Blackpill "The probability of IPV perpetration was 37% for young men with a large number of friends"

[The Notorious SLAV]

Damn, turns out it's not the loners who, for some reason, are abusing the girlfriends they had to luck out to get. Instead, it's the cocky and popular guys who are used to getting away with everything thanks to being popular who do so. Who would've guessed?

Violent Peers, Network Centrality, and Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration by Young Men

To measure the association between affiliation with violent peers in adolescence and intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration by men in early adul…

www.sciencedirect.com

Using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, we analyzed a cohort of male subjects, originally in grades 7–12, reporting on sexual relationships 7 years later. At baseline, peer network violence was estimated as the average of network members' reports of their frequency of fighting during the past year, and centrality (number of friendships) was measured. Logistic regression was used to estimate associations between peer network violence, network centrality, and perpetration of IPV in recent intimate relationships.

The probability of IPV perpetration was 37% for young men with a large number of friends (>13) engaging in an average of six to seven fights in the past year. However, young men in small- (<6 friends) or medium-sized peer networks (6–13 friends) with these same levels of violence had probabilities of IPV perpetration between 5% and 7%.

Note the bolded part. I really like what they did here, in specifically comparing similarly-violent groups of boys/young men with different amounts of friends, showing that it isn't how often they get in fights that's the dominant variable here, but specifically how popular they are. The difference is really wild.

Also, some suicide fuel on how many friends normal people have:

At baseline, 68% of 2,993 middle and high school boys reported having six or more friends in their peer network.

And this isn't just one study saying it. I actually found this among references in this one:

Male social embeddedness and intimate partner violence perpetration in Tanzania: A cross-sectional study of young Tanzanian men

Social embeddedness – or lack thereof – has been associated with a number of antisocial behaviours, including perpetration of intimate partner violenc…

www.sciencedirect.com

In our sub-sample of young men who have ever been in a relationship (n = 828), 21% reported perpetrating physical IPV (n = 177), 27% sexual IPV (n = 222), 51% emotional IPV (n = 423), and 83% coercive control (n = 688). Overall scores and scores on every sub-scale of the MOS-SSSI measuring perceived support were high. In the crude analysis, only coercive control perpetration was significantly associated with social support overall (OR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.23–1.69) and in every sub-scale. These associations remained significant in adjusted models, showing that higher levels of social embeddedness are associated with significantly higher odds of reporting enacting coercive control (OR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.24–1.69).

"Social embeddedness" is basically the same as network centrality looked at in the previous study. How many friends you have, how well-connected you are in your social circles, and so on.

Two studies from two extremely different countries, both finding almost the same thing. That, with a few variations between the two studies' results, popularity and the chance for a guy* to perpetrate at least one type of IPV directly scale together. But of course, who is always blamed for the dreaded violence against women? It's never the popular jocks.

*Of course, I'd prefer if those studies were gender-neutral, the results of that would be quite interesting, but I'll take what I can get.

Also, the attempted explanation in the second study is pretty funny:

Male socialisation plays a significant role in what young men perceive as acceptable and unacceptable behaviours within their communities. Young men who spend more time with their peers might be receiving messaging that reinforces masculine norms of control over their female partners, which translate in higher reported coercive control perpetration.

"It's not them choosing to do so or being the types to do so, it's their friends convincing them. My Tyrones would never do that on their own." Legit just covering for them because of the halo effect of those guys being popular. Also, suddenly socialization is apparently bad.

 

[Grodd]

Must be their good personalities

 

[The Notorious SLAV]

Must be their good personalities

Undoubtedly.

 

[turbocuckcel_7000]

only 2025 could bring you so many words about gregarious cavemen punching their disloyal whores in the head

like no shit, men with girlfriends and a lot of male friends have higher testosterone, and won't tolerate bullshit and cheating like the average soycuck, let's write a whole fucking book about it

 

[turbocuckcel_7000]

talking about the original writers, not you bro

 

[The Notorious SLAV]

only 2025 could bring you so many words about gregarious cavemen punching their disloyal whores in the head

like no shit, men with girlfriends and a lot of male friends have higher testosterone, and won't tolerate bullshit and cheating like the average soycuck, let's write a whole fucking book about it

Truth. If only we didn't live in a world where even something this obvious needs to be spelled out so people can't blame the harmless loners they want to blame for everything.

talking about the original writers, not you bro

 

[turbocuckcel_7000]

Truth. If only we didn't live in a world where even something this obvious needs to be spelled out so people can't blame the harmless loners they want to blame for everything.

i think what bothers me the most is that... society is supposed to police young people to some extent? stop them from bullying or fucking in middle school.

but it doesn't. it goes completely hands-off, and just researches them from a distance like they're fucking animals at the safari.

 

[The Notorious SLAV]

i think what bothers me the most is that... society is supposed to police young people to some extent? stop them from bullying or fucking in middle school.

but it doesn't. it goes completely hands-off, and just researches them from a distance like they're fucking animals at the safari.

Society's attention to young people's problems and the dangers in their lives has got be directly inversely proportional to how common those dangers actually are.

Bullies? Peer violence in schools? Literally one of the biggest problems in teens' lives according to teens themselves, but society barely even acknowledges it or infantilizes everyone and everything in it, as if bullying was just name-calling here and there and didn't matter.

Parental child abuse? The absolute most common type of child abuse by far. Society's reaction? A few "bad apples" which don't come close to how scary le strangers are. Stranger danger, stranger danger!

The more common a problem is, the less willing society is to deal with it.

 

[La Longue Fourchett]

"It's not them choosing to do so or being the types to do so, it's their friends convincing them. My Tyrones would never do that on their own." Legit just covering for them because of the halo effect of those guys being popular. Also, suddenly socialization is apparently bad.

It is still shocking to me how much the society bends over backwards to protect Tyrones. Tyrone could be gunning foids down in the street and the world will jail incels.

 

[andrej]

Must be their good personalities