provided repeated information on alcohol consumption. We used marginal structural models to analyze the association between alcohol consumption and depression while controlling for previous alcohol consumption and depressive symptoms and other time‐varying confounders.

Results: Non‐drinkers had a higher depression risk than light drinkers (≤7 drinks/week) (risk ratio: 1.7; 95% confidence interval 1.3‐2.1). Consumers of 7‐14 drinks/week had a depression risk similar to that of light drinkers. Hazardous drinking was associated with a higher risk of depression than non‐hazardous alcohol consumption (risk ratios: 1.8, 95% confidence intervals: 1.4‐2.4).

Conclusion: Light‐ and moderate alcohol consumption and non‐hazardous drinking were associated with the lowest risk of subsequent depression after accounting for potential bi‐directional effects. Hazardous drinking increased the risk of depression.