Admittedly, our study only involved two husbands, one of whom was my own, and there might have been a considerable amount of white wine and cocktails consumed. Despite the lack of rigorous control, this anecdotal research possesses value and is set to be featured in an online peer-reviewed journal. You might even be reading it right now.
The husbands in this informal study were first posed with three yes-or-no questions:
- Was it wrong for Adrian Peterson to use a switch on his 4-year-old son?
- Should the NFL have responded more decisively to the footage of Ray Rice assaulting his wife?
- Was it wrong for a hacker to leak explicit photographs of celebrities like Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton?
Between the second and third drinks, the responses were a resounding yes to all three inquiries: 1) Yes, 2) Yes, and 3) Yes. Initially, the wives conducting the questioning were satisfied with these answers. However, further probing revealed a more complex picture.
When asked whether their strong feelings would affect their viewing of NFL games or participation in fantasy football leagues, the husbands responded with an emphatic—and rather loud for a small venue—“No way!” Researchers were taken aback by the unanimous agreement regarding the hacking incident. Every participant firmly stated, “The women whose photos were stolen were violated.” This was reassuring for the researchers. However, when asked if they had viewed the photos, only 50% initially admitted to it. The other half started with a confident “No,” but quickly changed their tune upon further questioning, claiming, “I tried, but they were already taken down. So, I didn’t look at them.”
When one researcher challenged this defense, asserting that clicking the link equated to condoning the act—perhaps in a tone that may have drawn the attention of nearby diners—the subject merely laughed it off. Fortunately, that participant was not married to the researcher, which likely helped ease any post-study tension at home. The second husband’s remark—“Dude, you’re getting all the heat, but I was the one who actually saw the pics!”—did create some strain in his… I mean, the second husband’s… household.
This leaves researchers with a perplexing situation. The data suggests that even “good” men can casually overlook inappropriate behavior, especially considering their fantasy football standings. But do these findings indicate a troubling moral compass in the subjects? If so, how does this clash with their otherwise commendable ethics, which had been thoroughly evaluated before they became parents or co-signed mortgages? How can a researcher remain married to a respectful man who would never harm another individual or steal, yet seems willing to excuse the actions of others?
These results don’t account for external influences, such as the current standing of the New England Patriots or opinions on the dance scenes in “Silver Linings Playbook.” Researchers remain hopeful that with consistent interventions—like relentless Sunday commentary and challenging questions such as, “What if that were your daughter—not that it should make a difference!”—participants can adjust their behavior to reflect a more appropriate level of outrage and empathy. Or maybe not. Further investigation is necessary.
For those interested in home insemination, check out this post on our blog about artificial insemination kits. You can also find valuable insights on supporting your male partner through infertility, which is an authority on this topic, and facts about fertility that can be helpful for pregnancy and home insemination.
In summary, this informal survey reveals that even well-intentioned individuals may rationalize unacceptable behavior, particularly when it intersects with personal interests. The findings underscore the need for ongoing discussions about morality, empathy, and the influence of social contexts on personal values.