Not all men: the debates in social networks on masculinities and consent

The paper challenges myths about heterosexual men's sexual interests, particularly the misconception that men desire sex regardless of a partner's consent. Social media plays a significant role in making gender issues visible and influencing public discourse. The study is guided by two research questions: (1) Do men take a stand in favour of consent, in their personal sexual relationships and in interaction with others' behaviours? (2) Do men desire consensual relationships and reject non-consensual interactions? To address these questions, the authors analyse discussions on Twitter and Reddit centered on the hashtags #NotAllMen and #Consent, and complement this with three life stories of heterosexual men to deepen insights on desire and consent beyond what appears on social media. The research is situated within frameworks of preventive socialisation of gender-based violence, intersectionality, and social impact research, focusing on New Alternative Masculinities (NAM) as egalitarian and attractive male models that actively reject non-consensual relations.

The review covers two strands: men and consent, and social media's role in transformation. In men's studies, interventions targeting men and boys aim to promote "positive masculinities" and healthy behaviours linked to consent, though their impact on transforming hegemonic masculinities is debated. Conceptualisations show some young men view consent as tacit, while other narratives downplay abuse. The New Alternative Masculinities (NAM) approach distinguishes Dominant Traditional Masculinities (violent/dominant) and Oppressed Traditional Masculinities (non-violent but passive), contrasting them with NAM, who combine egalitarian values with desirability and actively oppose gender-based violence, seeking relationships that integrate freedom, equality, and passion—requiring desired consent from all parties. From a social media perspective, platforms can both foster discrimination (e.g., Islamophobia, chauvinism, homophobia) and catalyse transformative activism. Hashtags like #NotAllMen have broad reach but draw criticism for derailing discussions; #HeForShe mobilised male solidarity and institutional action. Despite extensive work, a gap remains on men's rejection of non-consent and their desire for consent, and on alternative interactions from men regarding consent—gaps the present study addresses by analysing online dialogues and interviewing egalitarian men.

The study is part of the EU H2020 ALL-INTERACT project, employing a Communicative Methodology oriented toward social impact and egalitarian dialogue between researchers and participants. Mixed methods were used: (1) Social Media Analytics (SMA) on Twitter and Reddit; (2) communicative daily life stories with men. For SMA, the search units were "NotAllMen" and "Consent" (as keywords and hashtags), searched separately and combined. Twitter was openly explored, reading and analysing over 2,000 messages (initial tweets, replies, retweets). Reddit analysis focused on subreddits connected to gender and education identified within ALL-INTERACT: Feminism, Feminisms, Bisexual, FeMRADebates, PurplePillDebate, ApplyingToCollege, Education, Science, Teachers, Teaching. Data extraction yielded 58,114 posts/comments; these were filtered for target terms, with selected messages included via paraphrase to protect privacy. For qualitative complementarity, three communicative daily life stories were conducted with heterosexual Spanish men (aged 35–45) active in a men's movement discussing scientific evidence on consent and NAM. Interviews explored excitement and consent, satisfaction with consensual encounters, and reactions to non-consensual or non-reciprocal situations. Analysis followed a communicative orientation, defining a main category "Effects on consensual relationships" with two dimensions: exclusionary (debates perpetuating non-consent) and transformative (debates helping overcome non-consent). Validity claims (sincerity, truth, normative rightness) guided interpretation, contrasting them with power claims.

- Dataset and scope: >2,000 Twitter messages analysed; 58,114 Reddit posts/comments filtered for relevant content across gender and education subreddits. - Exclusionary dimension (perpetuating non-consent): - Instrumentalisation of #NotAllMen to deflect discussions and excuse misconduct; examples include justifying boundary violations (e.g., touching without consent) and reinforcing rape culture myths ("no" means "yes," insistence as necessary). - Narratives valorising dominant men and framing egalitarian or "nice" men as unattractive, pressuring men to adopt dominant behaviours for success; reports of women ridiculing men who respect a "no" reinforce this dynamic. - Context-dependent misogyny: some men act decently around women but express misogynistic views among men; a perceived permissive male "brotherhood" normalises rape culture, discouraging upstander intervention. - Barriers to male allyship: fear of being lumped with offenders, online attacks, and the sense that isolated actions are ineffective without strong networks. - Non-scientific discourses: denial of gendered violence, misuse/manipulation of statistics, and biologically determinist claims used to justify male entitlement or paid sex. - Transformative dimension (overcoming non-consent): - Strong critiques of #NotAllMen and emphasis on #SomeMen and the "pyramid of violence" to refocus on widespread everyday harms. - Condemnation of bystander inaction; calls for men to challenge rape jokes, reject "boys will be boys," and engage actively (#TooManyMenNotSpeakingUp; #TooManyMenProtectingHorribleMen). - Consent education advocated across the lifespan: move from "no means no" to "yes means yes," include non-verbal communication, use accessible resources (e.g., tea metaphor video), and embed systemic prevention across schools, families, policing, workplaces. - Upstander training and campaigns: men engage with initiatives like "Don't be that guy," Women's Aid #AllMen, Beyond Equality, and White Ribbon; emphasis on bottom-up community action rather than waiting for leaders. - Supportive online climates: men publicly empathise with victims; users mute trolls and disengage from non-dialogic spaces to focus on constructive dialogue. - Peer advice for unconfident men: be assertive, communicate desires, ensure comfort, and prioritise mutual enjoyment; kindness and consideration are framed as strengths. - Visibility and valuation of alternative masculinities: male allies state readiness to confront friends, share concrete intervention strategies, and inspire others; egalitarian men’s actions receive social validation (likes, shares). - Practical ally actions: amplify women’s voices, share research, call out minor infractions early, and be willing to end friendships over mistreatment of women; promote men-only reflective spaces and include boys in dialogues to counter "boys will be boys." - Interviews (three egalitarian heterosexual men): - Strong aversion to non-consensual and instrumental sex: participants report lack of arousal without mutual, enthusiastic consent; non-reciprocal encounters are described as unappealing and "like a checklist task." - Desire-consent linkage: highest excitement occurs with clear mutual commitment; consent is inseparable from desire and pleasure. - Preference for mutual commitment in any sexual-affective relation; ideals of beauty, kindness, and equality serve as protective factors guiding choices toward consensual, enjoyable relationships.

The mixed-method, communicative approach advances research on men, consent, and social media by integrating online discourse analysis with lived experiences of egalitarian men. Findings reveal simultaneous exclusionary and transformative dynamics online. Exclusionary uses of #NotAllMen divert attention from victims and may embolden dominant models; some women’s ridicule of men who respect boundaries can inadvertently valorise dominant behaviours, reinforcing coercive socialisation. Risks of reprisal for upstanders (Isolating Gender Violence) and the difficulty of identifying predatory men, particularly in casual encounters, align with prior literature. Conceptually, distinguishing Dominant Traditional Masculinities, Oppressed Traditional Masculinities, and New Alternative Masculinities (NAM) helps clarify pathways for transformation. Rather than praising men for minimal standards, the literature and findings support deploying a language of desire around NAM to make egalitarian models attractive; otherwise, some "nice guys" may drift toward dominance due to perceived success incentives. Transformative threads spotlight evidence-based consent education across ages, men’s bottom-up engagement, and online solidarity networks (e.g., #MeToo effects). The study also contrasts these advances with toxic online niches that normalise hegemonic masculinities and trolling. Interview data underscore that some men are aroused only by mutual, enthusiastic consent and commitment, reinforcing the NAM framework’s potential for fostering passionate, egalitarian relationships and contributing to broader goals such as SDG5.

Men with traits of New Alternative Masculinities (NAM) play a critical role in eliminating non-consensual relationships. They publicly reject non-consensual encounters and explicitly report greater satisfaction and sexual excitement when mutual consent is present. While social media debates often show support for consent and opposition to gender-based violence, the qualitative fieldwork uniquely highlights men’s desire-linked rejection of non-consent and their preference for mutual, enthusiastic consent and commitment. Future research should explore dialogues among different groups of egalitarian men to enhance peer learning and upstander efficacy, and conduct quantitative social media analyses to estimate the prevalence of NAM-aligned attitudes.

- Qualitative interview sample is small (three participants), intentionally selected from a specific egalitarian men's movement, limiting generalisability. - Social media analysis, while extensive, is non-representative and focuses on specific hashtags/keywords and subreddits; paraphrasing to protect privacy limits verbatim validation. - No quantitative estimation of the prevalence of NAM traits in social media debates was conducted; this remains a pending step for future work.