OK. Please can we talk about women raping men?(338 Posts)
It's a key part of the MRA agenda. Some MRA even say that men are as often victims of rape by women as women are of rape by men.
I absolutely agree that sex should always be consensual,and if a man has been forced, by either physical or psychological means into sex, then he has been raped and deserved of course to be taken seriously, and for the perpetrator to be charged and ,nif found guilty, convicted. And I know that an erection is a physiological response, and does not necessarily mean that a man actually wants to have sex.
But the MRA are full of stories of men waking up after falling asleep drunk at parties to find women on top of them. And vqriations on th them of being forced to penetrate against their will. And, it might just be my misandry showing, but really? Does this happen a lot? Is it a really serious problem that needs to be addressed, and have equivilant resources given to it?
I have 'heard' this ie read on forums such as this mainly in regard to men who have been 'forced' into becoming fathers to children they then went onto walk away from [or to protest against having to be financially responsible for]
I feel dubious about such claims for various reasons.
I have no idea about the prevalence of this though as I don't think my example above is necessarily representative on the whole.
I have seen a few examples of sexual harassment mainly in the workplace of younger males by groups of older women though, which was dismissed often as 'he loves it' and 'men are always up for it' not seen or heard of it going further [ie forced penetration] though.
I can't imagine it being commonplace in the way that male to female rape is.
Yes, I think the idea of "forced fatherhood" has been around for ages. It's the idea with all the psychological fall out that follows that is being talked about now, and which I am struggling with.
Sorry," it's the idea of rape, with all the psychological fall out........"
how would you begin to collate figures? Somehow I am sensing that they will be in dispute whatever you do.
I agree I often see young men made to feel uncomfortable my large groups of quite predatory women ie. on nights out but that's it really.
I can understand that too Octopus. But 'they love it really! ' Good old gender stereotyping strikes again! Join us if you wish to do away with it.
The problem I have is with the idea that a man can be 'forced to penetrate against his will' and I don't mean that I disbelieve that an erection is a psychological response. What I mean is that I don't think most women have the physical strength to make a man penetrate them through force. I think that many more men do have the strength and the equipment to force their penis into someone. That's why male on male and male on female rape is so much more prevalent.
Well, much as I would love to point out that if they didn't want to be raped by a woman they shouldn't go getting drunk and flaunting their manliness in the face of all those women who simply can't help themselves in the face of a well turned testicle it might be worth pointing out to them that the legal definition of rape explicitly mentions men doing the act.
1) A person (A) commits an offence if
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
I rather suspect "sperm stealing" is just another mealy mouthed way of trying to get out of supporting their children.
If the MRA is a bit more intelligent (and I strongly doubt that any of them can fully process this argument) then suggesting that the patriarchy is failing these young men as well. The rape myth that men can't help themselves around any woman occasionally backfires on them.
As for the women not having the strength to rape a man or force him. Are you fucking kidding me?
So any woman who is raped who doesn't have a completely pulverised face from a severe beating wouldn't be classed as rapped in your book?
I honestly can't believe that in a feminist forum the argument that the victim "should have fought harder" was dates to be raised
I think the point was that most men are stronger than most women.
You may have noticed that I said that if a man "is forced by physical or psychological means......"
Sinful1- it would be great if we could try and keep this discussion as cool as possible. I really want to explore the subject, and we can't do that if people start swearing in their first posts!
I think it is a mistake to start off the discussion with the assumption that men and women are on an equal footing here (I am not suggesting you were doing this curlew btw - just later posts are suggesting this might be where the discussion is heading). It is unhelpful to ignore the power dynamics going on, both physically and structurally as in societal norms, oppression etc.
Men are not oppressed by women. Men have used rape to oppress women for centuries. Men (in general) are stronger than women. We live in a rape culture (against women). That immediately puts the power in men's favour. So making the same scenarios try and fit for both men and women is a false equivalence.
I agree with you, scallops. However, I deliberately tried to make my opening post as neutral as possible. I wanted to see if it was possible for me to look at the situation without any preconceived ideas. My feminism is so much a part of my being that there being any sort of equivalence here is something I find I can't even think about. When I think of a male rape victim I see someone who has been brutalised by another man. But I don't want to automatically dismiss the idea of male victims of women. Not without proper thought and discussion anyway.
Gotta love the use of "rape culture" to justify victim blaming.
Please next time.theres a rape thread say the victim.should have fought harder
Nobody is victim blaming. Please, Sinful1, let's have a discussion?
I wasn't doing any victim blaming Sinful1. Not sure how you are reading that into my posts. But hey ho, clearly you have an agenda.
I totally understand what you were doing curlew, definitely. I don't think DuellingFanjo was wrong to bring up one element of the power dynamic as to why far more women are raped by men than vice versa and why far more men are raped by other men than by women.
And just to clarify I was thinking more with the rape culture thing, that women (in general) are conditioned to be meeker, less violent, not to rock the boat, watch what they are doing and where they are and who they are with to avoid rape. Much much more so than men.
However, a man being drunk or drugged would alter the physical dynamic certainly. But still a female rapist would need that sense of entitlement to sexually assault the man and that is something that tends to be conditioned out of women. I'm doing a class analysis here - again for clarification.
So what are the MRAs doing about it?
I suspect that MRAs are confusing rape with sexual assault. If rape is defined as non-consensual penetration with a penis, then it is very unlikely that many men are raped by women. However, I'm sure that there are many more men who are sexually assaulted by women who are unable to believe that a man wouldn't welcome their attentions with open arms.
This can't possibly be a serious discussion as you have got the very definition of the word rape wrong from the off.
Women cannot rape.
They can sexually assault.
But lets be clear here.
I know the legal definition of rape.
But the word is being used to mean forced penetration by MRA- and I for the purposes of this discussion I decided to use it in a broader sense.
But it's not forceful penetration because the person using force isn't doing the penetration. It's sexual assault.
I don't doubt that being coerced into sex and made to feel like they have to go along with something (either by other men, or the woman, or a group of women) happens. Maybe the women who do this or condone or encourage this, are part of the faux emancipation 'laddish' culture? Taking on the worst traits of the male culture and adopting them as their own? To be equal to men we have to dominate them in the same way they do us? My brain is meandering a bit, sorry.
I would imagine that men are far more likely to be raped by other men, than be forced into penetrating a woman. What do the sites you have seen have to day on that topic?
When I was 18 I was away on a gap year. A girl on the same programme started a romance with an 18 year old guy from a different country. He was religious and didnt believe in sex before marriage. He did however consent to doing lots of other naked stuff with her, but drew the line at penetration.
One night while they were missing around she jumped on him (if you know what I mean). He was really upset and immediately ran out. I never really talked to him about it but she fully admitted what she did and said 'he needed to get over it' and he 'clearly wanted to'.
He broke things off with her and she said he was completely over the top about it all. I often wonder what would have happend if it was the other way round. At the time it didnt even occur to me to report it. I hope it didnt, but I suspect it deeply affected him.
Woman raping men does happen, she absolutely knew she didn't have consent!
what I said Sinful1 is "I don't think most women have the physical strength to make a man penetrate them through force" which, yes, does mean that I don't think most women have the strength to do this. Though maybe I should have phrased it as 'most men have the strength to stop a woman forcing them to penetrate them'.
"So any woman who is raped who doesn't have a completely pulverised face from a severe beating wouldn't be classed as raped in your book?"
don't be so ridiculous.
I am not saying they should have fought harder. I am saying that it is rare, not that it doesn't happen.
Oh and I also know a man who woke up at a party with a woman on top of him. Not actually penetrating her but if he hasn't woke up who knows....
and that was me responding to the question "Does this happen a lot?".
I think it happens less than the MRAs suggest and that their determination to make it sound like it does is purely because they want to derail and disrupt the obvious fact that women are treated appallingly before during and after sexual assault and rape and are raped far more often as well as having to live in a societly which encourages rape culture. I am not saying that male victims of assault shouldn't be given the help they need to seek justice and healing but that the lies and misinformation out there are actually damaging to those men who have been assaulted (by men and women).
"Well, much as I would love to point out that if they didn't want to be raped by a woman they shouldn't go getting drunk and flaunting their manliness in the face of all those women who simply can't help themselves in the face of a well turned testicle it might be worth pointing out to them that the legal definition of rape explicitly mentions men doing the act."
I do think that as the concept of consent has developed in jurisprudence that rape convictions might improve of there was either a reclassification of rape to make it gender neutral or perhaps a narrowing of the types of actions which would be classed as rape with others falling into the category of sexual assault.
This isn't to say that males being assaulted in this manner is anywhere near as common an occurrence or that it has the societal and historical weight that aggressive male on female rape has.
However I do think that many jurors will take issue with the notion that where the actions of Male A would be classed as rape the exact same actions of Female A would be sexual assault.
While obviously both are still very serious and can carry the exact same sentence I do believe it is a road block many can't get around.
As I said at the beginning I'm thinking in terms of actions which are to do with wider concepts of consent.
So it's clear that consent can be vitiated by deception. If person A climbs into bed with person B and impersonates their partner then consent will be seen to be vitiated.
Similarly if person A has sex with person B when they are intoxicated to the point that consent will not be valid.
I do think that in those situations having a gender specific crime should person A be male but not if they are female will lead many jurors to think "well if it was a woman nobody would be calling her a rapist etc"
Now MRAs saying that men are getting taped by women on anything like a similar level is patently moronic, but I do believe that either the offence of rape should be made gender neutral as it may help to cut out some of this fake polemic that many rape apologists trade in.
Apologies for typos
Posting from phone
There was that russian woman who drugged men and raped them with a dildo <shudders> That almost certainly is rape?
But sexual assault and rape aren't in a hierarchy, it's not that one is automatically worse than the other. In law I mean. 'Rape' means penetration by penis, not anything else.
i am trying to think of analogous crimes - say between burglary and robbery. they are both serious, but have their own definitions that have nothing to do with severity
I'm not saying its hierarchical in their legal definitions but I do think they are viewed as such in societal terms.
I also can't think of any analogous offences whereby the same actus reus and the exact same mens rea would result in different charges based purely on gender.
Now I know that argument will be that they don't have the same actus reus as rape specifies penetration by a penis so perhaps the answer would be to create new offence which was gender specific for women.
or educate people about the existing terms, rather than educate them about a new made up one.
It's just that the counter argument is often "if a woman did it then x,y & z" and no matter how moronic or insincere it may be for people to claim they can't get past this it remains a problem.
Like I say person A holds a knife to another's throat / obtains consent by deception/ takes advantage of a drunk person and are male they're charged with rape but if female then they're not rapists.
I agree they're not hierarchical but many will say then why the need for an offence of rape at all and not just sexual assault regardless of gender.
I think that we have such a society of rape apology that people have loaded the term rape with so much baggage that they feel labelling someone a rapist is so serious that they apply a higher burden of evidence to it than other offences and hesitate to convict even in the clearest of circumstances.
Perhaps a reclassification would greatly improve convictions where people think "oh well what he's done us clearly not right it's not 'rape rape'" etc
I'm not really sure, it's something I've often thought but not really bounced off people so its kind of hard to see the faults in your own arguments
Don't know about any other situation, but my DH, when married to his ex (who was emotionally and physically abusive) sometimes woke up to her on top having sex with him. He was on heavy medication and couldn't stop it.
It is very likely to be how his twin DDs were conceived (going by dates - they virtually never had consensual sex), he never confronted her about it or told anyone but me, it is so humiliating for him to remember.
I have no idea how common that would be in abusive relationships.
I am not sure that renaming that type of offence would make any difference to reporting/awareness. I think the rape apology/women should be submissive type culture is so ingrained that if it were to be a big news item, it would just end up as a big joke in the media, men who'd been through it would feel more ashamed not less. That's just a feeling/my lack of faith in media though.
That's horrible for your DH Fuzzpig
It is interesting that no one denies that a physical male response is not an indicator of their consent. Which is correct of course. But if there is no physical damage to a raped woman, people assume she must have responded physically and therefore consented.
Or am I even comparing like with like here, we're pretty aware of these things on the FWR board rather more than society in general.
I imagine that some of the assaults (woman to man) happen out of spite or aggression.
But, I would imagine that many of the assaults are women not realising that they have gone too far because they falsely believe (due to culture and gender stereotypes) that men welcome any sexual attention at all times. I don't mean to minimise the impact of the assault on men or justify it at all, just looking at motivation.
The word 'frigid' is never used for men, men are often portrayed as sex obsessed (many need to gawp at tits in the newspaper everyday), the familiar issue of men complaining about not getting enough sex from their partners etc. It creates the trope we are all familiar with of men constantly lusting after any woman that's not in a burkha and women begrudgingly allowing sexual contact from time to time (or having it taken by force or coercion). So women groping/touching/assaulting men may seem to the woman as if she is 'treating' the man and it may not occur to her that he really means 'no' when he says or indicates it.
I reiterate, NOT a justification, just an idea of a reason.
Breaking down gender stereotypes so that being a man doesn't mean 'sex-obsessed' and both genders are taught to respect personal boundaries.
A number of my male friends have woken up with a woman on top of them or cajoled into sex despite making it clear they did not want it.
I think it's probably more common than you'd think.
I'm a six foot four fourteen stone man and I was raped by an ex-girlfriend. Or seriously sexually assaulted, if the pedantic would prefer me putting it like that. It was forced penetration anyway. And if happened to me I dare say it happens to others.
I suspect it is hugely under-reported. I've never told anyone in real life. They'd laugh.
I also suspect it was nowhere near as traumatic for me as it would have been for a women though. It was irritating and disgusted me I can't pretend it ruined my life or anything.
That's horrible for you Twibble.
And it's horrible that you think you'd be laughed at - sadly I think you might be right there. Probably for the reasons LaLa says above. I am glad you were not brought down by it.
I was thinking of similar LaLa, in that it is seen as normal for women not to want sex all the time in marriage (especially after children), but a man who doesn't is seen as faulty. There are lots of understanding threads on MN about sex drive differences but I don't think that reflects the view of the general public, it's not something that's talked about.
DH has often felt like a total freak among male friends for hating porn too.
Sorry that happened to you twibble.
Thank you sinister, I appreciate that.
many will say then why the need for an offence of rape at all and not just sexual assault regardless of gender. I could be one of them. I like what Canada has done.
There is a massive issue here, imo, which is that the very same myth about male sexuality is used to blame rape victims and to ridicule the idea of women 'raping' men. That myth says men are always up for it. The other part of the lie, too, damages both sides: men are up for it; women withhold it.
In my much younger days, I've been guilty of 'jumping on' a partner who didn't want to have sex. OK, I got off again due to protest, but I didn't realise how wrong I'd been. (In my defence, all my relationships had rubbish boundaries.) When I did that, I was assuming "he'll love it once I've started" - which is as insulting as hell, not to mention the exact same thought attributed to rapists the world over.
I think it probably does happen quite a bit. What about older women, who abuse positions of trust to get sex with young males in their charge?
I'm not 100% convinced the experience would be as traumatic for most men as it is for most women, because penetration can be more injurious. Of course, women sometimes penetrates a man's rectum during sex and, if this was against his wishes, they are guilty of sexual assault. And men who are committed to virginity - or even fidelity, assuming levels of cheating are not the issue here - might well feel their lives had been ruined by unwanted intercourse.
Opps, crossposted with twibble. I'm sorry it happened to you, and grateful that you've posted.
There is also the possibility of pregnancy when a woman is raped vaginally, which I think it historically why it has been considered a separate crime.
www.avoiceformen.com/women/teach-men-not-to-rape-ignore-women/ Plenty of info about this subject here.
I'm not familiar with that site sigmunde and don't want to have to trawl through it, do you know what they have to say about male on male rape - are there any articles about that?
I did have a quick look but I got as far as the article about gang rapes in India which was just horrible and I don't really want to search there any more.
OP, I'm really not sure that male rape IS a key part of the MRA 'agenda tbh. There's quite a few other things that are probably more prominent.
Well I just linked to the one article, so you didn't have to look through the rest of the site. It was specifically about female rapists. AVFM is probably the main MRA site, certainly the largest and most informative.
If you want answers about all things MRA, without having to ask questions, it's pretty much the place to go. It also has a wiki section. Even if you completely disagreed with all of it, you will have a better understanding of MRA issues. Plenty of feminists read AVFM.
Pan- certainly it is a live topic on MRA websites. I am raising it on here because it is the one part of their agenda that I feel I know nothing at all about, and which it's difficult to find out about. i understand the statutory rape of boys. I understand about male on male rape (a subject that MRA seem rather coy about). But rape by women as something that happens frequently to men? I don't understand about that at all....
Check out my link then curlew.
But sigmunde I read one article and it made me feel so ill I don't really want to explore further, which is why I asked if you had seen anything on there.
It seems to me that male on male sexual assault and violence would be just as hot a topic on a site that is about compassion for men and boys. But is it talked about? I don't know and am interested which is why I ask.
I do think that with a lot of relationships, especially among young people, there is plenty of coercion both ways. I also think that both males and females are well capable of poor behaviour when it comes to sex. These sort of situations are not generally reported / told to anyone though so figures on male on female vs female on male are going to be impossible to find.
These issues need to be addressed in schools, about mutual respect, active consent, mutual pleasure and so on to combat these messages. The current situation is bad for boys, girls, children who are not heterosexual and all the rest of it.
If men want to talk about their experience of sexual violence at the hands of women then of course they must do that and certainly if there are gaps in the law / problems with people coming forward then they need to work on that much as has been done with female and child victims for years.
As to whether female on male sexual violence is as prevalent as male on female or even male on male - figures are hard to find, the stats that are available and my gut say not. DV is often linked to sexual violence for example and many more women are killed by male partners than vice versa. Although I know the MRAs dispute figures like that as well.
I'd have no idea about the topics there curlew so I'll take your word for it!
As other have said there's a world of difference between rape (legally def) and really embarrasing 'sexual assaults'. As a slim, pretty, shy young thing and working as a waiter in two establishments I'd get bottom pinched and touched up generally by drunk women, ironically to whom I was serving the fuel to their loss of inhibition. Essentially tho' I never felt it would go threateningly further afterwards. And a few other scenarios when younger.
More relevant is the times when I was 'taken advantage of' by a partner fairly often when I wasn't 'up for it' at all, but just accepted what was going on to get it over with and go to sleep. I'd still though would not place that in the category of 'rape' - the power dynamics are v different.
Does 'it' re male rape by females happen frequently? I'd say bollocks, and it's merely a silly ploy to point out the simple possibility of an equation being satisfied. When we all know it never is.
'It seems to me that male on male sexual assault and violence would be just as hot a topic on a site that is about compassion for men and boys.'
I haven't looked for that topic on AVFM, as I thought that the OP was about female rapists, although female on female sexual assault is not a hot topic on feminist forums as far as I'm aware, so maybe it's not an explored topic for either.
I've no idea why you wouldn't check out my link Pan, nothing scary or bad will happen you know. It's simply information. Would you not want to check out Jezebel or Feministing?
SF - I didn't say I wouldn't check out your link at all. Though I'd accept NT's glancing of it. I know 'scary and bad' and don't need reminding of it, thanks.
female on female s.a. is vanishingly rare. There is very little demand for support services for that, otherwise feminists would address it. otoh male on male sexual assault is quite common, and many men need help to preocess that when it happens. Thankfully there is help available for men in that position who need it.
'I know 'scary and bad' and don't need reminding of it, thanks.'
You've lost me here, not sure why you're upset, but apologise for any unintended offence. Was simply referring to the fact that people on here refuse to check out links to MRA sites, I wonder why not, is all.
Sigmunde have you read the piece on there about gang rape in india?
I think that something bad or scary might happen to people reading that site - it might be triggering, upsetting, and undermine their faith in human nature.
Do you really wonder why Sigmunde?
'The Santa Fe Rape Crisis and Trauma Treatment Center is among many around the country to acknowledge that while same-sex rape comprises a small percentage of rapes overall, it does in fact exist. The SFRCC details information on both male/male rape and female/female rape.
As SFRCC explains, Because many people define rape at penetration by a penis, woman-to-woman rape is not acknowledged or taken seriously. But in fact, it is estimated that one out of three lesbians have been sexually assaulted by another woman. '
Hardly 'vanishingly rare'.
'Do you really wonder why Sigmunde?'
Oh well I think I just answered your last question.
On the other part.
My views are shaped by by own experiences, which tie into the experiences others on MN talk about (not just on FWR), and the stats also support this view.
There have been some women on here who have talked about being sexually assaulted by other women, and they were met with compassion. The number of stories dwindles into insignificance though, next to the sheer volumes of women who have had multiple situations / things happen with men.
As an aside, when I was in my 20s I used to occasionally go to a gay club which had a women only floor. I didn't have to be alert for grabby hands in there - the way I did in hetero clubs, or for that matter in bars, pubs or even on public transport - from men.
That's just how it has always been for me. And the stats seem to bear out my experience, and the stories of my friends IRL and many many on here tell the same tale.
I am surprised at the low numbers of male/male rape there.
Maybe they need to do some outreach.
SF - I'm not upset at all, sorry. I'm just choosing to not read stuff you post, as I know what will be in it, and it's dull, inaccurate and uninformative. I don't need to step in poo to confirm it's poo.
Pan - I'll leave you to your genuflecting in FWR then, just make sure you scrape your tongue every now and then so it doesn't get too icky
Yes, just overall, SF the items you post and the opinions you espouse contradict, in an almost polar nature, things that I experience and observe about how RL is lived and experienced by the vast vast majority of men and women, and have done for quite a while. So I've learned to not take up your invitations.
"What a pontificating prat you are."
One of my finest features!
I think I might be uncomfortable with this discussion going down the road signposted "But what about the menz?"
I have no doubt that men who are raped by men suffer intense shame & fear, probably even greater than that suffered by women who are raped by men. I can't say I spend a lot of time studying this issue but, when I see them, I welcome shame-breaking initiatives. That particular question, however, is directly equivalent to an important feminist issue, and the answer - stop male rapists raping - is the same, albeit differently nuanced.
As a hetero woman moving in gay circles, I certainly experienced sexual harassment/assault by gay women. I've also witnessed straight women harassing/assaulting men, and have been harassed by gay men for being straight. People often are quite horrible & entitled, regardless of their gender & sexuality. All of these are matters for concern, but they don't strike me as overwhelmingly urgent in the way that rapes by men do.
MRA discussions, in general, tend to strike me as whining & desperate to kill feminism by claiming equivalence (never going to work!) But they have real, strong points to make that I think are downplayed by feminists. The 'rape' question raised by Curlew is one of them - sexual abuse, let's say, which I believe is a problem, and is fully intertwined with the male-on-female equivalents. Another is verbal, emotional, and financial abuse. I could pass days calling up examples from my everyday life. "The MRAs" aren't lying about that! It's all very well invoking perfectly valid historic & political causes for such abuse, but that doesn't excuse the billions of women abusing a man right now.
I wish men's and women's rights movements would sort things out enough to campaign together on the big issues. But they won't.
Yes, I'm a big hairy man troll. Or I have a different opinion, which on here is construed as trolling.
It's the latter, in case you're wondering.
There are only 7 billion people in the world - so a little under 3.5 billion women. That means we are all abusers? That seems a little strong.
Incidentally the reason that I was asking SF about MRA views on male on male rape is because I haven't seen it talked about much. They apparently focus on female on male. If they care about men then why ignore the extremely prevalent violence of men on men, including sexual violence. It doesn't make any sense. Ergo they don't actually care about men, they really only care about hating women.
'I see we've decided to have a go at Sigmund's fraudulence instead'
Well it's a lot easier to have a go at me than think about an uncomfortable topic.
Did you read the piece about gang rape in india on your website SF?
I don't think you can point people to a website which prints stuff like that, for education on other topics, and expect people to go along with it.
And that was the only one I read. God knows what else in on there.
Another really good reason for not reading a site you don't like the sound of is so as not to give the buggers the "clicks" to help fund their activities.
'They apparently focus on female on male. If they care about men then why ignore the extremely prevalent violence of men on men, including sexual violence. It doesn't make any sense. Ergo they don't actually care about men, they really only care about hating women.'
As feminists focus on male on female. One in 3 lesbians experiencing partner sexual assault is pretty prevalent too, wouldn't you say? Ergo they don't actually care about women, they really only care about hating men etc...
Maybe both feminists and MRAs need to broaden their horizons?
... MRA views on male on male rape ... They apparently focus on female on male. If they care about men then why ignore ... violence of men on men, including sexual violence ... they don't actually care about men, they really only care about hating women.
annoyingly sadly, seem to be the case.
OK, I shouldn't have said 'billions'. I was aiming to convey 'a very large number', obv.
No SF. it's men doing the vast majority of raping, whether their victims are male or female.
I want to know about this research, Fraude.
I'm desperate to know about it. I need guidance, see?
<puts son into burger bun>
Where do you get your 1 in 3 from, sigmunde? Got a linky? Which is from a respectable source and includes figures for other groups as well?
I have to say that I think victims (I believe you) need to be encouraged to come forward across the board and the way to do that is via the means that feminists have been fighting for, for ages. Working to change the attitudes of the authorities and society will help all victims.
All of this is just a base denial that women, children and men suffer violence predominantly at the hands of men, isn't it. But that's just silly. The stats show it. Look at them. Look around the world. Denying the evidence from all over the place and from so many people and respected organisations is just silly.
I'm not going to share it with you, slob
And it is Shelob. As in massivefuckofffemalespider.
i don't know what is to be gained by desperately insisting that women commit crimes too. We know. Women are humans, and humans are sometimes awful. But a cursory glance at any corner of the world show that it's not at the same rate.
Are victims getting the support they need? that should be the MRA's priority, as it is for feminists.
Thanks for the link Garlic. I'm not personally surprised that women can behave badly / abusively / poorly - the idea of passive femininity is obviously complete nonsense.
It's a shame the stats are quite old and a bit vague etc - it's a shame SF won't share her data with us, but apparently it's fine to quite stats and not substantiate them on the basis that people are "slobs".
'Got a linky?'
It's a lesbian magazine. Describes lesbian rape experiences in detail so poss triggering.
There's a page of links here, if anybody wants to check them out. UK based site.
'It's a shame the stats are quite old and a bit vague etc - it's a shame SF won't share her data with us, but apparently it's fine to quite stats and not substantiate them on the basis that people are "slobs".'
Just shared. Called Sheshelob 'slob' because she/he chose to call me fraude. Childish, but there you go. Can't believe I'm having to explain this.
This would be a dream thread for a 'reasonable MRA' to really explain the issue and get people listening. We were all engaging seriously with some good posts above
Sadly I do think it's like NT said - it's more about hating women than helping men.
One interesting point has been made. That f on m sexual abuse is the flipside of the gender roles, that men are always up for it and would never say no to any sexual contact. A very clear illustration that Patriarchy hurts men too
'Oh, just ignore her, FGS. How many important topics does she have to crayon all over before she is ignored? I know the truly knowledgable women on here attempt valiantly to engage with each and every hairy handed bridge dweller in order to try and teach them something, but surely there is a limit?'
Yep, I just linked you to a reputable source, a lesbian magazine with actual testamonies and stats, nothing to do with MRA anything, but you know fucking better and I'm a troll.
SF that article says that this crime is uncommon. The people who say 1 in 3 cite no source, and say it just after saying "The Santa Fe Rape Crisis and Trauma Treatment Center is among many around the country to acknowledge that while same-sex rape comprises a small percentage of rapes overall, it does in fact exist."
It's also an article not a source like BCS or similar. It is a 3rd hand quote and it doesn't say where from.
I read in cosmo about 15 years ago that 7 in 10 men would rape if they knew they would get away with it. I could plaster that all over the boards, if I wanted. But I don't because, erm, it was an unsubstantiated headline in cosmo. And if I did do that, I would expect people to ask where I got that stat from then I'd look like a bit of an arse when I said "cosmo about 1997" wouldn't I.
I'm not very impressed with your posts.
Is that your idea of hard statistical evidence?
Oh come on.
'Is that your idea of hard statistical evidence?
Whats your idea of it?
I am also REALLY uncomfortable with this idea of trying to force a conversation which is rather offensive frankly.
The implication is that feminists don't care about victims of sexual violence if unless they are female victims of male violence. This is cobblers. And the changes that are being fought for will benefit all victims of sexual violence.
Well, not an unattributed source 3rd hand in a magazine.
An Overview of Sexual Offending in England and Wales released by the ONS in January 2013
I haven't trawled through it yet, though!
Very interesting thread, Curlew. I had been wondering about the assumption that men always have to be seen to be 'virile' and 'manly' or whatever, and how exhausting and untrue that must be.
Which is stated by an organisation in direct contradiction to what they said immediately beforehand.
the summary / overview page is here and has some interesting figures.
scroll down for the summary!
Called Sheshelob 'slob' because she/he chose to call me fraude.
Erm, I don't want to point out the obvious, but your NN is 'Sigmund*Fraude*'.
My nn is Sigmund or SigmundFraude.
'You regularly come on to a thread with sneering comments and insults'
After I've been sneered at and insulted, I think you'll find. Pretty much always.
Well, curlew, it started off as a good attempt at serious discussion, and made me think. Thank you.
No Sigmunde not true and you know it. You do know it, we all do.
Well, I'm really not sure why you walk into this stuff SF. It's a feminist/chat board (without having to be a feminist to post), so IF you are at odds with the ethos it's a good idea to not lead with fists first. Otherwise you will come across as the analogy of the wounded puppy who just wants attention, whether that's good or bad.
Make myself walk into what Pan? Any outsider unfamiliar with this forum can clearly see that here is a group of women, attacking another woman because she isn't agreeing with them.
Please don't make me OI!
Well no SF, it's the weight of evidences and argument that sets yourself and other posters apart here.
The reason these crimes are not "at the same rate" of the number of women being rapped/attacked is because many men do not come forward.
DV for example, many many men suffer daily but the figures will tell you differently.
It is a real heartbreaking shame that even now in what is meant to be a some what more equal society that men still can not feel right and deserving to come forward and report women for these nasty horrible crimes.
You can read all the whys and wherefores behind our talk guidelines here but here's the nutshell version:
No personal attacks
No posts that break the law
No trolling, misleading or deliberately inflammatory behaviour
Or as I like to put it PEACE AND LOVE
and dont make me yell
"In 2011, there were 10,832 male prisoners in custody for sexual offences, a rise of 4 per cent since 2010. There were 103 female prisoners in custody for sexual offences, a fall of 15 per cent since 2010.
Although there has been a general upward trend in the number of female prisoners in custody for sexual offences, it remains very low and is a very small proportion of the overall female prison population (2 per cent). For both the remand and the immediate custodial sentenced populations of prisoners in custody for sexual offences, the vast majority have an offence type of other sexual offences." p.50 ONS Report pdf
It just doesn't get reported, I think. I would guess, wrt men, because they feel they would be ridiculed. Which is just wrong.
You should get that on a
Tshirt namechange, Pan
Most women do not come forward either. everyone is humiliated and ashamed when they have been abused. That's part of the trauma. It's heartbreaking, but it's not on to suggest some people have more dignity to lose. That's what it sounds like anyway when that argument is used.
garlic... I couldn't agree with your post at the top of page 4 more.
I wish men's and women's rights movements would sort things out enough to campaign together on the big issues. But they won't
That bit jumped out at me.
As I have said on another recent thread on here I run a men's group with a focus on help and support. Sadly female on male sexual assault is not quite as rare as many would like to think. It is however a lot more rare than male on female sexual assault/rape or male on male for that matter. One of the biggest problems is for a man to actually admit to being assaulted in the first place due to the common view that a man is always up for it or is unmanly if a woman can assault him. It is one of the hardest thing for some of the guys I work with to say aloud.
I also feel it is unhelpful to say that it is less traumatic for a male victim than a female one as everyone is an individual and will feel differently about different things. For some it is not such a huge deal while for others it is soul destroying for them.
<passes Olivia Tixylix for her throat>
Yes Sunshine401 I agree. The patriarchy's a cock. Stereotyped gender roles are bad for everybody.
No need MO - who needs a t-shirt when you actually live it?
The imprisonment rates are startling, but still, I think, slightly irrelevant to the OP - the female no.s will be to do with offences against children and there a lot of them are 'aiding and abetting' a male, not their own substantive contact offences.
" but it's not on to suggest some people have more dignity to lose."
No they don't have more dignity to lose. However they more often than not do not come forward because of societies views on men and women.
My DB was abused for years by his wife. He would hide it, blame himself and so on, like most other victims of abuse.
When he did leave (6 years ago) to this day he still has not reported her. Even though he is remarried, happy, knows it was wrong of her. He feels totally humiliated that he was a victim of abuse from a women.
That viewpoint is what needs to change.
Sunshine, I am sorry that happened to your DBro.
I think more often than not female victims don't come forward either, though the reasons for not doing so may be a bit different.
All victims of abuse feel like that though, that's the point I am making.
It is not feminists who minimise and down play abuse. It is feminists who are trying to give voices to the victims.
I am sorry for your brother it is a hard thing to live through and get over.
Couldn't agree more, lurkin.
Hopefully the tide is turning within the criminal justice system what with so many high profile cock-ups on sex offences and the yewtree stuff and so on.
What needs to change is society attitude to victims of sexual violence (ALL victims) and doing away entirely with the This is what a proper victim looks like and behaves like stuff.
I think a lot of work needs to be done in schools and at home where poss to teach all children about all sorts of issues related to sex and relationships. All children irrespective of sex or sexuality or what have you. The same rules should apply to everyone and support should be available across the board.
I don't think you'll find any feminists arguing with ideas along those lines though. So I'm not sure why it always comes up (actually I am).
I agree. It is actually mostly childhood victims who don't come forward or take the longest to come forward. Well statically speaking anyway.
bitbewlidered I am not sure why you looked at that data and concluded that men were under-reporting massively as opposed to women, rather than concluding that less women commit sex offences?
Or am I misreading your post.
I always think the crime survey figures are good because they are asking people about their actual experiences rather than conviction rates and so on which obviously have problems due to under-reporting.
The problem with saying that there are no statistics because men don't come forward is that women don't come forward either. So the figures are always the tip of the iceberg.
NiceTabard I probably wasn't clear. I didn't mention why I think women under report because it's a thread about women raping men. FWIW, I think that women don't report out of fear, mainly.
I would love to see your crime survey figures. Personally I just googled "how many women are convicted of sexual assault uk" and the ONS thing was the first thing to catch my eye as a reasonable source.
Men are more likely not to come forward/report when they have been a victim by the hands of a women. Sad but true.
Not saying men are more likely to abused by women, or more have happened. Just saying that due to societies attitudes men feel that being abused by a women is belittling to their "man status"
As a few posters have pointed out yes a lot of women also do not report abuse however that is different reasoning (still wrong) but I was just stating my point about men's actions towards abuse not women.
I think I have confused myself there sorry if it does not make sense If you understand my point well done
sunshine I think you and I mean the same thing!
Was just looking through the actually posts at the start of the thread. Many of which actually show the views I was pointing out and they are coming from women, so just image how the men must feel when women go about saying things like that. Some awful comments there.
It just doesn't get reported, I think. I would guess, wrt men, because they feel they would be ridiculed. There is plenty of evidence to suggest, certainly in the case of DV, that men are more likely to report and more quickly than women. I don't know if that is translatable into sexual abuse though.
what do you mean Sunshine401?
Sorry? About what?
what things do women go around saying?
It's late - I probably am missing the point of your post
bitbewlidered I am not sure why you looked at that data and concluded that men were under-reporting massively as opposed to women, rather than concluding that less women commit sex offences?
Sorry, I totally misread your question! I don't think men massively under report, although I think under reporting definitely happens. I absolutely think that women commit these offences much, much less than men.
Just some of the things from previous posts, not just women who say them either.
1) "Men cannot be raped"
2) "But men are stronger than women"
just as examples.
I understand the definition of rape and all that. However when talking about men suffering abuse, within the first few comments it is focused on the word phrasing. Just speaks volumes to me is all.
Nobody on this thread has said men can't be raped.
And generally men are stronger than women. It is no coincidence that in the awful experiences on this thread of women sexually assaulting men that men have been in a position that is weaker than than the woman e.g. asleep, very drunk, drugged or as a child. Force does come into sexual assault and rape regardless of sex.
Why? It's a valid point I would have thought. Especially on a topic like this there's an argument that you should define the terms so everyone is on the same page.
there has been nothing but sympathy and understanding towards male victims on this thread. There has been no minimisation or belittling towards victims at all.
I think this is a very new idea for many people. It's OK to not understand and to ask questions.
Hello, I am still here. Just a quick point regarding the use of physical force when a woman rapes a man. In my case, it was the very fact that I was so much bigger and stronger than her stopped me using force.
I just couldn't bring myself to use physical force toward someone smaller and weaker than me, even when she was raping me. Which is kind of darkly comic when you think about it. I still couldn't bring myself to potentially hurt a woman physically even when she was assaulting me.
Probably social conditioning or benevolent sexism or something.
"I just couldn't bring myself to use physical force toward someone smaller and weaker than me, even when she was raping me. Which is kind of darkly comic when you think about it. I still couldn't bring myself to potentially hurt a woman physically even when she was assaulting me.
Probably social conditioning or benevolent sexism or something."
Social conditioning yes. Another example of how the "patriarchy" is bad for both men and women. Benevolent sexism? No such thing.
I am so sorry this happened to you- and you are very brave to talk about it in here. Could I ask a question about what happened, or would that be too intrusive?
DH never fought back either. He is very anti-violence (having been brought up by a severely abusive mother, which no doubt conditioned him to end up with an abusive wife too).
There is also the fact that had he defended himself, he could have ended up getting arrested as more likely to leave a mark (him being stronger than ex) - I would've thought that is a common reason for men not fighting back.
I think that the question many people are scared to ask is this. In a situation were a man is not drunk or drugged, and unless the woman is bigger and stronger than him, would it not be possible to hold a woman off, or push her away? I am strong for a woman, but I know that there is no way I could physically force my partner to penetrate me. I could coerce him, I could make threats which would make him do it, I might even be able to shame him or guilt trip him into it. But I couldn't physically force him into it.
Hi curlew, I'm not really that brave - it was a while ago and as I say it freaked me out for a while but then time moves on and you move with it. I really only brought it back to mind when I saw this thread.
Going into too much detail seems a bit creepy but in essence it was - we had had a bit of a tired and emotional day. We were in bed together and she was hassling me for sex but I insisted it wasn't going to happen because I didn't feel in the right frame of mind at all. She kept behaving in a way that she knew would arouse me ( very easy when you're 22 and live in a state of pretty much permanent arousal) then when I rolled onto my back to speak to her she suddenly just placed herself on me even though I kept telling her to get off. I remember grabbing her arms and pushing but to actually force her off felt like an act of violence and I couldn't bring myself to do it.
Hope that's not too much detail, I don't want to creep anyone out.
So it just happened, but the relationship limped on for a while - I was really too young and immature to deal with it emotionally or to know what to do next. I hope this isn't too crass a comparison but for me it felt like having your house burgled - for a while you feel invaded and violated, then it just goes into the memory banks and gets forgotten. So I would certainly never link it with the terrible and life-changing assaults that I know many people have sadly experienced. It's just an anecdote that I thought was relevant to the thread.
"In my case, it was the very fact that I was so much bigger and stronger than her stopped me using force." I can absolutely see why that was Twibble. Sorry that happened to you.
Yes, that's what I did. I "hopped on". Women joke about it. Which is as revolting as men joking about sexual assault, isn't it? I am embarrassed for my former self.
"Turn up naked, with beer" --- because easy sex is all any man wants, ever (with added football in some versions.) It's demeaning to men, as well as reducing women to their bodies.
"Yes, that's what I did. I "hopped on". Women joke about it. Which is as revolting as men joking about sexual assault, isn't it? I am embarrassed for my former self."
But is it? I'm struggling for the right words here, but isn't there something in the power inbalance that makes it different? I understand why a man in Twibble's situation did not use physical force- but the fact remains that if he had chosen to, he could have done. Please don't leap in and call this victim blaming- I'm thinking aloud and may decide I'm wrong anyway. As I said, there's are loads of ways I could make my Dp do something he didn't want to- I am sure I could make him have sex with me against his will. But I could not physically force him. And there is an insistence among the MRA that women rape men using physical violence. And that does not seem a very credible thing to say. Psychological force, yes, but they don't seem very interested in that.
Agreed, I'm not talking about the same thing. It's the first time I've thought about about this properly ... it is demeaning behaviour, and the assumptions behind it are the rapey ones discussed above. So I think it bears examination.
I think the MRAs should be interested in psychological force! Popular wisdom allows that women are experts in mental abuse and, again, women's jokes reinforce that idea.
I've seen scenes in films where men were raped by women, using force. I'm pretty sure it can be done, though I doubt it's done all that often. Unless he's smaller than you, or disabled, you're going to need equipment.
Rapes rarely involve extreme force, though. The threat of it (or sheer headfuckery) tends to be employed first.
Yes, I do think the 'hop on' jokes are as bad. A man having a stiffy is no more a sure sign of readiness than a woman being wet. I behaved as badly as the men who've stuck a finger in, found moisture, and gone for it. On the relationships board, we tell women whose partners do this while they're asleep that they're being raped. I was no better than those men.
It's not 'funny', after all.
I'm late for an appointment! Stop being so interesting!
sure sign of readiness - better to have said 'sure sign of consent'.
Why is it that a female teacher that has had sex with a teenage boy is not a rapist?
As far as I have been able to find their is no lower age of consent for males in heterosexual relationships (please correct me if I am wrong) and the prevailing attitude is "lucky bastard" or similar.
The age of consent is the same got girls and boys.
Technically, women cannot rqpe men by definition.
How can a man be forced into sex with penetration ? I mean physically, he has to be able. A man who feels coerced/frightened wouldnt be able to achieve an erection. Doesnt a man need to be aroused to be able to do that ?
"Aroused" does not necessarily mean the person wants to have sex, emmeline. All sorts of things trigger arousal.
Also, the neurology for fear is extremely close to that for sexual arousal & orgasm. Female rape victims often lubricate and sometimes orgasm.
No, a man need to be aroused to be able to do that.
"The age of consent is the same got girls and boys."
"Technically, women cannot rqpe men by definition."
I know, My personal feeling is that the definition is wrong
As a feminist, I believe male rape is true. In the country I've moved to, it is categorised as sexual assault as it happens. Male rape by females can, I believe, happen. Just as rare by gender on the same gender occurs, or women being raped by men can happen. I think it's wrong to act as some people do about it- female on male rape is a tiny minority, but it exists. This reality doesn't diminish male on female rape- and due to male on female rape being the majority, then of course a lot of/most of efforts should be concentrated on this- but I think male rape by females should be recognised. It doesn't necessarily mean forced into penetration- it could mean withdrawing consent part way through or a man having an erection and consenting to some actions, but not to penetration.
And arousal can be involuntarily triggered. As a victim of sexual assault, I know personally that what you may not want, your body can 'like'- the same action triggers the same thing, although you are terrified and don't want it for rape.
I didnt know that about men.
I could understand about assault. Not wanting to be touched and so on.
I was molested for years.
I have also had sex that I didnt want, particularly. Not rape or anything.
There was absolutely no sexual response from me.
But that is only my experience.
I cant say I have enjoyed reading this thread, but it has been very enlightening.
In a good way in that I have seen things from a different perspective.
I think the problem is that there are some men's groups who are not prepared to accept that, while woman on man rape occurs, it is much less common than man on woman or, and this is the one they really like to forget about- man on man. There is certainly an attempt to make woman on man rape as big an issue as man on woman- some extremists even say that it is more common. So women get angry because men seem to be minimalizing women's experience and vice versa. I don't know where we go from here.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Thanks for that great post WhenthRed. Lots to think about. I think you've hit the nail on the head there.
Great post, WhenThe
Boney, because the UK doesn't have a statutory rape law, I think that neither a male nor a female teacher would be charged with rape in your example.
Such a good post,WhenTheRed. You expressed what I was floundering about with.
I find myself wanting to take it further- and I hesitate to say this- but it does feel to me as if men are trying to take over the whole rape scenario. Women have sex when they don't fancy it much and the man does? That's how life is. And (to cite another current thread) man repeatedly puts his finger up a woman's anus when she's said she doesn't like it- well,you can't blame a man for trying! Men have sex when they don't fancy it much- RAPE!!!!!!!
Continuously enthusiastic consent is the only way to go, isn't it. For women and men.
I would still rather do away with the crime of rape. It requires too much definition. It would be foolish to say the prat who stuck his finger up my fanny on the Tube "raped" me, but George Galloway would probably think it worse than the husband who pinned me down & did something very damaging during consensual sex. I'd disagree with Galloway, and so would the law, but his attitude is illustrative of how messy an issue it is.
If anybody does anything unwelcome to another person's body without consent, it's assault. In the context of sex-related activity, the required consent should ongoing, enthusiastic participation. I'm sure the CPS and the courts are capable of determining which sexual assaults are more serious/aggravated/grievous/etc ... My point, I think, is that a more sweeping legislative approach would improve everybody's understanding about the right to sovereignty over one's own body.
I think the law does have the power to alter common perception. I know not everyone agrees.
Just to bring in another angle this is a really, really good piece about the rapper L'il Wayne.
He was on a chat show and the male host said "Oh, I hear you lost your virginity when you were 11! Ha ha!"
Only L'il didn't find it quite so amusing.
So the piece then goes to look at rape apologism and how it alters (but is still used) depending on who the victim is : www.racialicious.com/2009/04/14/when-a-man-is-the-victim-a-second-study-in-rape-apology/?wpmp_tp=0
Wow, that's really interesting, Gosh. Thanks!
It's a pity I can't see the video as I'd love to watch how he responded. I'll have a look for it on YouTube tomorrow. Other strong points made, too.
Always up for it. Two steps along from asking for it?
I can't see the video - it says its private and although I've searched for Li'l Wayne/jimmy kimmel videos I can't find it. Shame, as it would be interesting to see the body language of those involved. I watched another one and JK has a very patronising/ domineering attitude - seems to me partly because Li'l Wayne is indeed quite short and slight (like a woman?).
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
I've been following this thread privately for a few days, but didn't wish to jump in and cause a fuss since I'm one of those MRA's that get people in a lather.
Though you may be interested in the following interview of Philip W. Cook by Erin Pizzey and co at BlogTalkRadio.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
My apologies, considering the subject matter of the thread already, I didn't consider the possible effect on children. I don't believe that there is anything in the show that is any more graphic than has already been mentioned on the thread.
Whilst it is long, it is informationally dense and since the original post specifically mentioned MRA attitudes I thought that anyone interested in this thread who doesn't know any MRA's would enjoy the chance to hear them discussing the issue essentially in private.
MRA's tend to specialize, and my area is not the data of the rape issue, but I would add one comment, the original poster stated "Some MRA's even say that men are as often victims of rape by women as women are of rape by men.", whilst I would agree that some MRA's do say this, my opinion of the data I have seen is that this is not true. The American CDC survey that this came from clearly shows that if you use a definition of rape by envelopment and a bidirectional definition of consent, the rape rate of men by women is below that of women by men. But it is within a small percentage.
Where things get very interesting is when you add to these figures the amount of rapes that occur on men when in prison, the amount of these in American prisons seems to be in the outrageous level. I have seen calculations that when you add these amounts together for the American population the amount of rapes of men over take the amount of rapes of women. In fairness I've seen a lot of argument about both sets of figures and haven't personally checked the maths. (I feel a project coming on).
Ok, sea forth, but posting a 1.5h radio programme on a parenting site, it's not massively surprising that a child may be in the room during playback.
Is the programme about rape data?
"Ok, sea forth, but posting a 1.5h radio programme on a parenting site, it's not massively surprising that a child may be in the room during playback."
I've already apologised for my thoughtlessness regarding this.
The program is a discussion between Erin Pizzey, (Lady who opened the first domestic violence shelter in the UK, Author), Dean Esmay (Managing Editor AVoiceForMen) and Philip W. Cook, author of "When Women Sexually Abuse Men, The Hidden Side of Rape, Stalking, Harassment, and Sexual Assault."
Whilst it does touch on the data a great deal, they don't always cite where the figures came from, if anyone wants references/papers and can't find them, message me giving a time in the show and I'll see what I can dig up.
What they spend a fair amount of time discussing is the current zeitgeist towards the male perspective of the issue.
Wow the male perspective on the issue. I'm so excited to spend an hour and a half listening to that. After all we never hear the male perapective in the mainstream media.
I didn't think there was a hidden side of stalking and harrassment of men by women. The crazy pyscho bunny boiling bitch is quite a common figure. Especially in comparison to the female rapist. probably proportionate?
"But the MRA are full of stories of men waking up after falling asleep drunk at parties to find women on top of them. And vqriations on th them of being forced to penetrate against their will. And, it might just be my misandry showing, but really? Does this happen a lot? Is it a really serious problem that needs to be addressed, and have equivilant resources given to it?"
There was a "National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey" (that's a PDF link, by the way) from the US in 2010 that is a favourite of the MRAs for the following reason: the number of women who were raped in the last twelve months, and the number of men who were 'made to penetrate' in the last twelve months, is about the same (1,270,000, and 1,267,000 respectively). The section with these figures starts on page 17.
The report defines 'Made To Penetrate' as including "times when the victim was made to, or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetrate someone without the victims consent because the victim was physically forced (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threatened with physical harm, or when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent. Among women, this behavior reflects a female being made to orally penetrate another females vagina or anus. Among men, being made to penetrate someone else could have occurred in multiple ways: being made to vaginally penetrate a female using ones own penis; orally penetrating a females vagina or anus; anally penetrating a male or female; or being made to receive oral sex from a male or female. It also includes female perpetrators attempting to force male victims to penetrate them, though it did not happen". I can't really see why this wouldn't come under the definition of rape myself, it reads like a pretty textbook case of non-consensual sex.
An interesting breakdown of the perpetrators for male victims: "the sex of the perpetrator varied by the type of sexual violence experienced. The majority of male rape victims (93.3%) reported only male perpetrators. For three of the other forms of sexual violence, a majority of male victims reported only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (79.2%), sexual coercion (83.6%), and unwanted sexual contact (53.1%). For non-contact unwanted sexual experiences, approximately half of male victims (49.0%) reported only male perpetrators and more than one-third (37.7%) reported only female perpetrators (data not shown)".
So 79.2% of those 1,267,000 men who were 'made to penetrate' were the victims of female perpetrators. In other words, 1,003,464 men were raped* by women in the last year, in the US. (*If you consider 'being made to penetrate' to be raped, which I can't see how you wouldn't).
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Are there many cases of men being forced to penetrate other men?
That's true WhentheRed, the lifetime figure for prevalence of sexual violence is 4.4 times the yearly figure for men, and 17 times the yearly figure for women. I've seen various attempts at explanation for why the lifetime ratio differs so widely from the yearly ratio, such as:
Participants in the survey are 18+, so when getting the data for the 12 month figures, only rapes from 17+ are counted. Whereas the lifetime figures count rapes from any age. So perhaps women are being raped far, far more often at 16 or under than men (I don't have the stats on this, but it certainly seems possible)
Related to the above; women aren't being raped more often, they are just more likely to reveal it. Men are unlikely to report child sexual abuse, so it wouldn't show up in lifetime figures, but they are more willing to report it as an adult (I know that only 1 in 6 male abuse victims will 'admit' to being abused, but I don't know the rate for women, so can't say whether there is a gender difference in under-reporting child sexual abuse)
A larger number of women are being raped less frequently, whereas a smaller number of men are being raped multiple times (can't see the reason why this would be true)
Rape rates for women have dropped to a comparable level with men, and this is now being reflected in the up-to-date 12-month statistics, but the lifetime figures include women who lived during a time when more women were raped than men. (Wishful thinking, I suspect)
SinisterSal reversing the 79.2% figure, that leaves 20.8% of male victims who were forced to penetrate male perpetrators, or 263,536 cases per year.
Sue, thank you for summarising some of the information in your link.
You're welcome! It's a well-organised report, very readable.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Whenthered- to use a very macho term, you really took one for the team, thanks for summarising that.
Side note - were I an "MRA" things that would really concern me would be things like combating the male suicide rate, prison reform - particularly of Young Offenders Institutions, male health problems like ED and particular cancers. These are all problems which disproportionately affect men.
Yet actual MRAs seem to be more concerned with demonising women.
I've been thinking about this when I find myself unable to sleep, and what occurs to me is:
Men are assumed to be always 'up for it'
Men wouldn't report a woman doing this, because it undermines their manliness (ie. that they should always be 'up for it')
Ie. it's yet another case of the patriarchy/macho culture harming men as much as women. The attitude that men are always a glimpse of a woman's legs away from having sex means that women get blamed if they are raped, but also means that if men are assaulted by a woman they don't get taken seriously.
In both cases, the person doing the assaulting is clearly wrong, but the same macho society attitude in each case condemns/ridicules the victim rather than placing the blame where it should be - on the one perpetrating the assault.
Of course blame the individual women for committing the crime, but it's not women as a group causing the harm, it's the patriarchy (again), and yet again the MRA's anger is mis-directed.
It often seems to me that MRA anger is really disappointment in the patriarchy for not delivering what it seems to promise men.
Feminists aren't making men kill themselves through shame, rape and mutilate one another in prison, shoulder disproportionate financial burdens, ignore male-specific diseases, etc. Patriarchal values do all that to them. But they daren't reject patriarchy, so they blame its enemies.
I thought I'd swing by here as I'm a man currently working through the various emotional and psychological issues that may or may not have been caused by my being "sexually assaulted" around 8 years ago. In my case I was 20 years old and my assaulter was a older co-worker in her thirties who took advantage of me being extremely drunk to have sex with me.
Before the event I could see where things were going but did not have the experience or sobriety or social skills to remove myself from the situation without causing a scene. I'm sure there are plenty of things that I could have done, including using force, but I didn't, I can't explain why. The situation was disturbing and distressing, the woman was very insistent and pushy, and I couldn't handle it.
Afterwards, I didn't think of the event as an assault (even though I would have been furious if a similar thing had happened to one of my female friends). I didn't tell anyone about it then or since (bar my therapist), because of shame I felt. The two people who worked out what happened (both female co-workers) thought it was hilarious and mocked me quite relentlessly about it for a short while. I'm still not fully able to consider myself a victim, even as I understand the long term damage that it has done to my life.
I'm not an MRA, but I'm familiar with the works of most of the thought leaders in the movement. I believe the MRA take on this is largely based upon the CDC report, which is contentious in the fact that specific measures were taken to reduce the statistics for male rape victims, through use of semantics. This, to anyone who is sensitive to the issue, feels a lot like an attempt to marginalise the male victims. By doing so you also get the cheeky bonus of almost 100% of rapists being men.
Whether or not this is a deliberate aim, the result is the same - the regular media discussion that makes headlines is about "rape", and how that is something men do. The 1,000,000 or so men who are non-raped by women in the USA in a year are politically inconvenient for some and uncomfortable to think about for most. That discomfort is expressed in this thread by various people discussing "power dynamics" and how that somehow makes it "different" (but we're not sure how), which is truly dehumanising.
It is reassuring that when people are presented with an individual case they can understand that there is a human being and can muster empathy, but it's also disturbing that in the abstract very few people care. Or indeed that a female poster can come on here and admit that she used to act in sexually aggressive ways towards men and few people bat an eyelid. I understand she regrets it and I really don't want to point fingers at her, but just imagine a male poster coming on here talking about being sexually aggressive towards women, and what your reaction would be.
Even I would be more disgusted by a man saying that than a woman, because that is how strongly we, as a society, are conditioned to never, ever acknowledge or respect male victimhood and male vulnerability.
I should add that in no way do I support highlighting the existance of female-on-male rape and the detriment to any other forms of rape, but it would be nice it it was even acknowledge as a thing occasionally, rather than always hearing the dogmatic rhetoric that often surrounds sexual assault. Rape overall is an incredibly complex issue, and far to many people want to lock it down to black and white for the sake of simplicity (or something, I don't know why really).
I haven't participated in this thread and I know it's less active now, however I have an interesting link.
Over on Manboobz manboobz.com/2013/09/18/for-a-voice-for-men-and-its-edmonton-offshoot-terrifying-women-is-a-form-of-human-rights-activism/comment-page-1/ in the comments they linked to an official response from the CDC regarding the much misused NISVS report.
It is presently on Reddit unfortunately, but it does a great job of refuting the MRA bollocks surrounding the report.
WRT to the NISVS response, there is basically no refutation that female-on-male sexual aggression is not an issue, it just takes a very long time to explain (quite rightly) that a specific attempt to quantify it is flawwed.
Note in particular the apples argument. This is theoretically true and adds significant noise to the calculation. However, this would only give a significant difference if we assumed that all the men were forced to penetrate by a small number of women, but the report does state:
"Across all types of violence, the majority of both female and male victims reported experiencing violence *from one perpetrator*"
It goes on later to give more figures for this later on.
For those of you desperate to believe that this can't possibly be an issue, I will link to the following, which lists a number of empirical studies going back to the 80s that all corroborate the very real existence of female sexual aggression.
Remember that it wasn't that long ago that everyone believed that rape barely happened at all, try stepping back from what you think you know and asking if there is just maybe a chance that there is more going on than you are regularly made aware of.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
ritamin I said that the response refuted the MRA bollocks surrounding the report, I did not say it refuted female on male sexual assault.
Indeed the CDC make it clear that this report solely focuses on the victims and not the perpetrators:
D. As the study population is U.S. adults in non-institutional settings, the sample was designed to be representative of the study population, not the perpetrator population (therefore no sampling or weighting is done for the undefined universe of perpetrators). Hence, while the data can be analyzed to make statistical inferences about the victimization of U.S. adults residing in non-institutional settings, the NISVS data are incapable of lending support to any national estimates of the perpetrator population, let alone estimates of perpetrators of a specific form of violence (say, rape or being-made-to-penetrate).
You have linked to a blog that regurgitates the figures that my link, by the people who wrote the report, refuted.
This sentence within your 'source' sums it up:
This huge victim survey made a surprising finding. It suggested that the rates of men being forced to penetrate women over the past year was identical to the rates of women reporting being raped, each 1.1%
Why just repeat what I just refuted?
If you had a terrible experience I am sorry for you, that was not what I was referring to.
These statistics have been routinely misused by MRAs (yourself included). All I am saying is that the report can in no way help you prove any point about the prevalence of female on male sexual aggression.
That is all.
By all means, commission a study, but with this particular source you are out of luck.
With regards to your original post:
I'm not an MRA, but I'm familiar with the works of most of the thought leaders in the movement.
MRA ' thought leaders' . Really?
Paul Elam - manboobz.com/2010/11/14/paul-elams-vanishing-post-blaming-and-mocking-rape-victims/
Warren Farrell - manboobz.com/2013/05/03/putting-warren-farrells-notorious-comments-on-exciting-date-rape-in-context/
If this is what constitutes thought, the mind, it boggles.
Stop playing 'reasonable mens human rights activist'. I see you.
Also totally agree with everything you said
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Ah, Manboobz. What an authority on all things feminist he is. Such depth.
^But are these women asking to get raped?
In the most severe and emphatic terms possible the answer is NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET RAPED.
They are freaking begging for it.
Damn near demanding it.
And all the outraged PC demands to get huffy and point out how nothing justifies or excuses rape won’t change the fact that there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.^ source Paul Elam, AVfM Blog
It is important that a woman’s “noes” be respected and her “yeses” be respected. And it is also important when her nonverbal “yeses” (tongues still touching) conflict with those verbal “noes” that the man not be put in jail for choosing the “yes” over the “no.” He might just be trying to become her fantasy. source Warren Farrell, The Myth of Male Power
These are both revolting views of women victims of rape, but they also lead me to wonder whether they believe these things about men who are raped by other men or (as the law in the UK stands at the moment) sexually assaulted by women? Because, if they do, then they aren't men's rights activists at all, they are rapists rights activists and should be recognised as such.
At no point has anyone denied that women can and do sexually assault men, ritamin. We believe you.
It makes me sad that so-called MRAs take such a victim blaming approach to rape and sexual assault, it must make their male readers who have also been victims of those crimes feel really awful
CaptChaos wrote - "It makes me sad that so-called MRAs take such a victim blaming approach to rape and sexual assault, it must make their male readers who have also been victims of those crimes feel really awful"
I've seen many examples of MRAs blaming female victims of rape and sexual assault, but I've never seen MRAs blame male victims.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
'SigmundFraude, the link posted by OpheliaMonarch contained a link to the Paul Elam blog - the words actually written by Paul Elam. The Paul Elam words were and are written on the Voice for Men site. Those are the words that are shocking and hateful.'
Yes I know. Paul Elam's words are very often distorted and twisted, given sinister meanings etc by Manboobz, amongst others. I have been in contact with a couple of people who write for AVFM, and they are most definitely not hateful, nor is Paul Elam.
Twisted? those were verbatim, no?
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
I've never heard of Paul Elam but I don't see how anyone could read those words and not think that he is a hateful misogynist of the highest order. Only another hateful misogynist could think otherwise.
That particular article wasn't one that I was in agreement with. In general though, most of his articles are thought-provoking. He is not a hateful misogynist.
Being a lovely guy in any other respect does not cancel out the hate and misogyny in this article. Only a hateful misogynist can write an article expressing hate and misogyny.
Well it's interesting you said that Flora, as I was told by a feminist that I should overlook one or two of the hate filled ratings of Dworkin and consider her body of work as a whole. But there you are.
I don't much care what you think of Dworkin and I didn't say he might not have something non-hateful and possibly interesting to say even though he is a hateful misogynist. None of that changes that he is clearly a hateful misogynist.
Flora Paul Elam is one of the major players in the MRA movement, especially on the AVfM site. He is nothing if not consistent in his views on women, feminists and the whole false accusation thing. A trawl through his blog posts reveals a man who truly hates women to the depths of his soul, or fears them. One of the two.
His deeply held belief that all women make up all accusations of rape and his endless victim blaming must make very uncomfortable reading for men who are victims of rape or sexual assault, despite how he 'champions' these men.
The words he wrote in that article seem to have upset some of his ardent supporters given the comments left on it by them, and yet he defends his position repeatedly. His vitriol about rape victims and how they all deserve it is probably one of the most offensive things I've seen written on the internet.
'His deeply held belief that all women make up all accusations of rape'
He never said that all women make up all accusations of rape. That's a lie.
There are 100's of articles on A Voice For Men, not only written by P.E, plenty are written by women, including GirlWritesWhat, it is the No.1 MRA site globally with over 5 1/2 million visits clocked up, so it can't be that offensive, can it?
Then please find me an article where Paul Elam defends women who are victims of rape. Or suggests that women who accuse men of rape are telling the truth. Or in fact has anything nice, complimentary or even handed to say about women.
I do understand Sigmund that you are a female MRA, I even understand your explanation for why you are an MRA, but please don't try and excuse Elam's views as anything other than those he blogs. You will be fighting a losing battle, and make yourself look deranged/not very bright.
"it is the No.1 MRA site globally with over 5 1/2 million visits clocked up, so it can't be that offensive, can it?"
eh? since when was offensiveness determined by page hits?
I'm not trying to excuse anything, and I'm sure Paul Elam wouldn't thank me for it anyway. All I am saying, is that you cannot take that one article highlighted and say that it is representative of his views as a whole. That doesn't make me deranged or anything else.
Paul Elam has given many men a lifeline, and a voice. Having said that, there are many other writers, men and women, on AVFM now, so there is diversity there.
'Paul Elam has given many men a lifeline, and a voice.'
And these are the views that are being expressed. That is scary shit.
I can't be bothered to explain. You will see whatever you want to see, don't we all.
New name change, my actual name.
Oh if only you truly couldn't be bothered.
but you keep coming back.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Sorry. It must really gall you that in RL people can voice opinions that don't tally with yours, however they can't be moderated or banned, and if you reported them you'd look a little odd.
'the MRA view'
Paul Elam is an MRA, he is not the MRA. That's a little like saying Sheila Jeffries is the default feminist, representative of feminist thought.
Relax Sam no one's reporting you. Calm down. It's not news to us that hateful misogynists exist, you are not some sort of brave iconoclast for pointing that out. Nothing special. Except perhaps as an uncommon example of a Good Woman at an MRA meet.
I don't believe that Paul Elam is a hateful misogynist at all, I said I didn't agree with this particular article, which is fair enough I think.
I never claimed to be special or unique either. I'm not.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Haven't got time to comment right now, but glancing through the thread it appears Sigmund/Sam really got her knickers in a twist with the links to Paul Elam's hateful misogyny.
MRA pissed, my work here is done.
Urgh, I'm glad I stopped following this thread.
I came back to share today's Buzzfeed from Project Unbreakable (link on page.)
Trigger warning. I found it extremely upsetting/moving, and I'm not a man who has been raped.
Ritamin, I'm sorry you were raped and subsequently abused. I'm sorry you were taunted about it by others. I'm sorry you've been disbelieved. Thank you for telling your story.
I wrote the following on Just this subject more than a Year ago (5th October 2012)? I will reproduce it in speechmarks in a minute but All I put is still relevant & taking me a Loooooong time to recover - It's probably even More relevant now than it was then to me & my life as it's taken me this long to come around to the idea of what happened to me & Just What my
Evil Incarnate Rather Nasty ex-partner did to me but suffice to say? Yes Men most certainly Can be raped (in terms of having their Choice as to whether to partake in sexual intercourse removed which is the Real crime of Rape whatever sex is perpetrating & whichever one is suffering from it?)
As you may have guessed from my passionate advocacy of the fact that women can (& Do!!) rape men as men so often do them? I was in actual fact 'raped' & repeatedly so over a period of the 6 years me & her were together & though she often used more in the terms of threats mixed with physical force (which she could do not because she was stronger or more physically powerful than me but because I have a weakness due to an old -8 years ago now?- operation in a particular part of my face that means If I am hit in the wrong place & by the wrong (i.e. to strong?) strength of punch/attack, I can & probably Will die or be injured to the point of eventual death?
Anyway? Here's my story - I hope it opens a few eyes not just to the Hell I had to live through back then but to something that given my own experience & the sheer amount of time, walls & barriers (In my Own head more than anything else?) that I had to break down to voice what was done to me in public? And which I suspect many men in this position may also suffer from? Well I also hope it opens a few peoples' eyes to something that is I suspect if not as common as Male on Female Rape? Then something (Female on Male Rape?) Which is certainly IMO? Rather more common than many may actually think? Difference is it's just nearly Never spoken of by many men as I can testify? That doesn't mean it Does Not Happen? Indeed quite the opposite may be true but in the end with this problem & the issue of it Having to be confronted? I suspect that as with all else? Time will tell - Sooner or later? Time will tell..........
Will include my story in my next post else this one? Will probably end up Far To Large on it's own? Hope no-one minds........
Here's What happened to me as I wrote it on Mumsnet slightly more than a year ago:
"Yes in short; If you define rape as it should be defined (equally for both sexes) in terms of control & not physical features of our bodies (which IMO is how English law gets around admitting Men can be & are raped by women for reasons I know not) being the defining issue in rape? Then it becomes an issue whereby the rapist is taking something from their victim (control of their body) & having sexual intercourse with them without their consent? I'd say that pretty much is rape whatever sex the victim is.
More to the point? I speak with knowledge on this as thinking back over the 6 years of hell the
evil sorceress my ex'-fiancee put me through? There was more than one occasion when she raped me by that definition. A number of times I 'interacted' (read had sex) with her in bed as she threatened to hit me/tell lies about me to her family re' us arguing & a couple of others? I got tired/felt wrong & asked her to stop & she didn't - I let her finish until we both you know.....But after? I felt tired, worn-out, uncomfortable & a physical wreck.
That? Was nothing like I normally did with her.......... Sorry not easy talking about this - I've never written it before as a man Also? I woke up once & she was initiating sex with me & hadn't asked me - That night of all nights? I'd just been getting over being ill so she knew I was in no state for sex but went ahead anyway. In truth? I never really trusted or enjoyed sex with her after the first such of those incidents never mind the others but we grew into a 'rut' together & eventually she stopped doing that when I told her how it was turning me off her & I wanted some say In what I did/didn't do with her - I guess I never thought of it as what I'm calling it now but looking back? These instances probably were Rape as I had no control in what I did in/during & certainly by the end of them all.
As I said? I never wanted to call those instances what they now clearly were but they were rape IMO in all but name under English law anyway. Not just that either - there were many, many other issues in our relationship & I hope to God they've not damaged our DS (whose now 3 & the light of our lives) going forward -he heard us argue often (about money usually), she was EA & committed DV against me knowing I'd not strike back & was (am) in a physical state due to an op' that nearly killed me 7 years back as well & she told (& tells) so many lies & has issues with who she trusts? It just became impossible to live with her in the end. Not sorry it's ended except for not seeing my little boy regularly now but that's another (longer) story for another time.............
In answer to the OP though & the question posed? YANBU - Men can be raped by women as it is just as possible for them to take our control away about whether we have sex sometimes - maybe not as often as men can (& do I know; I've read a lot of the accounts on here & they're sick at times - I'm often ashamed to be a man at times in truth ) with women but the issue of female on male rape? Does exist & it does go on - I know for certain - it's happened to me more than 7 times; Since I speak from bitter & painful experience? The overall answer is yes.
My dark secret is out now - I've written it And I never not ever thought I'd do that. I hope all such rape by anyone on anyone stops soon - it's a horrible thing to describe & still worse to experience; And that's something? I thought I'd never write as I was never going to tell a single soul about this - Feels odd having written it like this but 'tis the effect of MN? I think? Couldn't hide it any longer & just everything came out at a flood - sorry if my experiences or describing them upsets anyone? Is what happened to me was all; I just hope this horrid crime ends soon or is wiped out. We can but hope I guess..............
NB And when I said "She threatened to hit me/tell lies about me to her family re' us arguing & a couple of others? I Actually meant something rather more specific - She threatened at least Twice? To tell her family that I had R***d Her? I didn't want to say that as it was bad enough that this was precisely what she'd done to me in the end but it's true? She also threatened to tell them that I'd coerced her with violence, threatened to take our son from her permanently?
This BTW? Is something that eventually happened after a court case lasting 3 years & her taking him away After we'd made an agreement at court with a judge that she kept for a month & then broke - Fleeing 400 miles away with him & igniting the Judge into a nuclear Explosion of temper the likes of which I've rarely seen inside a court & certainly Never seen aimed at a woman until then? To say he was enraged by her lack of faith in his word & the agreement we'd made & the way she broke it so flippantly? Well that's an understatement to say the least & it was her taking our son like that & in the words of the Boy's Social Worker? "Putting Her Own Needs above that of Her Child? That eventually paved the way for me to gain Permanent Residence & Full Custody of him where he now lives & is so much happier & settled just over one year Later? I hope that long may that continue.....
Anyhow As I said a year ago? The other 2 ways beside making threats of What she'd say to her family about me? Was either waiting until I was nearly asleep & then starting & Knowing that I'd not resist &/or ignoring me until she was finished & using whatever physical strength she needed (she was a big girl who used to play rugby & had a hard punch? She used to batter the hell out of me & hit me with all sorts - Tons of Domestic Violence? As well) to restrain & keep me there until she'd finished often with threats from her of hitting me in the Exact spot on my jaw that could kill me if hit wrong?
She either did the two above Or was also fond of waiting until I was actually asleep & when I woke up? Either again forcing me physically to stay there & finish Again with threats of hitting me in my vulnerable jaw spot or convincing me that I'd started willingly by saying "oh you agreed/you wanted this" etc so I remained quiet & complied even when I Knew I didn't want it?
Either way & whatever method she used? All Three were despicable & Just Wrong & I would say the same if a man had done this to a woman (although I know they often only use strength due to their advantage in that area?) I still think that This sort of blackmail is just as bad believe me? (And weaker men Do use similar tactics from time to time or so I've heard from a few ladies I've known down the years regarding the odd really bad bloke they've come across)
Whatever happened as I said & still believe? The Real Crime & the one that Truly defines you as having been raped whatever sex you or your attacker were IMO? Is that they All without fail? Removed my ability to have a Choice In whether I had sex or not? That in truth is what was & always will be wrong & something no-one man or woman should ever be forced to endure. I hope it would change & this sort of abuse by people against vulnerable others would end but with the world the nasty way it is in many ways? I suspect it may not change anytime soon.....................
thank you for sharing, redline. how did you eventually manage to escape from your abuser?
Sorry I haven't replied on here for Ages & Ages payhisdebt? I Promise I Will answer your question re' How I escaped the
Creatur 'Woman' that Did all that horrible stuff to me in full & address the whole situation properly soon when I have time but to answer it in short for now as to How I escaped her?
In short? I didn't - I eventually Made Her leave me? As to how? Simple? I broke her heart? Deliberately........ Yes it's Simple? And no doubt probably will be seen as a little cold some of you Ladies will probably think? And you'd be right but it was that or........Me Feeling for many years more than the 6 I actually did waste nearly completely (barring always of course our son?) with her?
Anyhow? She was actually the one who came to discuss us gettin back together a 3rd time that night she left me forever way back in February 2012? Suffice to say her pretence lasted only enough time for her to get through my front door into our (Me & My Son's now?) Home? After that? I got the Full Bloody Barrage from her? I could Feel the poison, venom & sheer hatred of me rolling Off of her in waves like dark, choking, almost tangible clouds? The very Air in our living room seemed to change As she spoke? And she didn't hold back either? As I said? I soon got absolutely F**king Bombarded by her about everything to Do with me practically?
She ranted & raved on about how I was an embarrassment, a waste of space, a disgrace, Not my son's Dad possibly (look at the two of us together & you'll See that little insult for the complete & utter Trash it was!! The Phrase 'Mini-me'? Really does not do the two of us justice? He's my double in All Bar Age? ); She carried on her crap & venom with stuff about How my son would forget me & (Most Hurtful of all?) Why didn't I just go Back to the hospital that gave me the operation that changed everything in my life in 2005 (& damn near ended it!! )? Why Didn't I go back, complete the job & just Die she said? The world would apparently be better off without me & my son would soon forget me she continued?
Anyway after that? I was already falling in love with a woman (soon to be my next Girlfriend & first after She had finally gone?) I Used something about that to break my Boy's mum's heart deliberately then? I'd just had enough & wanted her gone before you ask why I did this? I Knew My boy couldn't live with all this either not to mention being plain exhausted & battered myself (in body, heart & mind? from All the abuse of every sort?) After I did this to her? She showed me in a reaction she Tried so hard to hide just How much I'd hurt her? And then? She was gone - that was 2 & a bit years ago & 6 more of our Full relationship stood behind us by then? I still haven't recovered from the (Mental & Emotional Mainly?) Damage she did to me up to & including that night?
In truth? I don't know If I ever will? I Do know One thing though? Had she somehow worked it out with me & Stayed? One of us (probably me given just How & Evil bad she got towards the Very End with me?) Would Not be here now & I mean every word of that? I'm just glad she's gone now & I can have my life back? I'm rebuilding it with a new woman now & my son by my side until he's grown it? I'm not perfect but compared to what I Was stuck in with Her? I'm in As perfect a place as my life Will Ever Get now? And Long May that continue..........
Sorry this was long? It's actually the Short Version of what went on around Her Leaving & Why? I'll post the rest of the details another time? Suffice to say one thing though before I finish all this for now? I don't normally ever get bad enough about someone to Feel like this? But I really Do Hate Her for All she's done & for trying to drag our son into it all as well? Further to all that? I actually lost a child with the above mentioned next GF as well in the short 11 months we were together? And the Ex/My Boy's Mum
Evil Witch Eventually managed (partly due to How I broke her heart in February 2012?) to eventually completely destroy (or cause the collapse of?) that entire relationship 2 days before Christmas 2012?
She did that in addition to ruining as well? 2 More of My relationships I've had Since Leaving her meaning she's ruined 3 of the 5 relationships I've been in Since leaving her which is more than Half? I'm with my 6th GF since Leaving her now & have been on & off since Start of December 2013 but we've been in a Full Relationship since New Year's Day? Suffice to say? My ex' will know Nothing about this one if I have anything to do with it? And I Fully intend to have plenty to do with it? And then some..............
Anyway all the crap from ex' after we Finally Split for good? Then soon led To My Ex' Girlfriend's Miscarriage? Something I will Never? Not Ever forgive my Boy's mum for & easily The Main reason Why I Truly Hate Her so much now? That anniversary (04-01-13 was when it happened?) was a few weeks ago as well so I've Not been coping great recently? Anyhow? I'm Sorry for the long wait & hope you & the other Lovely Ladies & Good Gents (There Are a few of us I know?) on here All Had Fantastic Christmases in the Holiday just gone on & Wonderful New Years to? Speak Again Soon payhisrent? Or you can inbox me if you like? Keep Well Everyone & I'll write again soon......
NB Thank You for All the support, understanding, Help & advice I've received on here? Both during The Very Worst Year of my life (2012) when I didn't see my boy for a very long time & nearly lost our home to? And all the times since? It means a lot & I'll Never Forget it or be able to put into words just How Very, Very Grateful I've been for all that I've gotten from Mumsnet Since I joined here & needed Help?
In my experience this is relatively common. I don't think the women involved see anything wrong with it even though they would naturally be horrified were it done to them.
It's very simple. Women cannot rape men. Anything otherwise is an MRA fantasy.
Not true FloraFox & bein one of those (relatively) rare men who it Has happened to whose now Spoken about it & revealed just what was done to me 7 Times? Well I can tell you now that firstly I believe that UK Law is the one that has what is defined as the crime of Rape? Wrong & incomplete?
I say this for one Very Big Reason FloraFox? That being as English Law in respect of Rape? Well, it Only Ever (& Wrongly?) focuses on the Physical threat & differences between Men & Women that Means the vast majority of Rapes are done To women By Us Men & they are wrong yes? However there is another type of Rape to? One we rarely hear about as it's not just one that weaker men can & do use on women? It's one that women Can & Do carry out on men? One that I myself have had used on me at least 7 times by my ex'? It's a type of rape where the Consent of the victim is taken away by a mixture of physical force & threats/blackmail to Force them to comply or shut them up If they wake up with something happening to them?
I'm sorry but That is what was done to me & It Was Damn Well a form of Rape? It was done at least 7 times to me at the hands of the -horrific creatu-- My evil cow of an ex? I feel Very, Very Strongly Indeed about all this & kept it quiet for years before breaking down in tears after talkin to my Junior Barrister (a woman?) a couple of years ago in the case over my son while in a Court Side Room? I didn't hug, hold hands with or even Touch? Never Mind Want to be with or touch intimately with a woman for nearly 2 years because of all this? It completely screwed my head & emotions up? Wrecked me Mentally & left me often cryin for No reason or so it seemed? As one final blow? It then left me needing Counselling from a female counsellor now to help me get my head around it & understand & Try to move on from it all?
In addition to an operation that left me on painkillers nearly as strong as morphine for My Entire Life & with steel plates in my face that cause me awful headaches? Not to mention trouble walkin after tearing ankle ligaments & having terrible nosebleeds From that operation (which went Very wrong?) waay back in 2005? Well suffice to say what that
dark evil thing B**ch Did to me? Destroyed me for a while I'm not afraid to say? It also damaged me very, very deeply & then I read here you goin & putting that Women Cannot Rape Men as a Fact & implying that believing Otherwise? Is nothing But a Fantasy?
Well I'm Sorry FloraFox but I Do Not accept that At All & Never Will? Not Now? Not Ever.......Indeed? It actually makes me quite upset reading that & were it a man telling a woman Men Cannot rape them? He'd be castigated & rightly so? Why Should it be any different for me just because I'm a man? Humans Can rape each other & as I've Always said? The Real crime of Rape? Is not the physical act done by One Man/Woman To another Man/Woman? No the Real Crime is the absolute Removal &/or overriding of Their Free Will & Choice as to whether They are the ones who Want to have Sexual Intercourse Or Not? And That can happen all to easily to men & most definitely Can (& Does as I found out? ) happen to some Men at the hands of Women?
I'm sorry but to say Men Cannot Ever be raped Full Stop By Women? Is inaccurate & most certainly Wrong - I was? Seven Times at Least. And no-one will Ever, Ever convince me that This was anything But rapes she committed on & did to me with a mixture of blackmail & force that wouldn't work on another man (as I could die very easily If hit in the wrong place due to the Plates In My Face unlike most other people? And I do mean Instantly?) And the reason being? Because Rape? Is Exactly What it Was? I wish someone would believe me? To find you do not & even deny that such a crime as was done to Me Cannot Exist? Makes me feel more sad & upset than fo a long while? It Really Hurt me more than you will Ever know....................... Sigh
I will go now but I hope you read my words & my story above on this page (despite it's length?) in Full? Then just maybe? You will see & understand just How wrong your final assertion there was FloraFox? As I will end this by saying exactly What was done to me & tellin you? It most certainly Is Indeed possible? My Name? My Real Name? Is Simon - And my Ex' Raped me not once but a number of times & she Did it? By taking away My choice as to whether we Had sex or not? I hope you believe me in time as you, I or any other would (& Should) Any Woman who said this happened to her? Take Care? I think I'll go now as I need a lie-down & feel very sad with a headache at All the awful, dark & just very bad memories This & writing about it has brought me Yet again? I'm off to a dark room now for a sleep? Bye for now & keep well everyone & in future? I hope Someone Listens to what I have to say as I can assure you all? I most certainly Did Not Make all this up? It Was Done to me? And I Named what
that Evil B**tch My Ex' did to me as being Rape Because Reason Being? That was Exactly What it Was & always will have been.................Sigh - [Sad]
redline what you describe is assault and sexual assault. Rape requires penetration with a penis, it is a specific type of sexual assault carried out by men against women and less often against other men. Other sexual assaults can be serious and damaging but they are not rape.
I can't read your posts, redline, the punctuation is fucked, so it doesn't make any sense.
In This Country yes Florafox? Your description of rape as described by English Law (& I should know? I studied Law for nearly 4 years?) is correct but that's actually Not the case for other countries around the world which I believe is right? Rape is More? Much more than just a crime committed against Females? How many times do you hear women who Have suffered it talking about losing Their choice as to whether to participate or not? Being Upset & violated at the Lack of Consent on Their part? Now if That happens to a Man? I repeat? What is different about it?
As I said? This Countries Law May (Very Much Erroneously if you ask me?) View it as Only being possible for a rape to have occurred because a man has done it to a woman? But in a number of others? Including the United States? Rape is defined as occurring when a person has their Choice as to whether to participate in sex or not removed as being the Real Crime? And that? Can indeed be done To men as well as by them? I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree but I think if it can be (& is?) done to One sex? It is certainly possible it can be done To them as well by the other?
This article from The Oregon Herald; A US Newspaper?
This one from PolicyMic.com (I think?) A US website with various legal articles
And This One from LegalMatch - A US Law Site?
All Help explain the view taken on Female On Male Rape & that it most certainly in all three views? Does exist in the US? I think myself that the Law there while often inferior to or derived from English Law in some ways? Has Much the better of English in this respect? Over there? Rape is a "Gender-Neutral" Crime & IMO? That's exactly What it is? If anyone asks me ever what went on with my ex'? I call it that as I had No choice as to whether to participate & we can spar all day about If it was Only Sexual Assault/Aggrevated SA or indeed Rape of some sort but I know deep down in my Heart - What it was & Just how violated I felt from it? And despite me not being female or some Ladies not agreeing with me? I Know that Deep Down I still feel like that now almost 4 years later? I always have done & I Always will do............[Sad]
If, as we have to assume, you're in the UK, then you cannot, under English law have been raped. What has happened to you, I'm guessing, as I found your posts so difficult to read, is awful, but isn't rape, it is sexual assault. It is the fault of society at large, and patriarchal society in particular, that sexual assault is seen as so much lesser than rape, but it isn't, as your posts attest.
Rape, by it's definition, isn't gender neutral, it is a violation of another, by a man, with his penis. Sexual assault, which is what you allege has happened to you, is gender neutral.
Rape is not a gender neutral crime. English law rightly recognises the specific nature of rape as an offence carried out by men on (predominantly) women. In a culture where women have long been oppressed by men, rape is one tool by which women's subordination is reinforced. It is also the only crime which can produce a child. Your individual situation (I'm not clear what it was, but don't feel obliged to elaborate) is sad and reflects your individual relationship with that woman. Women as a class are raised with the spectre of rape shadowing their entire lives by men they know and men they don't know. It is most certainly not a gender neutral crime.
In this country it isn't a gender neutral crime but in many others it is.
I believe you Redline.
I believe Redline too. I am very sorry he was sexually assaulted by his ex.
He wasn't raped though, because he can't be raped by a woman. It doesn't matter whether or not a particular legislature has decided to water down the gendered nature of rape. It is what it is.
As feminists focus on male on female. One in 3 lesbians experiencing partner sexual assault is pretty prevalent too, wouldn't you say? Ergo they don't actually care about women, they really only care about hating men etc...
There are a lot more straight women, and lesbians too, raped by men than lesbians raped by other lesbians. This is because lesbians comprise a very small proportion of the female population.
Since rape by men affects both straight and lesbian women and since vastly more women of all stripes are affected by that crime than sexual assault by other women, I think it makes sense to point out that it happens and to try to provide services to help victims, and of course to try to put an end to it. Rape is such a priority that nobody even knows how to count instances of the crime. Your analogy doesn't work.
I know a man now in his 40s who was targeted as a teenager by an older woman (who was imo a sexual predator and had very likely done the same thing before to others). The teen in question looked taller and more muscular than his age would warrant but she knew he was a minor. If his mother hadn't been very alert her son would have been assaulted.
Redline, you had a horrible experience at the hands of a cruel person, but by law it wasn't rape even in the US (same article as above).
I think there is a lot merit in broadening the definition of who can legally rape and be raped, and broadening the definition of rape to include anal and oral sex taken/inflicted without consent. I certainly think in the case of the US it behoves all people to fight to stop the attempts by the right to make the definition of rape apply to only a small portion of rapes -- see the last election campaign for a few horrifying comments by candidates in the context of abortion policy, and also reports of judges making remarks about rape, etc. Maybe now is the time to not just fight back against the religious right but to push further. I think including assault of men by women under the definition of rape would highlight the issue of consent, which is at the heart of rape. This issue of consent is not understood by enough people.
Redline you understand it completely .
SF, if Elam doesn't mean what he wrote, or if what he wrote in those links wasn't representative then I think he himself is very capable of having them removed or posting an article explaining himself.
You write words. They have a certain meaning. That is how you get your point across. If you change your mind or realise that wasn't what you meant to say you retract or remove or both.
I'm struggling for the right words here, but isn't there something in the power imbalance that makes it different?
No, there is nothing in the power balance that makes it different imo. The issue is always consent, pure and simple.
No always means no.
Only Yes means yes.
Read Elam's words and note above all his attempt to say there is really no such thing as No, or Yes; to completely fudge the idea that consent or refusal is easily ascertained directly from the other person and if it is not then he should not proceed, and assert instead that if the perpetrator thinks his victim wants sex then he can go ahead and have sex (of course this is all justification of entitlement).
Read what Twibble said about the feeling his house had been burgled. Read what Redline said about choice.
"I think including assault of men by women under the definition of rape would highlight the issue of consent, which is at the heart of rape."
I totally disagree. This would be a false attempt to gender neutralise the reality of male violence against women. The heart of rape is violence against women inflicted by means of a penis as a weapon. It is at the heart of women's oppression as can be seen in rape in war, "corrective rape" of lesbians, rape culture in the media, rape to punish a woman, rape to disrespect another man. The list goes on.
This last article about rape in the UK starts off with gender neutral language about children raping and sexually assaulting children but the detail of the numbers makes it clear that girls and young women are the targets, the young girls and women are not sexually assaulting the young boys.
If we have any chance of dealing with this problem, we need to be able to name the problem. The problem is male violence against women and when it is inflicted with a penis, that is rape.
Yes the 'legal' definition of rape in this county makes it something that only men can commit (thus making men the ultimate bad guys!! Hooray!).
However the 'legal' definition of something is not necessarily the same as the 'meaning' and contrary to what some might want to believe, the meaning of rape is indeed very gender neutral - it is simply in the taking by force/without consent. You only need to carry out relatively surface level research to know and accept that this is true, and observing that most rapes [legally speaking] are committed by men, doesn't change this.
If Redline has had something taken from him without his consent, that is rape, and he is perfectly entitled to call it so. There was a time when a man could not 'legally' rape his 'wife'. Would you care to correct a wife whose husband had forced himself on her during that time, that she wasn't actually raped because that's not what the law says rape is?
I generally don't understand the fervent desire by some (feminists typically) to 'own' rape as something men do to women. Does it really lessen the seriousness if women could 'legally' rape men? This kind of position indicates not so much an interest in 'equality', but in the retention of some manner of special victim status for women.
I am of black African descent raised in the UK, and have experienced rascist crime. The overwhelming majority of the rascist crime I have been privy to during my lifetime has been 'white on black' if you will. However, it would be frankly silly of me to believe that the racism I have suffered as a black person would be somehow diminished by the legal recognition that white people can suffer the same thing.
Yes, the penis is involved and since women don't have them only men can legally rape under current law, but the crux of the matter is lack of consent.
Lack of asking for explicit consent, or taking previous consent as current consent, or inferring consent from dress, behaviour (all sorts of elements that are in the eye of the beholder and are convenient ex post facto justifications) -- not the penetration per se but the fact that it is done without consent is the heart of the crime of rape. The criminalisation of rape within marriage went some way towards increasing awareness of the idea that lack of consent is the issue, and not how some young single women dress or where they go after dark or how much they drink, or how much of a fight they put up once attacked.
Focusing on consent as the key element of rape as opposed to penetration would make the problem far easier to understand for neanderthals like Elam and the rest of the MRA who apparently do not think something is a problem unless it affects men, although admittedly it is clear that they do not acknowledge the rape of men by other men as an issue, and of course they use the alleged scale of the problem of women attacking men as a way to attack women's campaign against rape. While I acknowledge that women can and do assault men, I do not think the issue of women assaulting men is a problem on the same scale as men assaulting other men, which by some estimates affects about 10% of men. I have to say it would be nice to see someone like Elam who clearly thinks women are members of another species and can legitimately be hunted as if they are some sort of prey having to admit that men also suffer assault, and similar devastation after assault, and above all that they are assaulted by other men and sometimes women.
The fear is that equality of victimhood will mean that all that women have gone through and continue to go through will be erased as men elbow women and women's experience over the millennia aside and milk it for all it's worth. I think this is a valid fear given that there is an organisation in the first place campaigning to preserve men's rights against alleged attack.
On the whole however, I think one way to attack the idea that rape basically doesn't exist, that it is all she said/he said, unquantifiable, impossible to define, etc., is to have men stand up and say they were raped, by women, yes, but more importantly as far as the cultural politics go, by other men. Until men get involved in the conversation about rape, and converse as equals, there is no conversation possible. It is always going to be a case of women banging their heads against a brick wall and groups like the MRA and religious right spewing misogyny at whoever will listen - the net losers will be women who are already very much silenced.
In the long run I think women have more to gain from focus on the issue of consent, which I think would be the outcome of men coming out about being raped, because the likes of the MRA (there are lots of fellow travellers with half baked Neanderthal ideas about rape) would have difficulty explaining what exactly it was about the behaviour or dress of men that suggested they were 'asking for it' without completely exposing themselves as the rape apologists that they are. It would be difficult for them to explain what made some men entitled to rape other men, or what made some men deserve to be raped - far more difficult than it is for them to assert that men are entitled to rape women. Even in the case of accepting that women can and do rape men, which of course would be trumpeted loudly by MRA types, the issue that would come to the fore is that of consent.
It is important that rape remain a crime distinct from sexual assault. And it is nothing to do with attempts to make men as a class out to be 'bad guys' or to confer victim status to women as a class. Rather, it is a statement of fact; of biological fact and of sociological fact.
Rape is an act of male dominance. Of biological dominance and of social dominance. Rape (and fear of rape) contributes to maintaining a system of social hierarchy in which men dominate and women are oppressed.
Rape is an act in which the penis becomes a weapon, and it is a weapon that women are very afraid of because it can impregnate us.
Rape is used as a weapon of war in the ultimate act of male dominance - an act of violence on entire communities by forcibly penetrating their female members.
Never in human history have women used mass sexual assault on men as a weapon of war or act of dominance. Girls do not routinely use the sexual assault of boys in gang culture hierarchy dominance. Women do not mass pimp out men to be sexually assaulted for money by women. Women do not traffic hundreds of thousands of men for the purpose of being sexually assaulted by other women. Women do not use sexual assault or fear of sexual assault to keep men off the streets and out of female dominated areas of power.
No man, after being sexually assaulted by a woman, will ever have to do a medical test to find out if he now has a piece of that woman growing inside his body. No child will ever be born, aborted, adopted, or killed as a victim of infanticide after a man has been sexually assaulted by a woman. No man will ever be dominated in an abusive relationship by being forcibly impregnated by his wife. No communities will ever be colonised by outside women sexually assaulting the men.
Rape is a gendered crime, and the law reflects this.
Great post, beach. Trying to make out that that rape and sexual violence isn't gendered is (almost) at the top of the MRA agenda.
That is all undeniable. There is of course a very compelling argument that rape is a gendered crime.
Sadly, men in general do not want to know, and see women's description of historical oppression as well as the impact of rape on our consciousness as a personal attack. They are apparently able to avoid acknowledging that rape is a problem created and inflicted upon the world by something innate in masculine nature.
It is too easy for men to avoid thinking about the problem because it is one that affects only women. It is too easy for men to look at rape in war and congratulate themselves that they or their ancestors were on the side that didn't do that, or that that is something only uncivilised Africans or hate-filled Serbs or cruel Russians would do to women -- it's something other men do, and recounting of historical oppression with rape as a tool thereof makes them very defensive on an individual or tribal level.
As seen fairly recently in the US, it is an item of belief that the issue of pregnancy resulting from rape is a non-starter because women's bodies are able to stop conceiving if 'real rape' has occurred . There's mental gymnastics for you. And then there is the subset of men who do not have enough empathy to understand how much rape hurts women because deep down they hate women and do not see them as human. I am not sure rational argument would sway them at all.
It's fairly clear when women are being raped en masse by invading armies what is going on (even if that spectacle only reinforces the belief that that is only done by other men). In the here and now, in the pub carpark, at the party or out on the date, or at home in bed with your husband, the issue of consent is paramount, and too easy to sidestep thanks to a convenient mental trick of seeing women's speech as unreliable when it comes to indicating what they want or don't want, as if they speak some alien or non-human language. It is too easy to portray women as beings who communicate in extra linguistic ways, who 'ask for it' telepathically. More mental gymnastics of course. This can only happen and can only be got away with when individual men feel completely entitled to use women/see women as less than human/have got the message that their behaviour is acceptable. If something only happens to women or if it only affects women badly, then in the minds of some men, it is not all that significant. The idea that men can share the position of being preyed upon (primarily by other men but also by women) might make inroads into the tendency to see rape of women as something that happens to beings that are somehow alien.
Women themselves for a long time bought into the reasoning that if a woman had been raped there must have been contributing factors on her part. Many still hold this belief. Women for their part have been conditioned to accept that there is something about some women that makes rape inevitable or even deserved, certainly not something they have a right to complain about. Again, the spectacle of rape in war is different; however, it's easy to avoid the big picture of general male oppression and see it as the work of specific armies or ethnic or racial groups, somewhere else, and not something any individual man is capable of doing to any individual woman.
The net result of the patriarchal system (which imo includes capitalism and acceptability of rape) can be seen in the few men who are very well off financially and a majority who struggle. I think if socialism (and other alternatives to capitalism) managed to appeal to people who have been the losers in capitalism then it will also be possible to define rape in a way that makes men sit up and understand it could happen to them. Just as asserting that rape can happen within marriage served to raise consciousness of what constitutes rape among women (and some men) and steer many away from the idea that rape is done to scantily dressed young women of 'loose morals', consciousness raising among men that men can also be raped would go far towards erasing the notion that it is about anything other than consent of the victim (as a matter of legal definition) and entitlement on the part of the perpetrator.
I feel the MRA may well end up hoist by its own petard if the definition of rape is extended.
olathelawyer05 wrote - "If Redline has had something taken from him without his consent, that is rape, and he is perfectly entitled to call it so."
Rape is one type of sexual assault.
My understanding is that, in English law, sexual assault covers 3 situations:
1) sexual assault - which covers sexual contact without consent and without penetration. Perpetrators and victims can be female or male.
2) sexual assault by penetration - which covers sexual contact without consent, including penetration by an object other than a penis. Perpetrators and victims can be female or male.
3) rape - which covers penetration by a penis without consent. Perpetrators can be male only. Victims can be female or male.
"having something taken without consent" does not make it rape. This phrase also applies to the other types of sexual assault as well as non-sexual crimes such as theft, burglary, fraud etc. Absence of consent is a major feature of rape but it is not the defining characteristic of rape.
Why are some people trying to change the meaning of rape to become any type of sexual assault, with or without penetration and with or without a penis? Who does this benefit? It benefits the people who want to obscure the gendered nature of rape.
Although men and boys can be rape victims, two of the reasons why rape is a gendered type of sexual assault are that only males are doing the raping and only females risk pregnancy from being raped.
Rape and the other types of sexual assault are all terrible crimes that can have devastating effects on the victims, but this does not mean that all types of sexual assault are gender-neutral or the same in every way, as if they were interchangeable.
Women, girls, boys and men can be raped by male rapists. This does not appear to be Redline's situation.
I hope male rapists will stop raping women, girls, boys and men.
I hope male sexual assaulters will stop sexually assaulting women, girls, boys and men.
I hope female sexual assaulters will stop sexually assaulting women, girls, boys and men.
Not all females risk pregnancy from rape.
The effect on a dishonoured father or husband of a raped women was the main problem with rape, historically, and the danger of pregnancy resulting from rape was seen as primarily one borne by the men whose chattel or child the woman was since he would be providing for a child inveigled into his household illicitly.
Also in reference to Beach's post, rape of men and boys by conquering armies was a feature of ancient war and possibly of modern war too.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
I would not want to see oral or anal rape, or vaginal rspe with a condom or of a woman past menopause reclassified because they cannot result in pregnancy , though.
Sexual assault of the nature Redline described (and I am sorry that happened to you, Redline) I believe has the same sentencing guidelines as rape ie that degree of sexual assault is taken as seriously as rape by the law.
ola before the law was changed, marriage was a defence to a criminal charge of rape. The law recognised the act of rape against a married woman but provided a defence to the husband based on the marriage. Of course those women were raped.
math I can't agree with what you say on any level. More men are likely to say they would love it if they were raped. I think it would diminish the impact of rape. Hence a joke I once saw on television told by a man after a woman teacher was convicted of having sex with a male pupil that the boy had subsequently died of high-fiving. Lots of men think this way. I also would prefer for men to recognise that women are human and their penises are not weapons. I don't think that's too much to ask.
I didn't know that about how rape in marriage worked, thanks Flora.
Isn't the high fiving stuff just another load of patriarchal bullshit, though? As in, it's "not macho" for a man to be physically assaulted by a (weak) woman so let's pretend it was what he wanted all along rather than draw attention to his lack of power in that situation?
Not all females risk pregnancy from rape.
No, we don't. But rape - the act of a man forcibly penetrating a woman with his penis is an act of male dominance and violence that is also symbolic of women's subjugation. And the root of women's subjugation is that we are the ones that carry and birth babies. We are the ones that can be impregnated. Rape is a class issue.
In other words, rape, and rape culture, is very much about keeping women in their (rightful according to society) place; subordinate.
I would not want to see oral or anal rape, or vaginal rspe with a condom or of a woman past menopause reclassified because they cannot result in pregnancy , though.
Sorry for multiple posts but just wanted to say that this is what I mean about the symbolism that is present in addition to the violence in rape, and about rape being a class issue.
It is about women as a class being the class that are impregnated and therefore the sex class; the rapeable class. This is what girls and women are for. This is our status within social hierarchy. And rape reminds us of this and puts us in place.
And this stands true regardless of whether a pregnancy actually occurs as the result of an individual rape.
Hence a lot of the really shocking victim blaming we see in rape culture, particularly WRT to underage girls. They are going to be fucked by a man at some point in their lives, right? so it isn't that big a deal if it happens without her consent or when she is young.
If we change the legal definition of rape to be something that happens to men too, we blur the lines. We make it harder to challenge and analyse rape as a sex class issue whilst the actual social hierarchy and power dynamic that rape as VAW is founded on, remains untouched and unexamined. Which of course is what MRAs want.
Rape can be defined as an act of terrorism (radical feminists often define it that way). It is intrinsic to the systematic oppression of women as a class by men as a class. It is political.
Defining rape as something that women can do to men has political ramifications for women as it invisiblizes background power structures and the system of social organisation that places men as higher status than women via the construct of sex.
Ah, gotcha. That makes sense.
Beachcomber, Are you saying that men, as a group, think rape is a legitimate way to keep women subjugated? Sorry if that question seems naive to you, I'm just trying to understand your perspective.
No. I'm saying that women are subjugated by male violence, including rape and other sexual violence. And that this is a gendered and class issue.
I don't know whether men as a group think that rape is a legitimate way to keep women subjugated; you would have to ask men that and your answer would no doubt vary from man to man and culture to culture. I doubt many men would admit that sexual violence is a factor in women's oppression TBH. And yet it happens, the world over, all the time.
I think it is more common than believed, not as common as women's or children's rape though.
See this video:
I have not read 13 pages, so apologies if this has already been covered. But the more I read on MN FWR, the more I realise that the shit that happens to men is not a fight for feminists to take part in. I don't think enough men realise this, hence the whataboutery from so-called MRA's. Obviously they call it out as they see it as some sort of achilles heel within feminism, but it is spectacularly missing the point.
vesuvia "..."having something taken without consent" does not make it rape.""
Yes it does - I suspect you haven't read my post property. You are confusing the 'meaning' of rape with its 'legal' definition under English law.
One nation can 'rape' another, and that is not an analogy to 'sexual' rape - it comes from the fact that the meaning of the word goes beyond a the simple case of a man forcing himself sexually on another person....Hence why Redline is free to describe what happened to him as rape even if English law does not agree with him.
All sexual assault is sexual contact without consent; tape is a specific form of such assault.
ola redline can describe what happened to him any way he wants. He can't demand that everyone else agrees with that description.
what is taken in the context of rape?
"...what is taken in the context of rape?"
Your choice/right to consent or otherwise to what is happening to you.
You don't have to agree with Redline but his use of the term is factually correct, if not legally so under English law.
If you use words so loosely, anything could be rape, any sexual assault on a woman could be rape. Is that what you had in mind?
I don't know if your assertion 'More men are likely to say they would love it if they were raped' is one you can prove.
I also would prefer for men to recognise that women are human and their penises are not weapons. I don't think that's too much to ask.
I agree with this, though I think the power play is done by men to men too, and for the same reason it is done to women.
There is nothing loose about the idea that consent is at the heart of rape. Hence the hours and hours spent in courtrooms arguing about it, decisions to go ahead with prosecution or not based on how clear it was that lack of consent was present and how hard it would be to prove, historical reliance on the character and reputation of victims to back up assertions that consent wasn't given, and the debate over the concept of rape within marriage. before the law was changed, marriage was a defence to a criminal charge of rape. The law recognised the act of rape against a married woman but provided a defence to the husband based on the marriage. Of course those women were raped. They were raped because they did not give consent every single time. This law highlighted the concepts that women are not property of their husbands, and that they are capable of withholding or giving consent even after marriage.
"Defining rape as something that women can do to men has political ramifications for women as it invisiblizes background power structures and the system of social organisation that places men as higher status than women via the construct of sex."
Maintaining the current definition only serves to marginalise the crime precisely because women are silenced in our society, and 'women's issues' are filed under 'Ignore - invisible - irrelevant'. I think changing the definition would result in exposing the power dynamic inherent to the very hierarchical nature of male society (in which the majority of men themselves are losers.) I think it might help us all acknowledge our shared humanity.
mathanxiety, I think I understand the sentiment behind your view. That if rape is something that happens to boys and men too, it will be taken more seriously than if it is just something that happens to girls and women.
Except, that is currently the case anyway, boys and men can be victims of rape - I don't know a great deal about how seriously male on male rape is taken, but I don't see male on female rape being taken seriously by society, despite rape being something men can be victims of.
I don't see how changing law, to say that women can be the perpetrators of rape too, will change this. How exactly would a woman rape a man or another woman? Currently rape is defined as two elements; penetration with a penis without consent . If you say that women can rape, you are taking away 1 of those two elements.
I do not understand to what purpose; what exactly do you think would be achieved, and how? Women having sex with men who do not consent to it is already a sexual offence.
Acts that women (as well as men) can commit are covered in the 2003 Sexual Offences Act as assault by penetration or sexual assault or Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent
Consent, or lack of, or inability to give, is an element to all of these sexual offences, as is the element that the perpetrator "does not reasonably believe that B consents".
Rape is a distinct category of sexual offence because it involves a penis. If you change the definition to be something that women can do too, all you do is disappear rape, it doesn't exist anymore.
This has been the case in Canada, for example, and there doesn't seem to be an improvement for women WRT to the matter of unwanted penetration with a penis - something they now call sexual assault. Indeed, this change in the law has made things worse, and it has done nothing to change societal attitudes, rape culture, male supremacy, women's safety or anything else. www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/how-canadas-sex-assault-laws-violate-rape-victims/article14705289/?page=all
Bloody hell, beach, there some awful stuff in that article.
Yes, meant to say, apologies for the ghastly stuff about the poor young menz needing to learn how to hold their alcohol in case it makes them rape someone and the implication that drugged women only have themselves to blame and are fair game.
I think we can see that doing away with rape has not done away with victim blaming, misogyny, etc...
I think wrangling over legal terminology or making comments on Redline's punctuation of his trauma is really not on. It's one thing to discuss the reality that males perpetrate the overwhelming majority of sexual violence, another to discount a personal account of trauma because it doesn't fit a neat overarching cultural narrative.
I had a very traumatic lesbian experience in my early teens which was violent, intended to humiliate and destroy me. The fact this may be rare etc is really immaterial in the context of my life. It happened. It had a huge effect on me. I also had a man drunkenly penetrate me while I slept at a party e.g 'rape' me in my mid-20's but it was nowhere near as violent or shaming as the earlier experience and I really do view it as about this man being totally socially inept and sexually unskilled and thinking he had consent because I showed up in his house. Like Twibble above it disgusted and irritated me he would take this liberty with my body but there is just no comparison with what went on in my other experience which was wholly about abuse and the perpetration of pain through overpowering me. I can't even give details of that, I can barely think about it.
Half the problem with current definitions of rape is that no, it's not the same to wake up with a man penetrating you at a party as it is to be subject to a violent attack. The shame and trauma of the former is largely a cultural construction. I don't think men should go round ignoring others' physical boundaries and sticking their dicks where they feel like it because they can but I don't agree that it helps that we have a 'rape is rape is rape' line either, that drunken penetration at a party is in the same category as any assault that is intended as an act of violence, that is intended to wound.
I know practically it is impossible to really define the parameters where the intention for an assault can be legally proven and so we have these crude but operational definitions. However, I would say that trauma related to assault arises out of the intention regardless of gender... It's about subjugation, humiliation, destruction. Yes many many more men partake in this and culturally there's a huge issue that needs addressing but it diminishes for me what really causes severe and sustained human distress in these situations, which is not necessarily gender specific. It's the threat and fear of violence (physical or psychological) and shame that really defines 'rape' for me.
Ninjago1978, I'm very sorry to hear of both your experiences of sexual attack.
Thankfully the law does differentiate between rape without additional violence (the rape itself is already considered an act of violence) and rape with additional violence. The additional violence is not covered under the Sexual Offences Act as that piece of legislation deals with the specifically sexual nature of an offence. Additional violence is covered under "Offences Against the Person" - a rape charge that involves an injury or beating will involve other charges such as common assault, ABH, GBH, etc depending on the severity of the violence and the injuries sustained by the victim.
I think it is important that we have a 'rape is rape is rape' frame, as it is not for an outsider to decide, whether another individual found it more or less traumatic, to be raped by someone they know or by a stranger. If we are going to do that, we might as well bring back being married as a defense for rape within marriage. Raping someone you know is not OK and I don't think we need to be sending the message to boys and men that it is (anymore than we already do via various rape myths). Especially considering that most rapists are known to their victims.
The idea that it is less traumatic to be raped by someone you know is dangerous for women IMO and implies that a woman's right to bodily integrity is conditional.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Raping someone you know is not OK and I don't think we need to be sending the message to boys and men that it is (anymore than we already do via various rape myths). Especially considering that most rapists are known to their victims.
85% of rapists are either a husband/boyfriend/friend/relative of the victims, Scotland's statistics though.
My ex bf was my abuser and rapist. Therefore, it is less rape if you're raped multiple times by the same 'monster' only because you knew him? Just because you stand everything because you know he's armed to the teeth and he could kill you? I couldn't leave until I had the financial means to disappear, change name, address and life.
Sorry but a rape is a rape, yes. Not just the one perpetrated by strangers in dark alleys.
Rape is seen as more serious and traumatic precisely because of narratives around the importance of penises in defining the meaning of sex.
A woman posting on a survivors' forum was gang-raped by her husband's 'mates' with a knife. Wasn't that rape because it didn't involve a penis? Your logic escapes me a bit here......
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Legally, in the UK, penetrating someone with a knife (or any other object) is not rape.
It is assault by penetration
In the legislation it is not seen as less serious than rape or 'only' assault. It carries the same liability as rape.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Beach, yes, that is the direction I am going in in my reflections here.
I know it is a big chance to take and could backfire on women -- Murphy's Law seems to apply more to women than to men. But I also think rape is seen as a women's issue and therefore not one for broader society. We are a long way from even the point where all women accept that any of us could be raped.
I do not understand to what purpose; what exactly do you think would be achieved, and how? Women having sex with men who do not consent to it is already a sexual offence.
Maybe it is too much of a chance to take, but what if men felt themselves empowered to stand up and say they had been raped in these circumstances? The silence about man on man rape goes a long way to encourage this particular crime just as silence on the part of women emboldens rapists, and I would hope by empowering men to speak out about being victims -- just to accept that they are victims, which seems to be very difficult for men to do -- there would be a spillover effect and they would start speaking out about being raped by other men too. Recent exposure of historical sexual and physical abuse of boys in children's 'homes' and other institutions by adult men gives me hope that this is possible.
I also find myself nodding to Sillylass's Thu 30-Jan-14 12:48:56 post.
However, as a comment to the Thu 30-Jan-14 14:11:33 post, I think society does see penetration with a penis as less serious a crime than say, with a hairbrush or coke can or knife. Or at least rape(with a penis) is seen as something more understandable or human or explainable, and when prosecution time comes around, far easier to prove the victim didn't consent in the case of foreign object penetration. I don't know if there are statistics to bear out my hunch here, but it would be interesting to see if sentencing reflects that. Custodial sentences for rape (as currently defined) are a joke.
I think it is important that we have a 'rape is rape is rape' frame, as it is not for an outsider to decide, whether another individual found it more or less traumatic, to be raped by someone they know or by a stranger.
I think outsiders do in fact take it upon themselves to judge the level of trauma, if rape by an acquaintance or a date or a husband happens, and we do have a de facto hierarchy of rape categories because the trauma of experiencing the effect of 'intent to intimately hurt' that Sillylass speaks of is not clearly understood to be present in each case.
Getting this sort of crime to the point of prosecution is difficult thanks to the consent issue which is really difficult one to prove, and really easy to get the benefit of the doubt if no ABH or GBH was involved in order to coerce.
*just as silence on the part of women emboldens rapists
I do not mean to imply that we are the authors of our own victimisation here.
math the looseness is in saying that the key factor of rape is lack of consent. As beach says, that is only part of it. The penetration with a penis is what distinguishes this from other types of sexual assault. Otherwise, all sexual assaults or non-sexual assaults or robberies could also be called rape.
There is no doubt that there can be very serious sexual assaults that do not involve penetration with a penis or penetration of any sort but that is not a reason to ignore the specifically gendered nature of rape and its role in the oppression of women as a class.
The Canadian experience is interesting and although I see where you are coming from math, I believe de-gendering rape will have a negative impact on women and on rape convictions.
I don't agree that de-gendering rape would have a negative impact on rape convictions.. Let's be honest, less than 6-7% i.e. The percentage we have now?
Because as you clearly stated the key factor is the lack of consent, I guess that degendering rape wouldn't have any effect at all.
Unfortunately it would be necessary to de-fear the rape reporting.
Until fear of further harm is decreasing, you will always have less reports and only a few convictions.
@sillylass I am sorry I had completely misunderstood your post.
The sheer physical strength of men in the aggregate as opposed to what women in general can put up also goes far - the potential of being physically outclassed from puberty on is something we all live with. Domestic violence alone, without rape thrown in, is a specter we could all deal with, and in fact huge numbers of women live with the memory of some incident or other. All women fly by the seat of our pants. Rape is the icing on the cake in many respects. (So to speak.)
From the Canadian experience (which involved renaming rape, and not extending the definition to cover assault of men by women) and from what I have read and heard first hand from other countries, there is a logjam when it comes to prosecution, no matter what laws are on the books and no matter how rape is defined. Currently in the UK, even with the definition that is operating, rates of reporting, prosecuting and success of cases in the courts are disgraceful. Women's knowledge of this means we end up putting up with it. Men's knowledge of it means rapists are not afraid. They also know that police and courts try to avoid ruining the life or reputation of the accused and are likely to give rapists the benefit of the smallest doubt, an aim where courts and police are concerned that simply does not figure in any other class of crime, and skews the focus of the prosecution process towards the interests of the accused, to the terrible detriment of the right of the victim. No matter how it is named, when it comes to prosecution, a rape charge gets transformed into an unfair burden for the accused.
When it comes to rape I feel a sense of despair that we are actually going backwards and not forwards and that there is an immovable and unshakeable opinion that resists all logic and appeals to a sense of common humanity. I am tempted to admit that women can't win for losing, but I do hold out hope that the baloney about mixed signals that serves to fudge the matter of consent and ruin so many cases for so many women once they go head to head with the 'courts of justice' would be seen for what it is when men stood up in court and told judges they had not given consent, purely because we are seen as a separate species that does not even speak the same language but men could not suffer this disadvantage.
From the Canadian article:
"Ottawa lawyer Michael Edelson says there is so much nuance to sexual liaisons that men can genuinely mistake signals they receive.
“I see a lot of false complaints,” he says. “One of the big factors is that a lot of people are using drugs and drinking. They have sex and, at the end of the day, there are regrets. But it’s not sexual assault.” "
This is a shocking assertion, because there has clearly not been consent if someone is off their head or unconscious. I think it shows exactly what we are up against though. Ditto for the 'friends and family discount' alluded to. Something has got to change.
I don't agree with those Canadians quoted that the word 'rape' ever had any power to shock, the reasons being that it is something done by men to women, and that men tend to keep it to themselves when men do it to them. The bottom line is that men do not want to talk about rape. Men do not want to deal with rape. They do not want to feel the pain of victims and they do not want to examine whatever it is inside themselves that makes them rapists. As long as that situation obtains, women are basically talking to ourselves.
But what the anniversary of this legislation may point to is also that law alone is not enough. Women still feel shame and guilt about sexual assault – and are treated as shameful and guilty by some police and judges, and by peers and assailants. Sentencing too often minimizes the intimate violation of sex crimes, the horror of what Nicholas D. Kristof has called the body as “crime scene.” Changing all that may require a bigger revolution indeed.
(from the Canadian article)
I agree with this.
Anywhere not sure if that response was to me. If it was, I don't agree that the key factor is the lack of consent. Lack of consent is common to lots of crimes so all consent-based crimes could equally be called rape, if that's the way you look at it.
Yes I do believe that, woeful as the conviction rate is, it could be worse.
The Canadian approach was degendering by another means. There are other approaches I would prefer to take to deal with conviction rates that do not involve pretending that this is not a gendered crime that is part of a broader culture of oppression of women. For example, I think that if a man accused of rape claims it was consensual, he should be obliged to take the stand and give his evidence, rather than hide behind his barrister tearing apart the woman giving evidence. He should be obliged to state the reasonable steps he took to ascertain consent and the positive way in which the woman indicated her consent. We often hear rape trials described as "he said / she said" but actually it is usually "his barrister said / she said" as the accused often does not take the stand.
The reason to have lack of consent key to rape is that otherwise the legal system has nothing to offer women as a cause of action beyond ABH or GBH and often those elements are missing. Impregnation has always been seen as acceptable because the risk is only to the woman, and even now with consent a key element, the idea that women are 'always up for sex no matter what they claim afterwards' seems to prevail.
Yes, it would be strange to hear an individual accused of burglary stand up in court and try to claim the door was left open, or that he was invited in as a guest.
It does not get us anywhere to keep on talking about rape in the context of systematic oppression. That does not bother men enough. A possible change in the criminal code that would accomplish the effect of focusing society's attention on rape as a means of oppression is to add prosecution for a hate crime to every charge of rape.
Join the discussion
Please login first.