The Average Penis Size, According to Science

Men worry an awful lot about the size and/or shape of their penises. Size is (wrongly) associated with virility and masculinity. Most men worry needlessly about this issue. So here is science coming to the rescue. This article originally appeared at Salon.

Here is the average penis length, according to science

Researchers polled over 15,000 men on the length and girth of their manhood, and the results are...surprising

Jenny Kutner | Tuesday, Mar 3, 2015 

 

(Credit: feiyuezhangjie via Shutterstock)

The results of that age-old question are in: We know the length of the average human penis, and it is smaller than you’d probably expect it to be. Researchers have compiled all the existing data on penis size in what’s purported to be the most comprehensive analysis yet, with over 15,000 “data points” from men in the U.S., Europe, Africa and Asia helping them determine what is “normal.” 

I’ll cut to the chase: According to the study, published this week in BJU International, the average penis is 5.16 inches long and 4.6 inches around when erect, and 3.6 inches long and 3.7 inches around when flaccid. The 15,521 participants in the 20 compiled studies ranged in age from 17 to 91, and exhibited quite a range in size. Only about 2.28 percent had abnormally small penises, which the researchers classified as being two standard deviations below the mean; the same percentage of men had abnormally large penises, two standard deviations above the mean. 

The paper’s title — “Am I normal? A systematic review and construction of nomograms for flaccid and erect penis length and circumference in up to 15 521 men” — sort of gets to the heart of what the researchers hope to achieve with the findings. “We believe these graphs will help doctors reassure the large majority of men that the size of their penis is in the normal range,” lead author David Veale said. “We will also use the graphs to examine the discrepancy between what a man believes to be their position on the graph and their actual position or what they think they should be.”

While the study finds no evidence to suggest that penis size varies by race, the sample is still limited to a majority of European and Middle Eastern men; additional research could draw different conclusions. The researchers also note that the results could have been influenced by their volunteers’ own perceptions of themselves: Men who felt more confident in their penis size might have been more likely to participate in the study. Regardless, this is still the most comprehensive research so far.

Oh, and a final interesting tidbit: The study finds no correlation between a man’s foot size and penis length. 

Jenny Kutner is an assistant editor at Salon, focusing on sex, gender and feminism. 
Follow @jennykutner or email jkutner@salon.com.
More Jenny Kutner.

Kali Holloway - Identifying Dudes: From Bros to Douchebags and Beyond

From Alternet, Kali Holloway sardonically breaks down the Dude branch of the male species. Yes, these are cliche categories with somewhat offensive labels, but there is some truth to all of her categories of dude.

If you are easily offended by things not politically correct, please move along.

Identifying Dudes: From Bros to Douchebags and Beyond

Dudes are a specific kind of guy, but knowing their subgroups requires even more nuanced information.

By Kali Holloway / AlterNet

February 13, 2015

This being the Internet and all, we thought it would be a good idea to start the proceedings by stating, unequivocally, that there are plenty of great, wonderful, smart, kind, giving, loveable guys. And many fantastic and endearing kinds of guys. So many, we couldn’t make a list of them all because that list would be so long, we would all grow old and die reading it. To be clear: We’re not saying, in any way, shape or form, that there aren’t amazing, incredible, terrific guys out there (although someone will definitely say in the comments that we did).

What we are saying is that there are also a lot of different kind of dudes out and about. And we mean very specifically dudes – not guys, not boys, not men – but dudes. This is important. Dudes – and again, dudes are a particular variety of male – are out there, like, being dudes. But not all dudes are the same, and lumping them all together creates a kind of chaos and confusion that can and should totally be avoided. So, to more distinctly identify each type of dude from their brethren, here is a list that makes clear where the boundaries for one dude end and another dude begin. Below is a detailed report on the unique traits that identify douchebags, bros, dicks, assholes, scumbags and tools.

Douchebags. Semi-awful. Definitely the most wealth-obsessed of all the categories of dudes. Complete lack of self awareness means he constantly refers to other dudes as “douches” and – on his most terrible days (i.e., every day) – “d-bags.” Brings coke to parties but doesn’t share with anyone except for the woman he’s trying to sleep with, who he’s actually vaguely aggressive with about snorting it. (If she doesn’t have sex with him, definitely decides she’s “a lesbian.” Also: Isn’t totally sure how words work.) Finally got hip to the AXE Body Spray / douchebag connection and instead started wearing TAG Body Spray. Broke up with a girl once because he thought her ankles were a little fat. Not cankles fat, but fat enough. Definitely fucked that one waitress in Cabo. If he’s trying to pick up a girl and her phone goes off, says cheesy stuff like, “You’re blowing up!” Mentions he has a six-pack hoping you’ll ask to touch it. (When you don’t, calls you “a lesbian.”) Wants to live in a world with only Kanye, Diplo, Scott Disick and Evan Spiegel. Says he loves music but really only listens to shitty EDM.

Bros. More innocuous and sweetly earnest than douchebags. Really enjoys chilling – probably has some of his frat bros coming over this weekend to, you know, chill. Spends the entire summer in flip flops, even – no, especially – at inappropriate events. (For this reason, should never be allowed to choose dress-up party attire for himself.) Still thinks Williamsburg is “artsy” and “kinda weird.” Misquotes Fight Club and Dylan lyrics, but really is trying. Benches 120, flexes in the mirror, thinks: “Fuck yeah.” Earnestly believes he has something insightful and deep to contribute to the conversation, which is adorably wrong. It should be mentioned that this category now includes a hipster-bro hybrid who wears ‘50s style white t-shirts with skinny jeans and is into artisanal pizza, suspenders, bespoke drinks and high-end shaving kits. Though it’s been said a million times and is obvious to the point of absurdity, Matthew McConaughey remains the Alpha and Omega of Bro. (If they were manufactured in a factory, bros would be made out of a super common material called McConaughite.) Is best friends with one bro exactly like Owen Wilson and another bro exactly like Ryan Lochte. Says he loves music but only listens to shitty EDM and Bob Marley’s “Legend.”

Dicks. Full-on awful. Is endlessly arrogant to cover up the deep well of insecurity he still carries from being picked last for kickball so many times as a kid. Is technically quite smart, but so insecure he can’t help but constantly prove it in super obnoxious ways. Pretends not to get your references. Creates uncomfortable silences in conversation on purpose. If you tell a joke, says something rude or cutting afterward to prove that, oh, he got it, he just didn’t think it was funny. Enjoys being “politically incorrect” and then playing dumb when challenged on it. Actually lies to his therapist, making the whole exercise a tremendous waste of money. Spends the first five minutes after meeting you trying to figure out your points of emotional vulnerability. Secretly cries after masturbating. Hates himself, and deep inside knows there is a hole that can never be filled. Role models include Vincent Gallo and Andy Dick (ironically). Says he loves music but mostly just enjoys collecting music facts so he can tell people they’re wrong about songs they love.

Assholes. A close cousin of the dick but not quite as sharp. When he agrees with something you’ve said, starts his response with, “No, but..” and then repeats exactly what you just said, exactly the way you just said it. Starts talking while you’re talking and then keeps talking louder and louder until you finally give up. Thinks women don’t get him but doesn’t understand the actual problem is that  they get him all too well. Blatantly steers the conversation back to his areas of knowledge when it starts to drift toward things he doesn’t know about, which is a lot. Feels most at home screaming at waitresses until they tear up and leaving lengthy notes on the backs of receipts explaining why he didn’t leave a tip. (tl; dr: Because he’s an asshole.) Is only semi-aware that every fuck has been a hate-fuck for him. Blissfully unaware of how awful he is. Likes the way Mike Love does business and still chuckles to himself remembering mean things Simon Cowell said. Thinks Biff from Back to the Future had his good points. Says he loves music but then argues with you about Every. Single. Band.

Scumbags. Here’s the thing about the scumbag: He is actual slime and kind of a sociopath, and by far the most dangerous dude on this list. Lies about weird stuff like what he had for breakfast this morning but is unfailingly honest about the disgusting and immoral way he treated some nice girl last week. Thinks telling people he’s about to have sex with that he has an STD “ruins the mood.” Constantly suggesting to women he’s just met that his “tongue never gets tired.” Currently dating a woman who doesn’t speak a word of his language because it’s “just easier.” Stands out in front, waiting to walk into a party until he can go in with another friend who actually brought a bottle of wine. If you resist his (inevitably gross) advances at a bar, keeps coming up every 15 minutes to ask, “Would you want to make out now?” If he’s in a band, secretly lives in the practice space. Learned just enough about feminism to get laid. Admires John Phillips of the Mamas and the Papas and thinks Dov Charney of American Apparel got a raw deal. Not that it needs to be mentioned, but really looks up to Terry Richardson. Says he loves music and, actually, has pretty good taste.

Tools. Although the term feels a little outdated, it’s an an oldie but a goodie that still applies in a startlingly large number of cases. Thinks he’s projecting an image of roguishness and suave sophistication when, in fact, he is projecting the reality of a tragicomedy with legs. Women can smell the stench of desperation coming off him a mile away, but he mistakes their indifference as “playing coy.” In high school he was always “dating a model who lives in France.” As an adult, he frequently drops boastful, unsubtle hints about the number of women he’s slept with to distract anyone from guessing the actual number is two. Misuses hip-hop slang in a way that feels not just embarrassing but borderline offensive. Has a guy he hangs around with all the time who he doesn’t realize is making fun of him. When he finds himself in a conversation where he doesn’t quite get what’s going on, tries to look really deep in thought so people mistake his confusion for depth. Doesn’t get the David Brent character from The Office UK because it’s too much like looking in a mirror. See also: Piers Morgan. (Despite these examples, isn’t necessarily British. Tools have no home country.) Says he loves music, and will now prove it by making a scene with that guitar he found in the corner. 

Tami Simon Interviews Robert Augustus Masters: True Masculine Power

From Tami Simon's interview series, Insights at the Edge, this is an excellent interview with integral psychologist Robert Augustus Masters about his new book, To Be a Man: A Guide to True Masculine Power. This is another classic book from the author of Spiritual Bypassing: When Spirituality Disconnects Us from What Really Matters (2010).

Robert Augustus Masters: True Masculine Power

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Robert Augustus Masters is an integral psychotherapist and spiritual teacher whose work emphasizes physical embodiment and greater relational maturity. With Sounds True, he has published the book To Be a Man: A Guide to True Masculine Power. In this episode of Insights at the Edge, Robert and Tami Simon talk about the deep shame that men often experience in a society that encourages them to “man up” and ignore their emotions. They also speak on developing a healthier approach to anger, as well as coming to a new understanding of masculine sexuality. Finally, they discuss Robert’s interpretation of what women truly need from modern men. (68 minutes) 

Download »

Read Transcript »

You might also enjoy:

To Be a Man: A Guide to True Masculine Power


Emotional Intimacy: A Comprehensive Guide for Connecting with the Power of Your Emotions

Knowing Your Shadow: Becoming Intimate with All that You Are

To Be a Man: A Guide to True Masculine Power - Robert Augustus Masters

To Be a Man: A Guide to True Masculine Power - Amazon, $18.60

This post is to welcome the important new book, To Be a Man, by integral psychologist (an actual practicing psychologist, not of the Ken Wilber variety) and personal growth facilitator, Robert Augustus Masters, author of the instant classic book on spiritual bypassing, Spiritual Bypassing: When Spirituality Disconnects Us from What Really Matters, and the equally classic book on relationship as a spiritual path, Transformation through Intimacy, Revised Edition: The Journey toward Awakened Monogamy.

When publication of this new book was announced, I knew it was going to be an essential read - and it is. This is from the Introduction to the book:

"BE A MAN!"

This demand does a lot more harm than good. It's a powerful shame amplifier, packed with "shoulds" - and the last thing males need is more shaming, more degradation for not making the grade.

Men - and boys - who are on the receiving end of "be a man!" get the message that they are lacking in certain factors that supposedly constitute manliness.

And this . . .

Many boys are subjected to the demand to "be a man!" - or "man up" - from an early age. Such pressure, however well-meaning, can shame and harden a boy well before he reaches adolescence, shrinking him emotionally, making him shun softness and overvalue performance and the appearance of "having it together." Showing vulnerability may invite gibes about being less than masculine. Many a boy has had to force himself not to cry or show tenderness in order to become "one of the boys" rather than a reject or someone to shun. 

He is describing my childhood, and likely that of a large number of men in my generation. What he describes here has often been referred to as the "man box," the tiny little space in which men are allowed to exist if they are to be considered "real men."
 
The problem with this box is that it forces men to jettison a good deal of what makes a man human, including tenderness, vulnerability, compassion, and exuberance. Within the confines of the box, we are allowed to feel any emotion as long as it's anger. We are allowed to shed a tear when our dog dies or our favorite athlete announces his retirement (and crying about one's dog is questionable).

The good thing is that this is changing, slowly, with each new generation. The bad thing is that there are a whole lot of men who raised in the man box, who still live there, and who think that is exactly how it should be for all men.

This book is for those men.

Here is the publisher's ad copy (thanks to Sounds True for bringing this book to the market!):

• I've got it all-a great job, relationship, and lifestyle-so why do I feel so dissatisfied and disconnected?
• Why am I not happier in my intimate relationships?
• How do I become more powerful-without becoming that jerk everyone dislikes?

Robert Augustus Masters has helped thousands of men address and work through such issues. What he's found is that the common solution to these dilemmas is challenging yet clear: we must face our unresolved wounds, shame, and whatever else is holding us back, bringing "our head, heart, and guts into full-blooded alignment."

With To Be a Man, this acclaimed psychotherapist and relationship expert offers a groundbreaking and deeply insightful guide to masculine power and fulfillment. To Be a Man clarifies what's needed to enter a manhood as strongly empowered as it's vulnerable, as emotionally literate as it's unapologetically alive-a manhood at home with truly intimate relationship.

In this book, readers will explore:

• How your past may be dominating your present
• Shame in its healthy and unhealthy forms, and how to make wise use of it
• How vulnerability can be a source of strength
• Emotional literacy-an essential skill for relational well-being
• Releasing sex from the obligation to make you feel better
• How to disempower your inner critic
• Bringing your shadow (whatever you've disowned in yourself) out of the dark
• Embodying your natural heroism and persisting regardless of fear
• What women need from men
• Understanding and outgrowing pornography
• Entering the heartland of true masculine power

If you've read your share of popular advice on relationships and being a man-but realize on a gut level that it's going to take some serious inner work-here's a great guide to that most rewarding of challenges: doing what's needed to fully embody your authentic manhood.

Here is some of the "praise" for the book (i.e., solicited endorsements).

 Praise for To Be a Man

"Any book that unveils the male mystique with empathy and compassion, helping men understand themselves and helping women understand men, and that helps the culture understand the masculine dilemma should be hailed as a miracle. This is what Robert Augustus Masters does in To Be a Man. Every man should read it as autobiography, every woman should read it as revelation, and our culture should embrace it as a healing balm."
- Harville Hendrix, PhD, author of Getting the Love You Want and co-author (with Helen LaKelly Hunt, PhD) of Making Marriage Simple

"Robert Augustus Masters has written a powerful guide for men that integrates rigor and receptivity, aggression and authority, vulnerability and potency. With highly developed emotional intelligence, and a nuanced understanding of adult development including the importance of shadow work, Masters delivers a vision of mature, embodied male empowerment. To Be a Man is a fearless book from a master of psycho-emotional healing and awakening."
- Diane Musho Hamilton, author of Everything Is Workable: A Zen Approach to Conflict Resolution

"Masters' insights populate every page of this compelling book, and offer creative ways of thinking about many of our era's most complex and controversial issues, among them, pornography, sexual violence, militarism and war, the effects of trauma on men's psyches and identities, and much more."
- Jackson Katz, PhD, author of The Macho Paradox and Leading Men, and creator of the award-winning films Tough Guise and Tough Guise 2

"After thirty years of pioneering men's work, if I were to write the classic handbook for men-this would be it. To Be a Man calls out the 'warrior' to do battle inside, to find authentic masculine power, allowing truly intimate relationships with women, other men, and self."
- Bill Kauth, cofounder of The ManKind Project and author of A Circle of Men and We Need Each Other

"To Be a Man dissects the three words that echo in every man's psyche: "Be a man!" As a seasoned therapist, Masters identifies the accompanying shame men manifest and gives us a guide toward healthy, sustainable masculinity."
- Joe Ehrmann, former NFL player, professional speaker, cofounder of Coaching for America, and author of InSideOut Coaching: How Sports Can Transform Lives

"As a man, this book honors, challenges, teaches, and nurtures me all at once. It shows me where I have the greatest opportunity to grow. Best of all, it celebrates what's truly sacred about being a man."
- Raphael Cushnir, author of The One Thing Holding You Back and Surfing Your Inner Sea

"Every once in a while someone comes along and writes a masterpiece, and Robert Augustus Masters' To Be a Man falls into this category. His book is a true hero's journey of healing and awakening, one that encourages men to cultivate a deep and enduring intimacy with everything that they are for the benefit of one and all."
- Hank Wesselman, PhD, author of The Bowl of Light and the Spiritwalker Trilogy

"As a woman, I am genuinely thankful for the cogent and thoughtful exploration of masculinity that he has offered to the dialogue between men and women. And, as the mother of two boys, I am delighted that he is sharing these fruits of wisdom with the men of today, and the generations to follow."
- Sarah Nicholson, PhD, author of The Evolutionary Journey of Woman

"This book is an invitation to wholeness, to awakening, to the next step man. Compassionately written and wise, it invites men to make a conscious distinction between their benevolent and malevolent identifications, and paves the way for a way of being that is both sturdy and heartfelt. Highly recommended for anyone who has grown tired of limiting gender identifications!"
- Jeff Brown, author of Soulshaping
 
"A brave and full-blooded dive into the challenges and opportunities facing men and masculinity in the 21st century. Masters brings an array of insights, taken from years of personal practice and gleaned from decades of work with clients, to support men on their journey towards mature manhood."
- Vanessa D. Fisher, co-editor and author of Integral Voices on Sex, Gender & Sexuality: Critical Inquiries

"This important book covers the whole spectrum of men's experience and challenges today. Masters explains the development of men's many strengths as well as their compensations, the downsides that so many adopt to 'be a man,' including burying some parts of themselves so deeply that they forget that such parts are even there. A book for men who want to embrace their inner life as well as well as for women who want to understand them."
- Ian Macnaughton, PhD, author of Body Breath and Consciousness

"Robert Augustus Masters is one of the essential wisdom teachers of our time. To Be a Man reflects his deep learning, humility, and decades of experience as a therapist, clinician, and healer. In the section of my library where I have a small collection of books about being a man, this book has moved to the top of my list. I enthusiastically recommend it to any man who wants to wake up, grow up, and show up."
- John Dupuy, author of Integral Recovery

Why You Might Want to Refuse the PSA Test for Prostate Cancer Screening

If you are a man of a certain age (say, over 40-45), you have likely had at least one prostate screen in your regular exams (and if you haven't, DO IT NOW). The old school test is the digital rectal exam (DRE), you know, the one where the doc inserts a gloved, lubricated finger into your arse and feels for the size of the prostate gland. Most men dread this part of the physical. Once prostate specific androgen was discovered (by Richard Ablin, in 1970) and a blood test was developed, PSA screens became the most popular diagnostic tool.

The problem is that PSA screening is not a very effective tool. Dr. Ablin, and a lot of other researchers, worry that "the use of the PSA test has led to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, with millions of unnecessary surgeries, complications and deaths." There is considerable research to support this concern.

This is from "Prevention of Prostate Cancer" (Algotar, AM, Stratton, MS, Harryman, WL, and Cress, AE); Fundamentals of Cancer Prevention, D. Alberts, L.M. Hess (eds.), 2014.

Treatment of clinically silent cancers is termed “overtreatment” (Klotz 2012 ). Estimates place the cost of this phenomenon in excess of $31 and $55 million respectively (Heijnsdijk et al. 2009 ).

After extensive review of literature, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPTF) has issued a grade D recommendation (“discourage the use of this service”) for screening with PSA (Force 2012 ). This means that the USPTF believes there is moderate or high certainty that screening with PSA has no net benefit or that the harm outweighs the benefit. This grade D recommendation applies to healthy men of all ages, regardless of race or family history. (p. 495-496)

Perhaps the most scathing review of PSA testing in recent months comes from Dr. Ablin himself, in a New York Times editorial, The Problems with Prostate Screening (Nov. 25, 2014).

In this editorial, he dissects some serious issues with two major studies - European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, and the so-called Swedish Goteborg study - both of which support the use of PSA tests to reduce prostate cancer deaths. These studies appeared in highly prestigious journals, The New England Journal of Medicine and Lancet Oncology, respectively.

The researchers in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) have refused to make their data available to outside researchers, despite government and charity funding of the project. This is a HUGE red flag. More troubling, however, is that this project transferred 60% of the data from the Swedish Goteborg Study, which is unique "among country-specific studies in showing an almost 50 percent reduction in prostate cancer deaths for screening recipients." Without this data (which is an outlier in PSA research), there would not have been any clinically relevant survival rate in the ERSPC study.

Another HUGE red flag is that several of primary researchers in the European study have interests in the PSA screening industry. This is from Dr. Ablin's editorial:

Finally, several senior authors of the European trials, and their American supporters, have potential conflicts of interest that relate to payments from companies involved in marketing PSA tests, or in holding patents in the PSA and prostate cancer diagnostic space — relationships documented by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, in the forms that accompany the PSA-study publications and in disclosures found in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

None of this serves the men who rely on prostate cancer screening to protect them and identify possible tumors as early as possible (early detection = much higher survival rates).

In the end, the decision to get a prostate cancer screen (of whatever type) should be made by the man in discussion with his physician. For men who are not in high-risk groups (high risk groups include African-Americans, first-degree relative with prostate cancer before age 65, and so on), the American Cancer Society does not recommend prostate cancer screens.

For myself, I have chosen to go with the DRE in my physicals, and I made this choice in conversation with one of the leading researchers in prostate cancer, Dr. Anne Cress of the UA Cancer Center (and a friend of mine). This feels like the best choice for me.

Diane Abbott - The Crisis of Masculinity

From the Institute of Arts and Letters:

With rapid economic and social change leaving Britain’s men behind, Labour politician Diane Abbott imagines brave solutions to an impending social disaster.

The Crisis of Masculinity

Apparently, it's not only jocks and frat boys who contribute to America's rape culture - geeks and nerds do, too. This sad article is from Jezebel.

One addendum to this story, and others like it, needs to be made clear - we need to start asking college men about their unwanted sexual experiences. While most guys would be too ashamed to call it rape (stereotypes still dominate), a LOT of young men have sex against their will, either through intoxication of coercion. In one study (conducted at a University in Chile), 1 in 5 young men reported unwanted sexual experiences (USE) since the age of 14, another 9.4% reported USE prior to age 14 (Lehrer, Lehrer, and Koss, 2013).

In another study:

In a sample drawn from 12 U.S. colleges, 22.2 % of male participants reported some form of USE over their lifetime, with 8.3 % reporting severe USE (involving threats and/or force) (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2001).

The 1 in 5 number seems to be accurate across nationalities. It's time we begin looking at this more closely in the U.S. media - the numbers of male victims are too similar to those of females to keep on ignoring this problem.

MIT and CalArts are the Latest Colleges to Expose the Rape Crisis

Anna Merlan
10/28/14 4:15pm


The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has released a new survey about sexual assault at the university, and it makes us feel all sorts of things: the now-familiar depression and rage, of course, but also, somewhere deep down, a tiny, unfamiliar tendril of tentative optimism.

The depressing and rage-inducing part is that about 17 percent of women and 5 percent of men said they had been sexually assaulted during their time at MIT. (The full survey can be found here. The school polled nearly 4,000 undergraduate and graduate students. The survey was sent to nearly 11,000, but only about 35 percent responded). And, like the other studies, this one also found that most of them didn't report those incidents to an authority figure. The study's authors write, "Close to two-thirds (63%) of respondents who indicated they had an unwanted sexual experience at MIT told someone else about the incident(s), but fewer than 5% reported the experience(s) to someone in an official capacity."

These numbers correspond pretty closely with a similar survey released by the University of Oregon earlier this month, as well as a Department of Justice study released in 2007. Despite how fervently rape apologists like George Will stick their fingers in their ears and try to yell it away, all the available evidence suggests that about one in five women are raped or sexually assaulted during their college years, and few of them want to report it. A full 72 percent of the people at MIT reporting they'd been sexually assaulted said they didn't report because they "did not think the incident(s) was serious enough."

The survey also pointed out some pretty encouraging campus attitudes about rape. A solid 83 percent of students understood that an incident can be rape or sexual assault even if the victim didn't verbally say "no." The majority also understood that rape doesn't happen "because people put themselves in bad situations," and nine out of 10 students agreed "most MIT students would respect someone who did something to prevent a sexual assault." Things seem to be progressing nicely in terms of generational awareness of how rape works: recall, if you will, that Bill Frezza is an MIT alum. He wrote that obnoxious, quickly-deleted Forbes piece stating that "drunk female guests" and their bewildering rape allegations could destroy the fraternity system. But there's still some confusion about consent: more than half of the respondents agreed with the statement, "Rape and sexual assault can happen unintentionally, especially if alcohol is involved."

"Sure, the data tells us things that we maybe didn't want to hear," Cynthia Barnhart, MIT's chancellor, told the New York Times. One of the most disturbing, she added, is that "there is confusion among some of our students about what constitutes sexual assault."

The MIT survey indicates how seriously the school is taking the problem, and the fact that they're willing to publicize the results says a lot about their commitment to transparency.

But it's also becoming increasingly clear that when schools won't address their sexual assault problem, students will do it for them: last week, around 150 students at CalArts, a small liberal arts school near Los Angeles, staged a mass-walkout to protest how the school had handled a rape allegation last year. According to Al Jazeera, who first reported the story, the student, a freshman, was raped in a bathroom by someone she'd briefly dated. The school, she alleges, asked a number of bizarre and insulting questions during a two-month investigation of the incident. From Al Jazeera:

[S]he said school administrators asked her questions about her drinking habits, how often she partied, the length of her dress, how oral rape was even possible, whether she climaxed and whether climaxing was an issue when she'd been with her alleged rapist before.

The perpetrator was ultimately suspended from school for one year. The victim has filed a federal title IX complaint against the school with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, alleging they mishandled her complaint.

Anna Knecht Schawrzer, a CalArts student who helped organize the walkout, says the student protesters are pushing for a new campus policy, one she hopes could become a model for other schools nationwide.

"I want CalArts to be known for a culture that promotes sexual respect," she says. "To make this possible, we as a community need to construct an architecture that facilitates accountability and health." They're recommending, among other things, a better and clearer campus sexual assault policy, a staff member solely devoted to addressing these issues, and better training for all staff and faculty on how to handle sexual assault reports.

MIT, meanwhile, has a lot of data, but seemingly hasn't quite figured out what to do with it. For now, they've set up an email account to take suggestions. The survey's authors write, at the very end of their report: "If you have ideas now about how MIT can reduce the incidence of unwanted sexual behavior on campus and improve the support the Institute offers when it does occur, please contact stop-assault@mit.edu."

MIT's Simmons Hall; Image via Graysky/Flickr

A lot of women went nuts over this mugshot - 

and he's an effing criminal for crying out loud.

I find these "studies" interesting - what a woman finds attractive looking at pictures has little (if anything) to do with what kind of man they would actually go out with (or more). Consistently, studies show that women who are ovulating prefer more traditionally masculine looking men (from Discover News, Aug. 18, 2010):

Starting in the 1990s, studies began to show that in the days before ovulation women start to become more attracted to men who have deeper voices and more chiseled, masculine and symmetrical faces. According to some studies, that may be because men who look like George Clooney are more likely to have dominant social roles, better genes and stronger immune systems.

Woman in relationships experience an even greater increase in their desire for highly masculine men during ovulation - and ovulating women in relationships are also more likely to cheat on their partners than non-ovulating women.

Unless this variable was controlled for in the study below (from Mother Nature Network), it is meaningless (even if it makes us less masculine looking guys feel better).

The masculinity myth: Here's what women really want

(Hint: It's not what Hollywood has been telling you.)

Mon, Nov 03, 2014
Jenn Savedge, Author of parenting books blogs about raising children and health issues.

In theory, masculinity signifies health and strength — but that's not the whole story. (Photo: Pressmaster/Shutterstock)

If old stereotypes are to believed, women like their men oozing with masculinity. But a new study flips that thinking on its head, revealing that what women really want in a man might be far from this tired depiction of masculinity.

Even though it had never been proven, the stereotype of women liking masculine men has been around for so long that it was considered true by default. Experts theorized that masculinity signified health and strength, thus it was more appealing to potential mates. But a recent study conducted by British researchers at Brunel University in London has revealed that the appeal of more masculine men only holds for women from Westernized, urban communities. Throughout the rest of the world, women prefer feminine-looking men to their more masculine counterparts.

For starters, the team attempted to define "masculinity" in terms of appearance. They compiled data using computer simulations to merge photos of men’s and women’s faces into composite, “average” faces of five different ethnic backgrounds. They edited the photos of the men to make some more "masculine," and others more "feminine." To do this, they calculated the differences between the male and female faces. To make a photo more masculine, they increased these differences. Conversely, to make an image more feminine, they minimized the differences.

Then they showed the images to both urban and rural residents of 12 countries and from different ethnic groups. Participants were shown three sets of photos from models of five different ethnic groups. They asked each of the 962 subjects which of the faces they found most attractive. In urban areas, they got the response they expected. Women consistently found the men with the most masculine traits to be most attractive. But the responses of the remaining women shocked the researchers, as they seemed to prefer men with more neutral or even feminine-looking faces.

Researchers theorized that maybe city-dwellers have developed the masculinity preference as a means to make a snap judgment about a man's health without any other background information.

Either way, the study flies in the face of the age-old notion that women prefer manly men, or that the roots of this so-called preference could be found throughout history.

More likely, the masculinity myth is just another urban legend.


The opinions expressed by MNN Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of MNN.com. While we have reviewed their content to make sure it complies with our Terms and Conditions, MNN is not responsible for the accuracy of any of their information.

Movember To Support Men's Mental Health (in addition to prostate and testicular cancers)

Okay, first an admission, I wrongly believed that Movember was beard growing, not just mustaches. But that is because I confused it with another men's health meme, part of the same Movember fund-raising effort, No Shave November. There's also Novembeard.

If you can grow it, let it grow! It's for a good cause (or causes).

Movember To Support Men's Mental Health

Trending News: There's A New Reason To Grow A 'Mo' This Movember

© Getty


Joel Balsam | November 1, 2014

Why Is This Important?

Because too many men suffer from mental illness and they could use a helping hand.

Long Story Short

This year, donations from guys who grow out their ‘stache for Movember will go towards fundraising and raising awareness about male mental health in addition to prostate and testicular cancers.

Long Story

The hairy truth is that too many men suffer from mental illness. According to data released on Movember’s website, a total of 38,364 Americans died by suicide in 2010 and over three quarters of them (79%) were men.

To make matters worse, men aren’t talking about it. According to researchers in the UK, almost a third of men are too embarrassed to seek help for a mental problem and less than a quarter talk to their doctor if they felt down for more than two weeks in comparison to a third of women.

Justin Coughlan, the Australian co-founder of Movember told the BBC that this is a huge issue men need to combat. “It’s the last piece of the puzzle,” he said. “It’s just so big and there’s such a need for it.”

For the 11 years since it began in 2003, the month-long campaign has asked men to grow out their moustaches for charity and awareness about prostate cancer and then testicular cancer. This year, men’s mental illness will be added to the list.

It’s hard to think of too many other annual charity campaigns that have caught on as well as Movember. Every year, millions of “Mos” can be found on street corners and in offices worldwide and the charity’s success is undeniable. Well over four million Mo Bros and Mo Sistas have registered to fundraise since the charity began and $559 million has been raised. Immeasurable is the amount of conversations people have had about men’s mental health and in the case of prostate cancer, how many have gotten checked. According to Movember, 75% of those who participate were more aware of the health risks they face and 50% told someone they should take action to improve their health.

If you haven’t done Movember before, all you need to do is have a fresh shave at the beginning of the month (you’re a little late, but today will do) and sign up for an account. Then, try and get funds to support your Mo and talk about men’s health. Easy peasy.

The stigma about mental illness, especially for men is something that absolutely needs to go, and if Movember can help take it down it will be doing a great service to men everywhere.

Own The Conversation

• Ask The Big Question: Will you be growing your mustache out for Movember this year?
• Disrupt Your Feed: Are there more worthy causes that Movember could be supporting?
• Drop This Fact: Around 15 million American adults are diagnosed with depression each year.

Expand Your Expertise

• Movember founder: Men can end up 'mentally broken' [BBC]
• A Spectator's Guide to Movember and No Shave November [Boston.com]

More Conversation Ammo On AskMen

• Movember Moustaches
• Movember Moustache Monikers
• Kate Upton And Movember
• Moustache Styles

Two New Studies on Prostate Cancer with a Surprising Link

Two new studies on prostate cancer have been released in the last couple of days. The first one shows a 3.3 times greater risk of fatal cardiac events (heart attacks) in men who undergo androgen depletion therapy (ADT) for the treatment of prostate cancer (ADT eliminates testosterone from the body).

The new information supports previous studies suggesting that ADT increases risk of cardiovascular disease, risk of depression, induces muscle loss, decreases bone density (leading to osteoporosis), and results in an overall lower quality of life. I'd rather die of the disease than go through any of that. And in the long term, ADT does not stop progression of the disease, it only slows it down for about 6 months. After ADT the risk of a highly aggressive tumor is increased considerably, at which point it is untreatable.

The other study suggests that men who have had more than 20 female sexual partners have a 1/3 lower risk of developing prostate cancer. Strangely, men who sleep with 20 or more male partners are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer. That is a curious result that may be an anomaly, further studies are needed.

The connection between these two studies is testosterone. Men who have more sexual partners tend to have higher testosterone levels, and despite the prevailing belief that ADT is a useful treatment, there is mounting evidence that testosterone provides some protection against developing the most severe prostate cancers (which tend to be estrogen dependent, which makes ADT the most wrong choice possible).

Anyway, here are the press releases for the new studies.

Prostate cancer treatment linked to cardiac death risk 

An increased risk of dying from heart-related causes has been linked with a mainstay treatment of prostate cancer in a subgroup of men who have had prior heart attacks or congestive heart failure.

Written by David McNamee | 10.29.2014

The authors say that the findings of their study should be carefully weighed against larger controlled trials that demonstrate benefits of ADT.

One of the main treatments for prostate cancer, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) reduced male hormone levels in an effort to prevent them from stimulating cancer cells. However, previous studies have found some adverse effects to be associated with ADT, including increased risk of diabetes, coronary heart disease, heart attacks and sudden cardiac death.

To further investigate this link, a group of researchers from Brigham and Women's Cancer Center and Harvard Medical School - both in Boston, MA - analyzed data from 5,077 prostate cancer patients who were treated between 1997 and 2006. About 30% of the participants had been treated with ADT.

No link was found between ADT and heart-related deaths among men with no risk factors for heart problems after a median follow-up of 4.8 years.

However, among men with congestive heart failure or prior heart attacks, there was a 3.3-times increased risk of death from heart problems. Heart-related deaths occurred in 7.01% of men in this subgroup who were receiving ADT, compared with 2.01% of men not receiving ADT.

The researchers explain that this increased risk works out as one cardiac death for every 20 at-risk men who receive this therapy.

"While androgen deprivation therapy can be a life-saving drug for men with prostate cancer and [can] significantly increase the cure rates when used with radiation for aggressive disease," says Dr. Paul Nguyen, of Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, "this study also raises the possibility that a small subgroup of men who have significant heart disease could experience increased cardiac death on ADT."

Further research should examine different types and durations of ADT

However, the researchers also warn that, as the study - which is published in the journal BJU International - was a retrospective analysis, its findings should be carefully weighed against larger controlled trials that demonstrate benefits of ADT.

It is also possible that changing the type or duration of ADT may reduce cardiac harm, and the researchers suggest that future studies should examine this.

The authors also consider that a longer follow-up period in future studies may reveal associations between ADT and cardiac harms in lower risk subgroups, such as among men with diabetes.

Dr. Nguyen says:

"I would still say that for men with significant heart problems, we should try to avoid ADT when it is not necessary - such as for men with low-risk disease or men receiving ADT only to shrink the prostate prior to radiation. However, for men with high-risk disease, in whom the prostate-cancer benefits of ADT likely outweigh any potential cardiac harms, ADT should be given even if they have heart problems, but the patient should be followed closely by a cardiologist to ensure that he is being carefully watched and optimized from a cardiac perspective."

In March, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that prostate cancer patients who received ADT as their primary treatment instead of surgery or radiation therapy did not live any longer than patients who received no treatment.

The authors, from Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center in Washington, DC, said that their study - which analyzed data from 15,170 patients - "mitigates against any clinical or policy rationale for use of primary androgen deprivation therapy in these men."

* * * * *

Prostate Cancer Risk Reduced By Having More Sex

Trending News: This New Study Suggests The Weirdest Reason You Should Sleep Around

Paul Watson October 28, 2014

© danrocha/Flickr

Why Is This Important?

Because it may now be medically advisable for men to sleep around.

Long Story Short

Research has revealed that men who have slept with more than 20 women have reduced their risk of prostate cancer by almost a third, but men who have slept with 20 men have doubled their risk.

Long Story

A revolutionary new study has shown that sleeping with more than 20 women can reduce a man’s chances of developing prostate cancer by 28 percent. Conversely, men who sleep with more than 20 male partners are twice as likely to get prostate cancer than a man who has never had sex with another man.

Researchers at the University of Montreal and the Institut Armand-Frappier published their discovery in the journal Cancer Epidemiology after a survey of 3,208 men between 2005 and 2009.

It is suggested that intercourse can protect men from prostate cancer and those who are more promiscuous have more regular sex than those in long-term relationships.

“It is possible that having many female sexual partners results in a higher frequency of ejaculations, whose protective effect against prostate cancer has been previously observed,” lead researcher Dr. Marie-Elise Parent is quoted as saying by The Telegraph.

However, the reason for the reverse effect in homosexual male relationships where men who have slept with 20 male partners have double the chance of getting prostate cancer and a staggering 500% greater chance of developing a less aggressive prostate cancer, is still not clear.

“It could come from greater exposure to STIs, or it could be that anal intercourse produces physical trauma to the prostate,” Parent said, but she stressed that was a “highly speculative" analysis.

This is the first study to find a link between the number of sexual partners and prostate cancer, but it has previously been suggested that intercourse may help guard against prostate cancer because it reduces the concentration of carcinogenic substances in the fluid of the prostate.

Still, many men will be disappointed to hear that Dr. Parent was unwilling to recommend men should be told to sleep with more women, insisting we were “not there yet.”

Own The Conversation

• Ask The Big Question: Does sleeping with more women really help men avoid prostate cancer?
• Disrupt Your Feed: I always knew it was medically responsible to sleep with as many women as possible... Kidding.
• Drop This Fact: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in Europe for males and the third most common cancer overall.

Expand Your Expertise

• Prostate cancer risk reduced by sleeping with many women, but increased with many men [Eureka Alert]
• Sex with 21 women lowers risk of prostate cancer, academics find [The Telegraph]
• Men who sleep with multiple women REDUCE their risk of prostate cancer [Daily Mail]

"Force Majeure" - A Movie That Will Change How You Think About Manhood (via Esquire)

This review of the new Swedish film Force Majeure (96% Fresh at Rotten Tomatoes), from Esquire, makes it sound equally important for most men to see and painful to have to sit through. Likely, both are true.

Here is the official trailer:


This seems to be a can't miss film, especially for those of us who care about creating a healthier more authentic masculinity.

A Movie That Will Change How You Think About Manhood

The bleak, funny Force Majeure

By Nick Schager on October 23, 2014

Tired of all those superheroes outmatching you in toughness, confidence, and manliness? If so, then the cinematic antidote has arrived in the form of Force Majeure, a Swedish film (and the country's Oscar entry) that tears masculinity a new one.

Opening in limited release tomorrow and then expanding in the coming weeks, director Robert Ostlund's film is ostensibly a drama. But its dissection of macho attitudes and guises is so unsparing that it achieves a pitch-perfect balance between scathing censure and black humor. Rarely has a film taken men to the woodshed for their failings with such a mix of disgust, pity, and wit, the last of which is the key ingredient that helps make Force Majeure such a unique high-wire balancing act. It puts the awkwardness of a Ben Stiller farce to shame, and investigates the man-child phenomenon more deeply than a timid Hollywood bro-comedy ever could.

The film, exquisitely shot to emphasize the dynamics between characters, concerns a middle-class Swedish family on a ski-resort vacation. They're an average clan, led by the average Tomas (Johannes Bah Kuhnke), whose defining characteristic is his milquetoast personality and habit of constantly checking his iPhone for work messages. Their perfectly pleasant, unremarkable getaway is demolished, however, when during breakfast on the resort terrace one morning, a "controlled" avalanche is detonated by mountain officials, and the cascade of snow approaches the vacationers. At first, Tomas tells his panicking children to be calm. Yet as the snow builds to a roaring wall facing them, the possibility of death becomes frighteningly real. In that moment, as wife Ebba (Lisa Loven Kongsli) grabs the children to shield them from the avalanche, Tomas grabs his gloves and phone—and flees.

Yes, he flees.

It's a moment of undeniable cowardice, and one that doesn't go unnoticed by Ebba and the kids, who, once the false alarm is over, sit in stunned silence as their father rejoins them at the table. Tomas's spinelessness and selfishness hang in the air for what seems like an eternity, even as they resume their vacation, with the kids miserable and Ebba barely able to contain her revulsion around Tomas. Her horror at her husband soon builds to an uncontrollable point, and it's then, during two separate conversations with other couples, that Force Majeure truly becomes a film that's watched while squirming restlessly and half-covering one's eyes.

During the first of those two chats, with a man and woman they've just met, Tomas denies that he fled the scene, thus digging himself an even deeper hole. Of course, Tomas is wracked with shame over his failure to act as protector, and Force Majeure depicts him as a man who's outwardly possessed and yet so internally weak and pathetic that he lacks even the courage to retroactively admit to (and atone for) his sins. Tomas hits rock bottom during a later evening spent with big-bearded friend Mats (Game of Thrones' Kristofer Hivju) and his 20-year-old girlfriend, who are put in the amusingly uncomfortable position of having to hear about Tomas's gutlessness, and then, in Mats's case, try to put a positive spin on indefensible behavior. During this tense centerpiece, director Ostlund refuses to turn away from his characters as they grapple with Tomas's shortcomings and the misery he's wrought, casting such an intense eye on Tomas and Ebba (and, in heartbreaking cutaways, their kids) that the film takes on the air of an inescapable nightmare at which you can only laugh.

Tomas's and Mats's ladies-man self-images are destroyed while they have a post-skiing drink, and Mats's girlfriend slams him for, hypothetically speaking, having the same cowardly instincts as Tomas (because, in part, he's left his kids with his ex-wife). No matter where you turn in Force Majeure, masculinity is under attack, and with good reason. And yet despite its scornful critique of traditional ideas about men's strength, bravery, virility, and altruism fostered by Marvel comics adaptations, Ostlund's film is no reprimanding lecture or slog. Instead, by rigorously fixating on his characters' faces as they refuse to look at each other or blubber uncontrollably over their own crappiness, he's created a sharply funny satire about the distance between what men project and what they really are. It's a joke for the ages, but it's also designed as a wake-up call to the real modern man-children of the world who haven't owned up to their true, flawed selves.

Why One Male College Student Abandoned Affirmative Consent (via The Atlantic)

Interesting . . . raises some interesting issues that men must deal with regularly, but that seldom get brought up in the discussions around consent.

Perhaps this is a discussion that people should have before things move to the bedroom, or wherever.

And, more importantly, we need to remove the double standard around female sexuality. Women like sex, too (duh!), and should not be shamed for liking it or initiating it.

Why One Male College Student Abandoned Affirmative Consent

A letter from a recent graduate who takes issue with California's new sexual-assault law

Conor Friedersdorf | Oct 20 2014

 

Beck Diefenbach/Reuters 

After I asked college students and recent grads to comment on California's affirmative-consent law, several different respondents shared a controversial perspective best captured in the email below. The male writer reports that he began college determined to ask women for explicit verbal consent during sexual encounters, but abandoned that approach over time.

Here is his explanation of why:

Dear Conor,

I am a recent graduate, and want to share with you a few of my experiences that I think are illustrative of why the new affirmative-consent laws are out of touch with the reality of the human experience. I hope they can be of some value to the debate.

I was raised by a left-leaning, feminist family who (at least I thought at the time) were relatively open about sex. But while I arrived at college with a healthy respect for women, I was totally unprepared for the complex realities of female sexuality.

“Oh,” sighed one platonic female friend after we had just watched Harrison Ford grab Alison Doody and kiss her is Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, “Why don’t guys do that kind of thing anymore? Now days they are all too scared.”

On our second night together, one of my first partners threw up her hands in disgust. “How am I supposed to get turned on when you keep asking for permission for everything like a little boy?” She said. “Just take me and fuck me already.”

She didn’t stay with me for long

This would be a recurring theme. More than once I saw disappointment in the eyes of women when I didn’t fulfill the leadership role they wanted me to perform in the bedroom. I realized that women don’t just desire men, they desire men’s desire―and often they don’t want to have to ask for it. I also realized that I was in many ways ashamed of my own sexual desire as a man, and that this was not healthy.

At this point I was experiencing some cognitive dissonance with my upbringing, but in time learned to take an assertive lead unless I got a “no” or otherwise thought I was about to cross a boundary as indicated by body language.

One night I ended up back in a girl’s room after a first date (those do happen in college). She had invited me in and was clearly attracted to me. We were kissing on her bed, outer layers of clothing removed, but when my hands wandered downward she said, “No, wait.” I waited. She began kissing me again, passionately, so again I moved to remove her underwear. “Stop,” she said, “this is too fast.” I stopped.

“That’s fine,” I said. I kissed her again and left soon after, looking forward to seeing her again.

But my text messages received only cold, vaguely angry replies, and then silence. I was rather confused. Only many weeks later did I find out the truth from one of her close friends: “She really wanted you, but you didn’t make it happen. She was pretty upset that you didn’t really want her.”

“Why didn’t she just say so then, why did she say we were moving too fast?”

“Of course she said that, you dumbass. She didn’t want you to think she was a slut.”

Talk about confusing. Apparently in this case even no didn’t mean no. It wasn’t the last time I've come across “token resistance” that is intended to be overcome either. But that’s a line that I am still uncomfortable with testing, for obvious reasons.

But I have learned not to ask when it clearly isn’t necessary, or desired.

One of my fondest sexual experiences started with making eye contact across a room, moved to a dance floor, and then to an empty bathroom. Not a single word was ever spoken, because none had to be. We both knew and understood. I was a man and she was a woman, and we found ourselves drawn together in that beautiful way that men and women have been since a time immemorial, a time long before language was ever spoken.

Today in California this would be considered rape. I find that very sad. Women are not infantile. They can make their own decisions about sex, and that includes being able to say no―even if they don’t want to have to say yes.

Regards,
Anonymous

The experiences that this young man had will resonate with some readers. Others will find his descriptions unreliable or his conclusions wrongheaded. Agree or disagree with him, this much is clear: If his attitude persists among a significant number of college students, it will be a huge obstacle to spreading affirmative-consent culture.

How might different supporters of affirmative consent respond to this young man? They might say:

• Under an affirmative-consent standard, consent need not be verbal. Depending on the details, it's possible that your "saw her across the room" hookup was fine.
• Perhaps women supposedly put off by your attempts to seek consent were actually reacting to a lack of confidence or wimpy manner, not consent-seeking itself, which can be sought in a confident, assertive, charismatic manner.
• Some women may put off by explicit consent-seeking, but others are turned on by it. And even if some subset of women dislike explicit consent-seeking, that doesn't mean the standard should be abandoned, even if it does "cost" men some hookups, as if society should care about that when it adopts norms. This will reduce rape and sexual assault, a benefit that is much more significant than the trivial cost of a 22-year-old guy not having sex quite as often, or 22-year-old women who can no longer offer "token resistance" and get laid.
• The idea that women offer "token resistance" enables rapists and other sex criminals and should not affect consent-seeking. (The writer seems to agree in part when he notes that he is "still uncomfortable" testing "token resistance.")

I'd be curious to see a frank debate between this young man and critics of his position. (Would anyone be persuaded to refine their position or learn how to better persuade their critics?) But the sensitivity of the subject, the understandable aversion most people have to speaking on-the-record about their past sexual encounters, and the way both politically correct stigma and misogynistic threats are used to police discourse on this subject make it less likely that college men who feels this way will have open, rigorous on-campus exchanges with those whose perspective is different.

My hope is that emails from students and recent grads about any aspect of the affirmative-consent debate will air a broad spectrum of views and facilitate frank exchanges. If you have thoughts or insights informed by what you've seen or experienced, please share, anonymously or not, by emailing conor@theatlantic.com.

Conor Friedersdorf is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he focuses on politics and national affairs. He lives in Venice, California, and is the founding editor of The Best of Journalism, a newsletter devoted to exceptional nonfiction.