The Rape of Men

[HansMustermann]

Actually, the focus of this thread and my comments are suppose to be directed towards Female on Male Rape.

It may well be your focus, but the OP and its link clearly describes man-on-man rape. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with being concerned by other forms, but technically you are hijacking a threat that was really about something completely different. You could make your own thread, you know?

 

[Wildy]

The FBI has recently reviewed its definition to exclude envelopment:

"To change the definition of Rape in the UCR SRS to: “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”"

This would also exclude many female on female rape victims.

I can't yet put links up, but google the Toy Soldiers blog for the link.

Don't know how this affects the law in Ohio.

Considering that the previous definition of rape was "The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Rapes by force and attempts or assaults to rape, regardless of the age of the victim, are included. Statutory offenses (no force used―victim under age of consent) are excluded."

And to save time, here's the link for the blog that you mentioned.

It may well be your focus, but the OP and its link clearly describes man-on-man rape. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with being concerned by other forms, but technically you are hijacking a threat that was really about something completely different. You could make your own thread, you know?

I don't think he's hijacking the thread. If anything then this thread was hijacked in post 10 when Safe-Keeper posted a link to the tvtropes page "Rape is OK when it's Female on Male".

 

[HansMustermann]

To be fair, though, he did include the trope of it being funny when man on man, and I find SafeKeeper's contribution to illustrate a larger aspect that IS relevant. And generally while maybe it enlarges the scope a little, I don't see him trying to narrow it down to exclude the actual topic in the OP like Naive1000 is now trying to do.

 

[Naive1000]

My Bad

Sorry, my bad . I got my threads screwed up. I thought I was posting in the thread about the women raping men in Zimbabwe. I never meant to hijack the thread. I guess I'll try to find that thread again. Sorry if I offended anyone, it wasn't my intention. I just wanted to enter the discussion on female on male rape.

 

[Aurelian]

Naive - look at the cite on the first stat

From the fact sheet on Male Sexual Assault here:

http://www.mcasa.org/_mcasaWeb/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/2011_FactSheet_Males.pdf

 71% of male victims were first raped before their 18th birthday; 16.6% were 18-24 years old, and 12.3% were 25 or older. National Institute of Justice, U.S Department of Justice. “Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Rape Victimization: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey,” P. Tjaden, et al. 2006

 The year in a male’s life when he is most likely to be a victim of sexual assault is the age of 4.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000

 61% of male sexual abusers are male, 28% are female, and 11% of males reported being assaulted by both males and females. “Betrayed as Boys: Psychodynamic Treatment of Sexually Abused Men,” R. Gartner, 1999

 Up to 1/2 of the female perpetrators were adolescent-aged babysitters. Female perpetrators used coercion, rather than force in 91% of the cases, and 26% promised special favors to boys for participation in sexual acts. JAMA, 1998

 48% of males were raped by strangers, compared with 28% of females. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Criminal Victimization in 1999: Changes 1998-1999, with Trends 1993-1999,” 2000

 Many rapes and sexual assaults are perpetrated by heterosexual men, in all-male environments, often as part of an initiation. Incidences of this have been documented in military organizations, fraternal organizations, athletic organizations, prisons etc. They often commit their crime with one or more cohorts. “Male on Male Rape: The Hidden Toll of Stigma and Shame,” M. Scarce, 1997

 The organization Stop Prison Rape conservatively estimates that 360,000 men are sexually assaulted in prisons in the United States each year. For at least 2/3 of these inmates the rapes are not isolated events, but a repeated pattern (often as gang rapes). “Male on Male Rape: The Hidden Toll of Stigma and Shame,” M. Scarce, 1997

 

[Naive1000]

Thanks for the information. Its always good to have more facts to use against the ignorant.

 

[Polaris]

Thanks for the information. Its always good to have more facts to use against the ignorant.

The ignorant can be educated. It's the apathetic that will be the real challenge.

 

[Arcade22]

I'm not sure how someone can legitimately say that statutory rape is not real rape; to my way of thinking, it's rape regardless.

Ah, then I'd gladly hear how having sex with a 17 year old boy is rape when it happens in Texas and it's consensual when it happens in Ohio. Let's say that the older partner is 35 years old to make sure no 'minor-age difference' laws get in the way.

ETA: i looked it up and saw wrong, the age of consent was apparently 17 in Texas and not 18. Just change the locale to Utah or Virginia. The point still stands.

 

[Naive1000]

Would you feel the same if it was a 17 year old girl instead of a boy? If not, then the attitude is sexist. For me, 16 and 17 are very iffy ages for statutory rape, but at that age they're close enough to the age of consent that the adult should be able to wait. The adult has an obligation to say no until then -- its the law. I think loitering is a silly offense and shouldn't be illegal, but does that mean we can ignore the law? And, if we do that we should not be punished? An adult has to act like an adult and obey the law or be willing to take the consequences.

 

[Arcade22]

Would you feel the same if it was a 17 year old girl instead of a boy? If not, then the attitude is sexist.

Why would is see different depending on which sex they were? Although I've noticed that many people seem to hold the view that boys are oversexed and horny and would never say no to sex, with the reverse being true for girls.

A story i remember was when a female school teacher here in Sweden apparently made a 15 year old boy have sex with her. The strange thing was that some of the comments that i saw online was "Oh he probably enjoyed it, yeesh why care? boys will be boys" and etc. Despite that in the news it said that he was obviously forced and didn't like it.

Would anyone dare to claim the same with the genders reversed? "She was probably wet and horny thorough-out and enjoyed it, i mean why should she complain? It's every girls dream for christs sake!!"

I doubt it.

For me, 16 and 17 are very iffy ages for statutory rape, but at that age they're close enough to the age of consent that the adult should be able to wait.

Whether people should wait or not seems irrelevant since we were discussing if having consensual sex with a 17 year old that's 'underage' is rape.

The adult has an obligation to say no until then -- its the law. I think loitering is a silly offense and shouldn't be illegal, but does that mean we can ignore the law?

Of course. People murder, rob, steal and smoke pot whenever they feel like it, despite the fact that they might end up in jail or worse. Why would loitering be any different?

And, if we do that we should not be punished? An adult has to act like an adult and obey the law or be willing to take the consequences.

People should be punished for the crimes that they have been found guilty of, whether they've actually done it or if the crime is trivial. Otherwise what would be the point of having laws at all? Just for show?

But how is any of this related to whether having consensual sex with a 17 year old that's underage is rape or not?

 

[Sabrina]

Ah, then I'd gladly hear how having sex with a 17 year old boy is rape when it happens in Texas and it's consensual when it happens in Ohio. Let's say that the older partner is 35 years old to make sure no 'minor-age difference' laws get in the way.

ETA: i looked it up and saw wrong, the age of consent was apparently 17 in Texas and not 18. Just change the locale to Utah or Virginia. The point still stands.

That's skirting close to a gray area in the law in my mind, personally. When I speak of statutory rape, the early teen years are the years that most stick out in my mind. I know legally speaking, it's considered rape if they are below the age of consent, but I can't help but think that if they are within a certain time frame of being at the age of consent, things should be taken on a case by case basis. I realize we have to have an age defined by law to determine when it is illegal and when it is not, but I've met some teenagers who are far more mature and responsible than any adult. By the same token, I've met some that I'm amazed are able to function in society, they're so sheltered.

I guess my point is, I have some issues with the whole age of consent thing when the subject in question is so close to it anyway. Not really something I can affect at the moment though, so I'll come down on the side of the law if I have to pick a side.

 

[Naive1000]

But how is any of this related to whether having consensual sex with a 17 year old that's underage is rape or not?

Because by law it is rape -- statutory rape.

Now my opinion is, that at that age, consensual sex is not rape. My definition of rape is non-consensual sexual activity.

The main problem is, IS it really consensual? At that point in life boys and girls are easy to manipulate and societal pressures would influence what they claim. A boy would feel hard pressed at that age to claim that he was forced into having sex (he's suppose to want sex and society likely won't take him seriously anyway). A girl would have problems claiming it was consensual (society would judge her harshly as a slut, too promiscuous, and might even believe she was pushed into claiming it was consensual whether she was or not). Another factor that muddies the waters on consent is the position of their sexual partner. A partner in a position of authority adds real questions as to the reality of consent. Police, teachers, babysitters, parents, etc... could have things that they can hold over a child that will force them to claim it was consensual when it really isn't.

I think that as a society it's better to protect children by assuming it is non-consensual. This keeps pressure off of the child. They don't have to make a claim as to whether they gave consent: which may feel like they are betraying the other person. It also keeps the other party from threating the child into claiming the act was consensual. And, it protects the child from being judged by society for those acts.