Have you ever been sexually assaulted?

[ConspiRaider]

My my but you boys seems to resent something here.

Damn straight.

These thousands of marauding gangs of fine-looking rogue man-raping babes who roam cities, towns, mini-malls, museum lobbies, wide-stance men's rooms, oil-drilling platforms and of course simulated Mars landscapes for our interplanetary astronauts: What - I'm chopped liver, ladies? I RESENT the hell out of that.

 

[gumboot]

Yes, gumboot, you've said that. Other than a guy who's asleep or intoxicated, where's the evidence to back it up?

I have started a poll to gather some evidence. I am genuinely interested to see the results.

I will disclose that I have personally, as an adult, experienced unwanted erections even when experiencing a state of mental distress when arousal was as far from my mind as it could possibly be.

My poll will either reveal that I am not alone in my experiences, or alternatively that I am some sort of hideous freak, worthy only of mockery and scorn, and I will henceforth sell myself to the nearest circus for the amusement of others. If this is the case I promise, skeptigirl, that you shall have free entry to the circus for all time, that you may mock me all the days of your life...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

If you think that every man is ecstatic to have their penis in any vagina under any circumstances whatsoever you've got a view of male sexuality based more on jokes than the reality.

I certainly don't hold this view. But getting a sustained erection during forced sex seems implausible. If it is plausible, then other than opinions here, where is the evidence. Yes, I'm a woman. I know when I am aroused and when I am not. I am not aroused thinking of being raped.

If men are capable of being aroused during a forcible rape, show me the evidence. It seems rather far fetched.

I find it entirely plausible that a man could suffer from insomnia and disinterest in sex for a while after waking up to being raped.

I find it more plausible he made up the claim to exaggerate his being victimized. But I will add, there is lots of evidence this occurs when people are suing or blaming someone for something and they probably believe it to some degree.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Damn straight.

These thousands of marauding gangs of fine-looking rogue man-raping babes who roam cities, towns, mini-malls, museum lobbies, wide-stance men's rooms, oil-drilling platforms and of course simulated Mars landscapes for our interplanetary astronauts: What - I'm chopped liver, ladies? I RESENT the hell out of that.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Teenage boys maybe. But adult men get erections because they are aroused. Women are not aroused when they are raped.

Poppycock. Quite aside from personally conflicting experience as a male - something you will never have and should know better than to make inane pronouncements upon - I've also had the dubious honor of having received polite but firm refusals regarding sexual intercourse from women I was nevertheless sufficiently intimate with at the time to be able to personally observe wetness of the appropriate area.

Rape = penetration despite lack of consent. Arousal != consent.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How do female vaginas secrete lubricants and vulvas/clitorises engorge during rape if they truly aren't consenting? Does that mean they actually wanted to be raped? If a female experiences an orgasm during rape does it mean it was consentual? Ridiculous arguments.

Does a guy need the woman to be aroused to rape her? I assume you are being facetious since rape is a violent act and unless you are talking statutory rape, which we are not, women do not have climaxes when raped.

Let me be blunt: How is the woman supposed to get that flaccid thing to go in?

Some males at some ages will retain an erection provided direct stimulation to the penis is given, no matter what their mental states are. Some, or many, also have an erection for long periods of their sleep-cycle. And some sleep more soundly than others, or have passed out from drink, etc.

Why are you so determined to deny that females can rape males??

Again, here are all the caveats I am not objecting to being brought up as reasons I should not be objecting.

If it's around puberty, it's statutory rape, I've not said that doesn't happen.
If the guy's passed out, I've only said erections are less likely. Passed out or asleep, I've never said that was OK.
Physical assault which includes sexual components, never said it couldn't happen.

But physically forcing an unwilling male's penis into the vagina of a female rapist, people here sure seem to be willing to say it happens when no one can produce more than an Internet rumor it actually ever has, that is the act I am skeptical of.

Edited to add the rape here excludes the guy who is asleep or intoxicated. The point is can a woman physically force a man to have an erection and subsequently rape him?

 

[The Man]

I certainly don't hold this view. But getting a sustained erection during forced sex seems implausible. If it is plausible, then other than opinions here, where is the evidence. Yes, I'm a woman. I know when I am aroused and when I am not. I am not aroused thinking of being raped.

If men are capable of being aroused during a forcible rape, show me the evidence. It seems rather far fetched.

I find it more plausible he made up the claim to exaggerate his being victimized. But I will add, there is lots of evidence this occurs when people are suing or blaming someone for something and they probably believe it to some degree.

http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=413523

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Poppycock. Quite aside from personally conflicting experience as a male - something you will never have and should know better than to make inane pronouncements upon - I've also had the dubious honor of having received polite but firm refusals regarding sexual intercourse from women I was nevertheless sufficiently intimate with at the time to be able to personally observe wetness of the appropriate area.

Rape = penetration despite lack of consent. Arousal != consent.

You are talking about before the actual rape in cases of date rape. Once that rape starts, that woman is unlikely to stay aroused.


So now is the scenario a female who after heavy pre-sex wants it when the guy says no? So being physically larger forces herself onto the man? Seriously that is your scenario?

 

[Fiona]

This is a completely odd argument.

Men tell me they have erections which are not under their control and that that this is reasonably common when the penis is directly stimulated. I have no reason to disbelieve them. It follows that female rape is possible although I do think that it would require some means of restraining the man, either chemical or physical.

Women have reported that they can experience arousal in the case of rape. I can only speak about minors really, because that is where my information comes from: but it is a source of deep confusion in young women who have experienced sexual abuse while very young: I see no reason to suppose this cannot happen for adult women as well and I have a vague recollection that I have read it does, though I cannot remember where I read it. But it is logically quite possible

But as someone has already said, arousal is not the same as consent. So it is not really relevant here.

What does interest me is the "me too-ism" which seems to be operating. No one is defending rape no matter who commits it. It is false to suggest that such a crime is or should be taken less seriously where the perpetrator is female: and I doubt that happens but will be swayed by evidence if it is produced.

But I think most here agree that rape is a bigger problem for women than it is for men because the incidence of male on female rape is far higher. And that is not going to change unless someone can show that female on male rape is common enough to constitute a fear which affects daily life for men. I do not think there is evidence for that
but again am open to persuasion

I think that the frustration for me is that some of the men are trying to argue that this issue impacts equally on men and women: we see the same thing in the violence thread MerV00 started, where in order to argue that women are as violent as men the term violence has been expanded to the extent it loses its meaning. I am not sure why this is being done but I do know that it is an abuse of language.

What is the real issue here? What do we gain from this redefinition of a real and important problem? Is there really some substantive point we need to grasp? Or is this just serving to polarise a debate which should in fact not be split in this way? None of us is defending rape nor domestic violence nor sexual assault

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=413523

Here's another article from that same source just last month:

Villagers accuse woman of witchcraft after she made a gift

The problem with your source is that is a known HIV myth.

Talk of syndicates of women “raping” men around Tembisa have been circulating in the area for the past year. One resident interviewed said men were afraid to walk in open veld alone or at night.

Here's more of the same myth:
http://odili.net/news/source/2007/apr/7/804.html

Modus operandi

According to Sowetan, a South African newspaper, the rapists operate in a group of two or three. They ride in posh cars and look out for a man walking alone. Once they spot a potential prey, they pull up beside him and offer to give him a ride. If he accepts their offer, the women would take him to their house and at gunpoint, take their turn to rape him. ...

... “The issue of women raping men is now one of the major problems in South Africa. In fact, it is a source of embarrassment to us,” Thembi said.

Giving AIDS back to men

Saturday Sun investigation, however, revealed that the alleged rapists are mostly AIDS infected women, who believed that they have contacted the killer disease from men and have decided to pay them back in their own coins.

Lebo Leburu, a shop assistant in Johannesburg, told Saturday Sun thus: “The rapists are AIDS infected prostitutes. They are angry that men have given them the disease and have decided to give it back to them.”

The problem is this is like the myth that repeatedly circulates claiming the woman called a radio program and claimed to be infected with HIV and having unprotected sex to get even with men. But it was revealed as a hoax.

Snopes versions of AIDS Mary


Ask yourself, if these women in South Africa wanted to give HIV to men for revenge, why would they need to rape them?

 

[gtc]

I have read several newspaper articles about male on male rape which says that one of the reasons why it is under-reported is that many victims suffer unwanted physical arousal during the event. They do not think that the police or a court would believe that they were raped if they were seen to have 'enjoyed' it.

One counsellor said that the feelings of shame and the sense that they 'deserved it' or attracted it or were secretly gay was compounded in those cases.

I am sure there is literature on this in the medical or criminological fields.

Its rarer than cases where females are the victims but it shouldn't be discounted.

 

[gtc]

But I think most here agree that rape is a bigger problem for women than it is for men because the incidence of male on female rape is far higher. And that is not going to change unless someone can show that female on male rape is common enough to constitute a fear which affects daily life for men. I do not think there is evidence for that
but again am open to persuasion

There is a general fear of male on male rape but not to the same extent as there is of male on female rape among women. I doubt female on male rape worries too many men (as the risk is too small.

I think that the frustration for me is that some of the men are trying to argue that this issue impacts equally on men and women:

The fear doesn't because of the relative probabilities but the impact on a man who is raped would be similar I think. Are you confusing the impact on people in general with the impact on the victim in particular?

 

[Fiona]

No I don't think I am, gtc. I think it is obvious from my post that I make no distinction in the impact on the individual. At least I thought it was obvious when I said

No one is defending rape no matter who commits it. It is false to suggest that such a crime is or should be taken less seriously where the perpetrator is female:

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

But I think most here agree that rape is a bigger problem for women than it is for men because the incidence of male on female rape is far higher. And that is not going to change unless someone can show that female on male rape is common enough to constitute a fear which affects daily life for men. I do not think there is evidence for that
but again am open to persuasion

It's obviously true that rape is something women should be more worried about than men. On the other hand, for the individuals who do actually get raped the odds of it having happened to them don't make any difference.

I think Skeptigirl came across as trivialising the effects of rape on men, or dismissing the possibility, and I don't think it should be trivialised regardless of how often it happens.

What is the real issue here? What do we gain from this redefinition of a real and important problem? Is there really some substantive point we need to grasp? Or is this just serving to polarise a debate which should in fact not be split in this way? None of us is defending rape nor domestic violence nor sexual assault

I suspect some of the reaction against Skeptigirl's remarks might well be based on a general resentment directed towards the kind of feminism that calls attention to the experiences, desires and suffering of women but marginalises the experiences, desires or suffering of men. Call me crazy but I'd be surprised if you didn't get a lot of the same people posting in a thread about family law, or false rape accusations, or whatever.

On the other hand we should welcome anyone who can point out, and substantiate, points in our views where we were being unconsciously hypocritical. Trivialising the date rape of men is not as serious an issue in terms of the number of people affected as trivialising the date rape of women, but it's as serious in terms of the effects on any given individual victim.

I think Skeptigirl is basically right that the mechanics of human reproduction make it much more difficult for a woman to date rape a man than vice versa. A sufficiently aroused man can rape a woman regardless of her state of arousal, but not vice versa. On the other hand this isn't an absolute guarantee of safety - I can back up Gumboot in saying that the male wedding tackle is far from being under total conscious control (although I think we've all wished otherwise at one or more times in our lives).

 

[Fiona]

It's obviously true that rape is something women should be more worried about than men. On the other hand, for the individuals who do actually get raped the odds of it having happened to them don't make any difference.

Agreed

I think Skeptigirl came across as trivialising the effects of rape on men, or dismissing the possibility,

Perhaps. I think she was asking for evidence that it happens and that is what she herself said.

and I don't think it should be trivialised regardless of how often it happens.

Agreed

I suspect some of the reaction against Skeptigirl's remarks might well be based on a general resentment directed towards the kind of feminism that calls attention to the experiences, desires and suffering of women but marginalises the experiences, desires or suffering of men. Call me crazy but I'd be surprised if you didn't get a lot of the same people posting in a thread about family law, or false rape accusations, or whatever.

I do not follow this. I would certainly post in threads on those topics because they interest me? Is this in some way reprehensible in your mind?

On the other hand we should welcome anyone who can point out, and substantiate, points in our views where we were being unconsciously hypocritical. Trivialising the date rape of men is not as serious an issue in terms of the number of people affected as trivialising the date rape of women, but it's as serious in terms of the effects on any given individual victim.

Yes

I think Skeptigirl is basically right that the mechanics of human reproduction make it much more difficult for a woman to date rape a man than vice versa. A sufficiently aroused man can rape a woman regardless of her state of arousal, but not vice versa. On the other hand this isn't an absolute guarantee of safety - I can back up Gumboot in saying that the male wedding tackle is far from being under total conscious control (although I think we've all wished otherwise at one or more times in our lives).

yes

 

[Lonewulf]

Yes, gumboot, you've said that. Other than a guy who's asleep or intoxicated, where's the evidence to back it up?

My evidence:

I am a male.

Ergo, I have a penis.

I have lived for 23 years.

Ergo, I have lived with a penis for 23 years.

My teenage years stopped at least 5 years ago.

Ergo, I have lived with a penis for 5 years after my teenage years.

Ergo, I know a lot more about my penis, and how it does and does not function, than you ever will.

If you really need evidence to accept the biological realities of my body, even though it's something I have to deal with on a nearly daily basis, then you are either accusing people like me of being liars, or you are being purposefully disingenuous.

I'm beginning to think that I'm starting to see your true colors here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...Men tell me they have erections which are not under their control and that that this is reasonably common when the penis is directly stimulated. I have no reason to disbelieve them. It follows that female rape is possible although I do think that it would require some means of restraining the man, either chemical or physical.

I would like to believe this but it would seem there is no evidence it actually occurs. My issue is not that it isn't remotely possible. On that I am just not sure. My issue is how many people here are just assuming it occurs. When we went to look for the data it actually did, the evidence was unconvincing.

...Women have reported that they can experience arousal in the case of rape. I can only speak about minors really, because that is where my information comes from: but it is a source of deep confusion in young women who have experienced sexual abuse while very young: I see no reason to suppose this cannot happen for adult women as well and I have a vague recollection that I have read it does, though I cannot remember where I read it. But it is logically quite possible

Molesting through coercion vs physical force is also not the issue with the arousal question. And I think you would be hard pressed to find any evidence women were aroused during forcible rape. If you have some data I would look at it.

...But as someone has already said, arousal is not the same as consent. So it is not really relevant here.

It is only relevant to the female committing forcible rape of an adult male. Again, of those who seem to think it occurs, no one has presented much evidence.

...What does interest me is the "me too-ism" which seems to be operating. No one is defending rape no matter who commits it. It is false to suggest that such a crime is or should be taken less seriously where the perpetrator is female: and I doubt that happens but will be swayed by evidence if it is produced.

But I think most here agree that rape is a bigger problem for women than it is for men because the incidence of male on female rape is far higher. And that is not going to change unless someone can show that female on male rape is common enough to constitute a fear which affects daily life for men. I do not think there is evidence for that
but again am open to persuasion

I think that the frustration for me is that some of the men are trying to argue that this issue impacts equally on men and women: we see the same thing in the violence thread MerV00 started, where in order to argue that women are as violent as men the term violence has been expanded to the extent it loses its meaning. I am not sure why this is being done but I do know that it is an abuse of language.

What is the real issue here? What do we gain from this redefinition of a real and important problem? Is there really some substantive point we need to grasp? Or is this just serving to polarise a debate which should in fact not be split in this way? None of us is defending rape nor domestic violence nor sexual assault

Me-too-ism is one of the problems I see operating here. And it is operating in the thread trying to equate violence among men and women.

There is also another issue at play. That is perceived injustice in particular among the groups pushing the social agenda that men are treated unfairly under the law when it comes to rape allegations or child custody or presumed guilt in domestic abuse cases.

 

[gumboot]

This is a completely odd argument.

Men tell me they have erections which are not under their control and that that this is reasonably common when the penis is directly stimulated. I have no reason to disbelieve them. It follows that female rape is possible although I do think that it would require some means of restraining the man, either chemical or physical.

Or emotional/psychological... (see the example below).

What does interest me is the "me too-ism" which seems to be operating. No one is defending rape no matter who commits it. It is false to suggest that such a crime is or should be taken less seriously where the perpetrator is female: and I doubt that happens but will be swayed by evidence if it is produced.

Here's an account of a man who was raped by a pregnant woman.

After most of my drunken stupor wore off around 7 am or so, I awoke again to find her on top of me — this time with a more menacing attitude as she knew I was in a better position to respond physically this time. I had began to wiggle out from under her (taking care not to hurt her baby) when she sternly warned me to “be quiet” and “not be forceful” and made it clear that she would cry rape if I tried to stop it. I was stunned to say the least and not sure how to respond. I could easily have thrown her across the room and off of me, but was concerned for her child and took her threat very, very seriously. She said it so easily that I doubt I was her first.

I weighed my options for a moment and came to the conclusion that a sober, 6 or 7-month pregnant college student of 24 was far more likely to be believed by the authorities than a drunk 19-year old Marine in the best shape of his life. I frequented that club a lot and I’m sure several people saw me leave with her. I was pretty much [expletive] — in more than one way — at that point.

What's worth nothing here is the comments posted in response. What is really haunting is that the comments are exactly the sort of thing that female rape victims decried during the 1970's when social attitudes to sexual violence were changed so dramatically by the efforts of the feminist movement.

This is the sort of reaction that male victims of sexual attacks have to face when they come forward. No wonder they don't.

The man in question has since discussed his experience openly.

I think most people would agree that most perpetrators of rape are male, and that male rapists are a much bigger problem to society than female rapists. However there is another problem. It's not just that society considers one a bigger problem, society refuses to believe the other even exists.

You can see in the comments that many people accepted that the woman had sex with him against his will but still refuse to accept that she did anything wrong - some even suggested that he was in the wrong for not wanting it!

The simple fact is society does treat rape by females less seriously. It doesn't matter if a million men are raped by women every year or if only one man is raped by a woman every year. Those victims deserve exactly the same treatment as female victims, and the offender deserves exactly the same treatment as male offenders.

The simple irrefutable fact is that doesn't happen.

 

[Lonewulf]

I would like to believe this but it would seem there is no evidence it actually occurs. My issue is not that it isn't remotely possible. On that I am just not sure. My issue is how many people here are just assuming it occurs.

Do you doubt that the sun will rise in the morning? Do you question that you can eat cereal?

This is a pretty real reality for us, you know.

You'd have to demonstrate some pretty powerful evidence that it's impossible for my body to do what it does.

 

[gumboot]

Do you doubt that the sun will rise in the morning? Do you question that you can eat cereal?

This is a pretty real reality for us, you know.

You'd have to demonstrate some pretty powerful evidence that it's impossible for my body to do what it does.

My girlfriend once tried to convince me that it was physically impossible for a male to urinate while experiencing an erection. She had read it in a woman's magazine that educated women on some of the secret "facts" about males.

Despite assuring her, repeatedly, that the magazine was wrong, she still isn't entirely convinced. I am beginning to think that even a demonstration will not convince her...

I am honestly amazed at how often I experience women trying to tell me "facts" about males and refusing to accept by personal assurance that they are mistaken.