The Rape of Men

[Ivor the Engineer]

There's a difference between competing and actually being expected to prove to be a man, to the point of being expected to act stupidly to prove some comically absurd version of testosterone poisoning. Sure, competing to various degrees is natural for most mammals. Glorifying the most absurdly extreme version of male insecurity, however is something else.

<snip>

People work with the tools they've got and within the situation they find themselves in. What's stupid about raping someone to dominate him? Is it necessarily more stupid than ridiculing a person's intellect to achieve dominance?

 

[HansMustermann]

What's stupid is the culture, rather than people gaming it.

And what I find especially especially stupid the cooperation of those on the unprivileged side of the equation, in perpetuating a system that works against them.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

What's stupid is the culture, rather than people gaming it.

And what I find especially especially stupid the cooperation of those on the unprivileged side of the equation, in perpetuating a system that works against them.

Unfortunately to unprivileged don't get to choose the game to play unless they manage to out-compete the privileged at the 'stupid' game first. Not unsurprisingly, when someone does win at the 'stupid' game, they're not keen on making it easier for others to knock them off the top spot by changing the game to something more suited to their strengths.

 

[tyr_13]

If you're interested, take a look at the comments made by Deb Singh here on why men aren't welcome at the main "Take Back the Night" march.

She implies that the sexual abuse of men isn't as important as that of women because not as many men apparently experience it.

Could you imagine how a man who has experienced such abuse would feel to have their experiences de-legitimised like that?

It's stupid, hurtful, sexist, and worst of all comes from people who should know better. Worse yet, many of those types won't accept any input of any type from a man, unless he is gay or a rape victim and sometimes only if both. It's sickening and kept me away from many such groups.

EDIT: What is with me tonight? I've been making mistakes like that all day. 'Worst of all' followed by 'worse yet'. Gah.

There's a difference between competing and actually being expected to prove to be a man, to the point of being expected to act stupidly to prove some comically absurd version of testosterone poisoning. Sure, competing to various degrees is natural for most mammals. Glorifying the most absurdly extreme version of male insecurity, however is something else.

And honestly, I can think of plenty of cultures where the stereotypes were at least different enough.

E.g., the Japanese weren't expected to be knuckle-dragging brutes to qualify as men. In fact just about everything about a samurai, from wearing kimonos with big stonking flowers and butterflies, to being supposed to actually be into poetry and appreciating nature's beauty, to gardening to make a beautiful garden in front of the home, etc, would get one suspected of being gay in many places nowadays. It's anything but the western stereotype of testosterone-poisoned man.

So I'd say there's hardly anything actually built in about the expected Real Man behaviours.

Many of those things were not samurai traits for most of the history of Japan. Many of those things were mostly the realm of court members up until the Edo period. The Edo period is kind of like the samurai's emo phase. They didn't have **** to do, so they sat around writing poetry and cutting themselves.

Now one can argue the greater harms that sexist attitudes around men cause, and if these expectations are the ones we should have or not, but that in no way changes that this causes more and unique problems for male rape victims today.

Think of it this way, we know that a female rape victim isn't to blame, and that it doesn't make her unclean. Yet in some countries, a female rape victim is seen as unclean, that she failed, and is to be thrown out at best and stoned to death at worst. It's the same thought process as western cultures use to hand wave male rape victims plight.

 

[sadhatter]

What Drachasor said.


What is this I don't even

I concur. When it happens, you don't know if the female has an std, you don't know if she is on the pill. And if your like most good natured men, your going to have a moral issue with harming her to stop the process.

 

[Naive1000]

Critical thinking

Hi, this is my first post.

I read this thread and hoped that it would get into some of the arguments that are used out there about this issue, but it seems that most people here can see the reality of the issue. Sadly, a large percent of the people out there do not, so I would like some help from the people here to refute their arguments. (Looking through a lot of the threads here I've found the people here very logical and good at making sound arguments that can cut through the emotional denials of others.)

Here are the common sentiments on why a man can't be raped (there may be some redundancy):

• Rape involves penetration only.
• Evolutionary Biology - men are biologically predisposed to have sex with multiple partners and thus have no problem with any sex.
• Men have the physical strength to stop any kind of rape.
• Men always enjoy sex thus it's not rape.
• Men only become erect when aroused and arousal is consent.
• Men always want sex so consent always exists.
• Most female rape is fake and fake male claims would just muddy the water.
• Rape has to do with emotional damage and men don't have those feeling regarding sex. (i.e. sex can never mentally hurt a man)
• The government doesn't track it so its not real.
• Its so rare that its not worth worrying about.
• Men are aggressive and violent not women thus a woman would never rape a man, so it doesn't happen.
• Woman are by nature non-aggressive so they don't rape.
• Only statutory rape happens to boys and that's not "real" rape.
• Men are luck to get any sex, so rape can't happen.
• Only gays can be raped.
• Its not against the law so its okay.
• Its not a serious problem because rape has no real effects on men.
• I wouldn't mind be raped by a woman thus no man would.
• Rape is a crime of violence and women cannot forcibly have sex with a man.
• Its not reported to the police so it doesn't happen.
• Guys love sex so they can't not want it.
• A guy could always get away if he "REALLY" wanted to.
• If a man enjoyed it in any way it isn't rape.
• Their are no historical records of male rape so its just a ploy to devalue real rape.
• Men can just not get an erection.
• Only women can be victims of rape. (only men are rapists -- rape is a gendered issue)
• If the woman is pretty she cannot rape a man.
• You can't rape the willing. (common female claim)
• "Real Men" can't be raped.

And what is the best way to deal with attack arguments and double standards like?

• Male rape experiences are just masturbatory fantasies.
• Only a gay dude complains about sex.
• Man up! Walk it off! Etc...
• What About Teh Menz?' (This is a feminist argument that this shouldn't be brought up because rape is a gendered issue and men need not apply; though, in places where this is the main issue feminist feel completely justified bringing up female rape over and over again)
• He got what he deserved.
• It's a consequence of his own actions.
• It doesn't really affect a guy, so its unimportant.

I'd like to here all arguments including any that support any of these. Thanks.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

“But as we know, women are the ones who are disproportionately affected. It is important for us to create a space where women can reclaim that power.”

I simultaneously hate and fail to understand this argument. If it was a march against terrorism, would they shut out survivors of the Oslo/Utøya twin attacks because Norwegians are under-represented as terror attack victims?

Surely if you're going to campaign against sexual violence, you do it because you've reached the conclusion that rape is wrong, not just because you want your fellow females to have it as good as possible in life?

It's like me fighting racism against whites. Makes absolutely zero sense.

 

[Naive1000]

I agree. If we actually went by that logic we would have to ignore violence against women, since we all know that men are 10 to 20 times more likely to be a victim of violence than women. And, by 2008 US statistics, murder is a gendered issue since 79% percent of all murder victims are male . Of course this is ridiculous and all violence against anyone needs to be stopped. This logic ... well isn't.

Finding the stats are always hard since almost all searches come up with stop male violence against women -- shouldn't it be just stop violence. And gender feminists can't figure out why men seem to be against feminism. Because they claim all men are guilty by gender and anything that happens to men is deserved.

I'm an egalitarian and have no problem with feminists fighting for women's rights, but I do have a problem with male villainization because of nothing but their gender.

 

[HansMustermann]

• Rape involves penetration only.

Unfortunately there isn't much to debunk about that one. In most places the legal definition of rape means you got penetrated. If you didn't, it's not classified as rape. Perhaps wrongly and unfortunately, but that's the law. Mind you, other forms may still fall under other sex offences too.

But in this case, these guys did get screwed by other men, so that distinction would be irrelevant anyway.

• Evolutionary Biology - men are biologically predisposed to have sex with multiple partners and thus have no problem with any sex.

I think this one is silly on multiple levels. For a start in most cultures it's ok or even expected for a man to have something against having stuff shoved up his rear end. Second, most cultures expect the man to be in control, so it kinda baffles me when they don't then see how it could be traumatic and scary to be overpowered and at someone's mercy. (Even the BDSM submissives usually get a safeword, so they're not completely at someone's mercy.) But really, even woman-on-man, anyone who maintains such fantasies where every woman is sexy and desirable, just told me that they don't even see those who unfortunately aren't.

• Men have the physical strength to stop any kind of rape.

This is stupid because it's an unstoppable force vs immovable rock kind of proposition. What happens if you have two unstoppable forces opposing each other? If two men fight each other, logically one of them should win. They can't BOTH have the strength to stop the other. Plus, think of gang rape. Expecting any man to be capable of stopping any number of other man, is a physical impossibility. Not to mention that if weapons are involved, ninja movies notwithstanding, you can't really expect people to dodge bullets and whatnot.

• Men always enjoy sex thus it's not rape.

Again, in most cultures it's at least OK, but usually even expected, not to enjoy being screwed up the rear end.

Plus, AFAIK the most traumatic aspect of rape isn't the sex per se, but the assault, the fact that someone can override your will, and also the aspect of being at the mercy of someone whose intentions you don't know. I really don't see why it would less traumatic for a guy, regardless of how biology wired his dick.

Not to mention other damage, often intentional, that seems to accompany such assaults. There is a whole category of rapists who aren't even in it for the sex per se, but for inflicting as much pain and mental trauma as humanly possible. That's their whole turn on. And for another category, the "revenge rapist", it may well be a tool in achieving that kind of misguided revenge.

• Men only become erect when aroused and arousal is consent.

That's not really true, actually. Plus, you can shove something up someone's rear even when they're not erect. Plus, you can still stuff someone with Viagra.

• Men always want sex so consent always exists.

I'm pretty sure that for 90% of us not with another man, and in any case not with everyone. But I addressed this already.

• Most female rape is fake and fake male claims would just muddy the water.

Actual study of the police data says otherwise. Plus, studies show rape to be the most UNDERreported crime ever. Even allowing for a large number of false reports -- although, again, actual data doesn't show that -- you still end up with more rapes than reports, not the other way around.

• Rape has to do with emotional damage and men don't have those feeling regarding sex. (i.e. sex can never mentally hurt a man)

Even if that were true -- and I don think it is -- men can still get mental trauma from the assault and from having someone just do what he wants with them.

• The government doesn't track it so its not real.

The government also doesn't track giant squids, but they're still real

• Its so rare that its not worth worrying about.

Here it really depends on what is meant with that. The VAST majority of rape is male on female, and stranger rape even more overwhelmingly so. So, yes, you don't have as much reason to worry as a woman does. Even if some woman started bugging you on the bus, you have such a small chance that she'll follow you and rape you, that it's really not worth dedicating much brain power to it. So, yes, we're very lucky in that aspect.

If they mean one should ignore it, then no can do. Other crimes are rare too, but we don't ignore them. I mean, murder per capita is even lower, but we don't just ignore it because it's rare.

• Men are aggressive and violent not women thus a woman would never rape a man, so it doesn't happen.

"Never" is a big word, especially when it comes to huge populations. As they say, even if you're one in a million, there are seven thousand like you in the world. Something to consider.

• Woman are by nature non-aggressive so they don't rape.

See above. This is another case of "never" which is really unwarranted.

Plus, since actual survey does show that a large number of men did get raped, this is really a case of trying to handwave reality away. No amount of postulates and hypotheticals can override reality.

• Only statutory rape happens to boys and that's not "real" rape.

Again, surveys show otherwise. One can't make reality go away by simply postulating otherwise.

• Men are luck to get any sex, so rape can't happen.

Ask those guys in the OP who got branded as "gay" for being ass-raped, and then dumped by their wives and shunned by their communities, if that's "luck".

• Only gays can be raped.

I wasn't aware that everyone else has some steel valve back there. Where do I go to get my non-gay ass-guard?

• Its not against the law so its okay.

First of all, this is false. Even stuff that doesn't fall under "rape" as such, may still be a sex offense and quite illegal.

Second, here it helps to make a distinction between legally OK and morally OK. I mean, hey, owning slaves and whipping them was also not against the law either, but we wouldn't think it was A-OK, right? Something can be legally OK in the sense that you won't get prosecuted by it, but still be very evil morally.

• Its not a serious problem because rape has no real effects on men.

I'm pretty sure men can get PTSD too.

• I wouldn't mind be raped by a woman thus no man would.

You would probably still mind an assault which completely overrides your will and makes the case that you're at someone's mercy. Think: even if you wouldn't mind the sex per se, you don't know if they won't kill you afterwards so you don't report them.

• Rape is a crime of violence and women cannot forcibly have sex with a man.

This kind of attitude ticks me off extra because of the underlying sexism. While the upper body strength gauss curves do peak in different places for men and women, we're still talking gauss curves which go a long way left and right of the median. SOME women are stronger than SOME men.

• Its not reported to the police so it doesn't happen.

Lots of stuff isn't reported, when there is a stigma associated with reporting it. I mean, you also don't see many female rapes reported to the Taliban-

• Guys love sex so they can't not want it.

We can still not want to be assaulted, you know?

• A guy could always get away if he "REALLY" wanted to.

I'm sure it would come as a big surprise to Randi, if every man on the planet were as good an escape artist as he

• If a man enjoyed it in any way it isn't rape.

This seems like a stupid criterion all around, for any act or gender. I mean, if I forced a dieting person to eat a chocolate cake, they may even like chocolate, but it doesn't change the fact that force was used to make them do something they don't want.

• Their are no historical records of male rape so its just a ploy to devalue real rape.

There also is no reliable record of Jesus, yet the same people will still believe he's real.

• Men can just not get an erection.

Now that would avoid some embarrassing situations if it were true. Plus, see again, you don't need an erection to get something up the rear end.

• Only women can be victims of rape. (only men are rapists -- rape is a gendered issue)

Again, one can't just postulate away reality. Actual surveys say otherwise.

• If the woman is pretty she cannot rape a man.

"Pretty" is a very subjective thing. What's pretty to some other guy may actually be a turnoff for me. Trivial example: a gay guy may not be turned off at all by a pretty and shapely woman, because that's not the kind of shape they're wired to react positively.

But ultimately it's a non-sequitur. The issue is whether consent is given or not, not whether there was attraction. A woman may be very attractive, but I may still not want to have sex with her for countless other reasons. E.g., because I don't want to make the missus jealous, or because she's bat-guano crazy and scares the pants off me (ok, ok, wrong wording), or really whatever. But more fundamentally, "consent" and "attraction" are two very different concepts. One can't just handwave them as synonyms, any more than one could handwave that "car" and "dinosaur" are synonyms. They just aren't and that's that, you know?

• You can't rape the willing. (common female claim)

This is a rehash of the idea that guys are always willing.

• "Real Men" can't be raped.

This is really too vague to be addressed in any form or shape. One needs first to state exactly what attributes of a "Real Man" would be relevant there and how.

• Male rape experiences are just masturbatory fantasies.

Again, one can't handwave reality away by postulating what it really is. You can't just tell a guy who was to the beach that he really was at home and hallucinating it, unless there is some evidence or stuff to base that on.

That said, rape fantasies are not uncommon for both genders, but they tend to be really sanitized stuff. The simple fact of being in control of that fantasy and in no actual danger is making it unlike any real assault. It's really more like fantasizing about role-playing a rape, than about the real thing.

But, still, just because some people fantasize about X doesn't make X false. I mean, lots of high-school people fantasize about sex with a teacher or another, but that doesn't make the actual cases of statutory rape false.

• Only a gay dude complains about sex.

This is really strange logic. So if someone got screwed up the ass by a gang, like the cases we talk about in this thread, he'd only complain if he's gay? I mean, a heterosexual wouldn't mind receiving some gay sex? It seems like pretty invalid logic to me.

• Man up! Walk it off! Etc...

If you could just man up and walk off PTSD, we wouldn't need to treat all those soldiers, you know?

• What About Teh Menz?' (This is a feminist argument that this shouldn't be brought up because rape is a gendered issue and men need not apply; though, in places where this is the main issue feminist feel completely justified bringing up female rape over and over again)

In my limited experience, only a very tiny and deranged minority will actually maintain such positions. Most feminists are still at the very least aware that compassion is a two way street, and if you're always unavailable to give any, you won't get much from others either.

But ultimately it boils down to moral high ground, or rather low ground. If you're OK with assault as long as it's happening to others, you don't have much of a moral ground to ask others to not be OK with it happening to you. E.g., if I started to claim that burglary is perfectly normal when some other people are victims, you could point out that you'll just laugh your ass off when someone breaks into my home. Same for rape, really.

• He got what he deserved.
• It's a consequence of his own actions.

Which would boil down to sexual vigilantism, or basically Groth's "revenge rapist" category. The kind which sees rape as a tool to punish some real or imaginary transgressions against him. Though usually what happens is it degenerating into a case of punishing some innocent for what some other girl did to him, or for "transgressions" like flirting and then not putting out. (No, seriously. In a survey, depressingly enough, a LOT were ok with raping a girl for being flirty and then not putting out.)

The problems with that, at the very least, include the usual problems of vigilantism:

- harming innocents for something someone else did

- more generally, lack of any safeguards or judicial oversight

- disproportionate and cruel punishments

- turning imaginary or minor slights into stuff to be avenged with extreme prejudice

Etc.

Basically even if we were so barbaric as to accept rape as a valid form of punishment -- and I sure hope we'll never fall that low -- I'd still want it decided by a court and jury, not by some random idiot deciding to punish the wrong person for an imaginary offence. Again, I'm not actually advocating rape as a legal punishment. We can agree that it would be a horrible idea. I'm just saying that I see the vigilante version as even more horrible an idea. Someone who would not agree to a law that says, say, "jay-walkers will be ass-raped", can't morally support the vigilante version of it, where every Random J Loser can simply decide for himself what to punish with rape.

• It doesn't really affect a guy, so its unimportant.

Repeat of an already addressed point. Guys can and do get PTSD too.

 

[Aurelian]

There are a few Sexual Assault Orgs that encompass both genders. That being said - it's a horrible situation for both women AND men, and let's face it, the issue is far from being resolved for women, with 90% of victims being female, and 97% of offenders being male with the stats I've seen. It's a taboo topic, and coverage gets much worse if the sexual dynamic is not heteronormative. When I talk to a guy who just doesn't "get" harassment and assault - in line with Naive's post, I say, put yourself in the victim's shoes, as yourself, a guy, and the harrasser/assaulter is someone that does NOT come from any personal sexual fantasy - someone who you would not consent to sexual activity with at.all. - a gay male, your decrepit deceased crazy ex uncle Bob - it's about UNWANTED, UNWELCOME, and LACK of consent, including coercion and force, not - hey, didn't I see that porn scenario somewhere?

Yes, it is wrong for both men and women. Men often assess this as a women's issue. It's not. *IF* the men picked up sexual assault as a cause for both genders, the world would be a better place.

Here are a few fact sheets with citations, including one on male victims, and another on victims in detention

http://www.mcasa.org/sexual-assault-fact-sheets/

This is an issue for women AND men, and matters are horribly out of balance. Women would be more attentive if they were less vulnerable. For all of the points that Naive posted - they are routinely assigned to women victims. Stop victim-blaming, apply some critical thinking, and hold aggressors responsible for their behavior.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Unfortunately there isn't much to debunk about that one. In most places the legal definition of rape means you got penetrated. If you didn't, it's not classified as rape. Perhaps wrongly and unfortunately, but that's the law.

Actually, in many places, this is not quite true -- the law is written so that a woman forcing intercourse is still guilty of rape.

The most common way that I've seen for this to work is that forcing penetration is rape, without specifying who penetrated whom.

Take Ohio law for example.

(A) “Sexual conduct” means vaginal intercourse between a male and female; anal intercourse, fellatio, and cunnilingus between persons regardless of sex; and, without privilege to do so, the insertion, however slight, of any part of the body or any instrument, apparatus, or other object into the vaginal or anal opening of another. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete vaginal or anal intercourse.
...
(2) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another when the offender purposely compels the other person to submit by force or threat of force.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of rape, a felony of the first degree....

See? Limited to penetration, yes. Limited to being penetrated, no. The several female-on-male rapes with which I am personally familiar could all be brought to court under this definition if carried out and reported in Ohio.

 

[wobs]

Actually, in many places, this is not quite true -- the law is written so that a woman forcing intercourse is still guilty of rape.

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.

 

[Naive1000]

The FBI only keeps records and reports statistics on rape. Each state has its own laws on rape and how they prosecute it, so this will change very little in your state. It mostly will change how the federal government spends its money in regards to research and state law enforcement support.

 

[Aurelian]

Some of these arguments are missing the heart of the matter.

We can argue about what is technically rape in the 50 states, what is a first degree felony sexual assault in the 50 states (I say that because many crimes are defined under each state's criminal code, what is rape under federal criminal law, how male-on-male forced sexual conduct is likely a federal felony, if that's the jurisdiction.

We seem to be having a first-nation level of debate - the assumptions are that we are not at war at home, government is functioning, homosexuality is legal, there are laws and codified crimes, most citizens and military are compliant, and when crimes of sexual violence are reported, they are investigated and prosecuted. The crime produces shame and PTSD with the victim, and victims are unevenly supported which contributes to under-reporting. In our first world, a US comparator for the original post may be Military Sexual Trauma (MST) - no, it's not called "rape" either, and even though women are estimated to become 1/4 of the military, they are over-represented (not proportional to the male military population) for experiencing MST.

So let's go back to the original post, it would be interesting to look at the laws of Africa and the state of the nation(s) reporting high levels of sexual assault, and see what is being done systematically to address this, first by infrastructure, including the military, next by non-profits.

I don't think it's a lack of caring that drives some of these tragic outcomes. Sure there are social and legal pressures, and probably ignorance of the fact that this is a crime, there are just terrible social norms and beliefs in place (including "I have no power") that complicate effective justice.

Seth Godin quipped that it's impossible to watch a parade when your house is on fire - regarding marketing - and I think that sadly it's true here for sustaining attention on male-on-male rape. It's extremely likely that most of us personally know a woman who has experienced some level of sexual assault, it's much, much less likely that we know of a guy in this situation. So we know "the house is on fire" for the women's house, and it's really, really distracting many from seeing the fire next door, which is the men's house, which is just as hazardous. We'll put out any fires in the children's house, and will drench anything that looks like a whiff of smoke, even. For some, it's tough to consider that LGTBQs, prisoners and the military require the same dignity, integrity and assistance with our attitudes and vision of ideal treatment for both sexes.

I got wound up on this one, take what you like and leave the rest...

A

 

[Naive1000]

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

 

[Naive1000]

Female Sex Offenders:

How many victims?

Just how many people have been victims/survivors of female sex offenders is, like all abuse data, hard to obtain a hard and fast number. If you only look at the number of convicted offenders to determine the number of victims/survivors, the number you have will be one that only reflects how grossly under-reported this crime is—leaving the true number much higher.

There is a consensus among experts that sexual abuse of all types is vastly under-reported. Many experts on female sex offenders feel that this is even more the case when it comes to sexual abuse by females.

So just how many survivors are there?

According to the Center for Sex Offender Management, an estimated 1.6 million men and 1.5 million women are sexually abused by women when they were children.

Dr. Christine Hatchard of Making Daughters Safe Again states on her site that "Less than 1% of MDSA members report any intervention as a child." Another organization in Canada reported that out of roughly 1,000 men who disclosed being sexually abused by a female only 4 reported it. Again, the number we are looking at is less than 1%.

According to the description of Julia Hislop’s book - Female Sex Offenders: What Therapists, Law Enforcement and Child Protective Services Need to Know, “female sex offenders have victimized an estimated two to three million people in the United States. As a society we find it nearly impossible to believe that females, usually seen as nurturing, are capable of sexual abuse.”

According to Law Professor Kay Levine, it is estimated that 1.5 million girls and 1.1 million boys are victims of female sexual abuse in the United States.

So what is the real number? No one knows for sure. The only right answer is that it is too many. Too many suffering in silence with little help and few resources for them.

One in six adult men reported being sexually molested as children, and — in a surprise finding — nearly 40 percent of the perpetrators were female, a new study found.

In cases of daycare molestation, more than 60% of children who were molested, were molested by women.

Approximately 95% of all youth reporting staff sexual misconduct said they had been victimized by female staff. In 2008, 42% of staff in state juvenile facilities were female. (Bureau of Justice Report)

In a study of 17,337 survivors of childhood sexual abuse, 23% had a female-only perpetrator and 22% had both male and female perpetrators. ( Dube, Shanta R et al. “Long-Term Consequences of Childhood Sexual Abuse by Gender of Victim.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine. (2005):28(5), p 430 – 438.

According to a major 2004 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education – In studies that ask students about offenders, sex differences are less than in adult reports. The 2000 AAUW data indicate that 57.2 percent of all students report a male offender and 42.4 percent a female offender with the Cameron et al. study reporting nearly identical proportions as the 2000 AAUW data (57 percent male offenders vs. 43 percent female offenders).

Sorry, there are links to sources, but the board won't let me post links yet. I can supply them for anyone that wants them. Just message me or, google "Top Ten Myths about Female Sex Offenders".

 

[Arcade22]

Some comments:

Men only become erect when aroused and arousal is consent.

Someone posted a message online on another website that said that rape against males (at least female-on-male) was hard to legally claim in some parts of the US because getting an erection counted as legally consenting. Is there some truth in this?

Only statutory rape happens to boys and that's not "real" rape.

While the first part is obviously false, in what serious way can you claim that having consensual sex with a 15 year old (or 16-17 depending on where you live) is perfectly consensual and not rape yet turns into "real rape" when you move across a border and do the exact same thing?

If actually raping someone (having sex with someone against their will, just to be clear) is perfectly legal somewhere does it cease to "real rape" there?

 

[Sabrina]

Some comments:



Someone posted a message online on another website that said that rape against males (at least female-on-male) was hard to legally claim in some parts of the US because getting an erection counted as legally consenting. Is there some truth in this?

To my knowledge, no; a male achieving an erection is a normal biological reaction to stimuli, much the same way a female will secrete lubrication when stimulated. I know of no statute in any state that states achieving an erection counts as consent in the case of sexual assault. Unless the person provided a source, I'd take that with a humongous grain of salt.

While the first part is obviously false, in what serious way can you claim that having consensual sex with a 15 year old (or 16-17 depending on where you live) is perfectly consensual and not rape yet turns into "real rape" when you move across a border and do the exact same thing?

If actually raping someone (having sex with someone against their will, just to be clear) is perfectly legal somewhere does it cease to "real rape" there?

To be fair to Naive, he/she was merely quoting numerous myths surrounding male rape statistics, not advocating them (at least to my interpretation of the post); I doubt rather highly that this is the opinion he/she holds. It is, however, an opinion that some people hold about male rape; why they hold it though, I have no idea. 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. But there are some who feel that it isn't. Everyone has their own opinion.

 

[Cain]

Morality is a human social construct. What are you guys gonna say next -- that it's wrong to eat animals? Please, don't be ridiculous.

 

[Aurelian]

The only scenario about being erect that may lend itself to consent is where both the victim and the accused have been drinking. Let's say the victim has witnesses that prove behavior that demonstrates incapacitation - vomiting, can't walk up the stairs to the private room where the assault took place, Accused insisting the victim have another drink or three when victim says in front of others s/he doesn't want any more. Victim passes out twice while sitting up at the table. (Yes, I'm being very specific on purpose) Witnesses observe that victim had two beers before accused focused on him/her, then victim is plied with 6 more drinks in 90 minutes, two of which are half consumed and left on the table. Accused admits to, and is observed by others to consume 3 beers over 4 hours. Victim weighs 140 pounds and is bookish. Accused is 195 and works out daily.

Victim wakes up the next morning, determines that s/he had unprotected sex sometime after his/her last memory of the night before. Calls a friend, gets more details, and files an acquaintance rape report with the local police. Accused says: I was drunk too, victim raped ME...

This would be one circumstance in sexual assault where a male having an erection and acting upon it may indicate intention to have sex with someone who is incapacitated and incapable of giving consent. People who are drunk are still responsible for their behavior. People who are incapacitated do not deserve to be sexually molested when they cannot give effective consent.

FWIW - this is predatory behavior within this scenario.