Rape is worse when it happens to men

Sorry the case I was thinking of was in Pakistan, not India.

[http://www.indianexpress.com/oldStory/5325/ here]]

Reading stories like this were one of the things that made me become a feminist. It's just so mind-bogglingly awful.

In some parts of the world women are raped to punish men associated with them, for their crimes. It's horrifying. So a man rapes a woman. Instead of him being punished directly, the punishment is that "his" woman (wife / sister / daughter) is raped in return. There was a very famous case in India where a woman spoke out about what had been done to her as a result of a crime her brother committed.

Certainly there is a dynamic in some places where women and children are property and everything flows from that.

I'm still very wary of the line that counters the "rape is worse for men" with the, "oh no, rape is worse for women." No, men don't get pregnant as a result of rape, but neither can all women - for example post-menopausal women (so does that mean rape isn't as bad for old women as it is for young, fertile ones, or not as bad if the man uses a condom? - - see where this line of argument could go? - it's worse for a straight man than a gay man, worse for a nun than a prostitute, worse if a stranger than your husband, blah blah.)

The fact that a man raping another man perceives his victim as "his bitch" (i.e. an objectified, inferior being, a hole for shagging,) is surely a function of a society that colludes with the oppression and exploitation of women, women proxies and other groups believed to be of less value than those who are closest in identity to the people at the top of the social, economic and political "pile."

But, I don't think coming down to the personal experience level and saying that rape is inherently worse for this kind of person than that kind of person fails to value the individual's own experience. I think it actually could weaken the argument and detract from setting rape within the wider context of patriarchal values and systems.

In some parts of the world women who have been raped are deemed to have broken the law and are punished accordingly.

I don't think the same rules apply to men who are raped (although in those societies I doubt anyone finds out - which is bad).

These patriarchal ideas work for nobody, and for women and children least of all.

The prospect of women being forced to carry babies that were conceived through rape and give birth is pretty horrifying.

Also the risks to health associated with pregnancy and childbirth are not to be sniffed at.

In some parts of the world a woman might survive a rape but not survive giving birth to the baby conceived because of the rape.

These are not things that can be overlooked IMO.

Having said that, and although I understand the point of the critics to the article, the article itself didn't seem too bad to me, I didn't read it and feel terribly angry (like I do so much of the time).

Dworkin - are you saying that rape is less bad for infertile women, or women on long acting contraception as they don't face that risk?

Well actually that radical feminist hub points out the reality of that archimedes - that a man who has been raped, has been "made someone's bitch now" whereas a woman who has been raped, has always been someone's bitch, so no biggie.

and you think the kind of person who would say that would be sympathetic to a female rape victim? I doubt it.

kritiq - another thread on this recently linked to a Canadian campaign with posters that said something along the lines of 'don't be a rapist', exploding rape myths and telling men they shouldn't assume a drunk woman is consenting. Apparently there had been a 10% fall in reported rapes as a result.

The responses are different know , a man being raped is often mocked having been 'made someones bitch now' I have heard this first hand.

I suppose what I mean to say is the response is very different.

Women of child bearing age face pregnancy as a result of rape men dont. In some countries they have to carry the pregnancy to birth. That is why it's worse for women.

Plus women have to prove they were raped, against the backdrop that she is perceived to be in a perpetual state of consent. That's why it's harder for women to be believed. She must never have lied, not had a drink, not be wearing inappropriate clothing and be pratically virginal.

Men don't have this problem when it comes to rape unless, perhaps, they are gay. I don't mean to paint believeability in such black and white terms, there are grey areas, but generally men's integrity is never called into question as much as womens.

Widow said, "But if campaigns concentrated on fighting the rape of people rather than fighting the rape of women I think that'd be better."

I agree to a certain extent. For example, it is infuriating that so many public awareness campaigns focus not just on women as victims, but that women are at least partly culpable if they have been drinking, taking drugs, get in an unlicensed cab, etc. In my view, it would be more beneficial to have campaigns that aren't just focussed on rape but more for people to "look out for their friends," who could be at risk of all sorts of things from assault to alcohol poisoning.

Campaigns specifically about rape should target perpetrators/potential perpetrators (and that's blokes,) but frankly, I don't think those make any difference. Men who rape (whether the victims are men, women or children) don't believe they are doing anything that wrong, so won't believe the posters or adverts are anything to do with them.

However, it's important to realise that misogyny is inherent within the act of rape. Straight and gay male and transexual victims are often viewed as "proxy women," (i.e. humans of less value) and raped for pretty well the same reasons women are raped. It's exerting power and control over a person the perpetrator sees as of less value, whose wishes are secondary to their own and using the sex act as a means of exerting this (often with other things like violence and demeaning language.)

For that reason, it IS important to set rape within the context of a patriarchal society that values some people less than others.

SQ the RadicalHub article explains it - it's the way the NYT article frames it as 'women suffer x but men suffer x +1'

I loved this comment on the Radicalhub article:

Of course, the Handmaiden of the Patriarchy who wrote the article doesn?t bother to define ?sense of masculinity.? She probably thinks everyone will get her point right away, but I have some questions. Does she mean that men who have been raped suddenly feel they can no longer splash their cheeks with a subtle yet rugged aftershave? Do they lose interest in tying the perfect half-Windsor so as to make a good impression on their date? Do they perhaps stop doing crunches, because they no longer care about having six-pack abs?

No. By ?sense of masculinity,? she means these men?s sense of being in charge of their own bodies, of being autonomous, of not being sexual prey, of being able to defend themselves and ensure their own safety. It?s their sense of being human that?s been challenged. But by conflating that with masculinity, she tacitly admits that women aren?t supposed to see themselves the same way men do ? as fully enfranchised, adult human beings.

In case Ms. HOTP wanders over here, I?ve written the female version: ?But women who have been raped also face a challenge to their sense of personal autonomy and authority over their own bodies. Often, this occurs after they have already endured years of less extreme, but still serious challenges to the same in the form of sexual harassment at work, in school, and on the street, and in the form of having their right to say ?no? ignored by unwanted but persistent suitors, some of whom turn into stalkers. Additionally, they must deal with idiots who are unwilling to acknowledge that bodily autonomy matters as much to women as it does to men, and in the same way.?

I may have missed something in that article but I didn't see where it said that it was worse for men?

Haziedoll - but would the difference in reaction to that situation be solely down to gender or also simply to personality. I think some women cope better with being assaulted than others, and equally some men will cople better to being assaulted than others. And vice versa.

Reactions to rape may have a basis in gender - so a woman might be ending up internalising blame "having asked for it"/"being a slut" and a man might experience feelings of being demasculinised - but that's not to say that one is worse than the other - they're just different responses shaped by the role context. And some will be hit harder by these feelings than others.

The reaction to this article reads a bit like whataboutery to me, to be honest.

I agree that it isn't a contest and it is an awful thing to happen to anyone. I think male rape isn't talked about as much, possibly because it isn't as common. Men may be less likely to talk about their rape which probably hinders their recovery and may give a perception that male rape is worse when it isn't.

I was sexually assaulted whilst backpacking in India, it happened on a bus with dh standing next to me. I didn't tell dh because I knew he would hit the man and end up in a police cell. As we got off the bus I kicked the man, swore at him and got on with my travels. If dh had been sexually assaulted I fear that he would still be in recovery 15 years later.

Why is that? Is it because women are stronger or is a sexual assault worse when it happens to a man? Or is it that as women we are conditioned to believe that we are sexual objects and just accept that we will receive unwanted sexual attention from time to time. I fear it is the latter.

It would be wouldn't it

Sorry - last line of last paragraph but one should have said "women" at the end and not "men."

I don't think there is any benefit in arguing that rape is worse for men than for women, or the other way round. It's similar to arguing that rape is inherently worse for "some" women (e.g. virgins, those who've had few partners, where perpetrator is a stranger, where they are seriously injured, etc.) than for others.

I've been close to both women and men who've been raped, as adults and as children. I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but there are so many factors in a person's life, personality, situation and facts related to the incident that influence how they cope with what has happened. Stating that gender or any other factor governs how "bad" a rape is is deeply offensive, does little to help those who've been raped deal with what's happened and adds nothing useful to public discourse on rape.

I agree that in that article at least there seems to be a misogynist undercurrent that women are "used" to having sex "done to them" and because rape is an extreme version of that, it has to be worse for a bloke who's not used to it. It's what I'd call "casual misogyny" - taking something that is deeply sexist for granted as something that just "is" rather than something that is founded on the validation of a form of oppression as normal or natural.

This kind of reminded me of the plethora of debates I was once involved in with the precursors of MRAs. They insisted that partner abuse was more common and worse for men than it was for women and it was wrong that there was Women's Aid and other organisations to support women but nothing like that for men.

Apart from the fact that there were services, but different types (as it had been found that men leaving abusive relationships didn't need or want refuge space,) I would think if you were genuinely concerned about the welfare of a group of people who were being abused within a trusting relationship, the last thing you'd want to do is try and get rid of services to support another group of people suffering the same plight. You'd want to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who'd campaigned for services for women and insist on MORE services for victims (including men) and not cutting the already overstretched and inadequate services for men.

That sort of busted what their real agenda was about - not helping men, but taking down women. Yep, this article reminded me of that.

great response. thank you for posting.

edam - yes, but the argument is also almost immediately turned on its head saying that it's women who have it worse. That's no better than saying men have it worse.

Rape is horrific no matter who is the victim and who is the perpetrator. Deciding on which victim deserves more sympathy based on their gender is stupid. They all deserve sympathy and support. Making it gendered doesn't help anyone.

(And yes, I'm aware that the majority of rape victims are female. But if campaigns concentrated on fighting the rape of people rather than fighting the rape of women I think that'd be better.

Last year I looked at a document which gave the conviction rates for men and women victims in the UK (linked on a thread here but it would take me forever to find it, sorry) and what the figures said was:
-adult men victims were more likely to get a conviction than adult women
-teenage boys were less likely to get a conviction than teenage girls

Of course there will be lots of factors contributing to that but I did wonder if it related to underlying prejudices about how trustworthy these groups of people were.

I don't think it is worse, however, I do think that women have battled to get their rights heard and understood (not there yet!) However I think the concept of men being raped is at a different stage in that social awareness.
I would say for my awareness the social attitude to men being raped/sexually assaulted seem to be very much like the attitudes USED to be for women. and in that way I guess not the physical act being worse but the support network is not yet as developed as it is for women.

Agree, WidowWadman, it's not a contest, surely?

And if it isn't acceptable to question why a woman stays with an abusive man, then it isn't acceptable to say

"I wouldnt have sat on the sofa whilst the kettle was boiling knowing what was coming."