"Most prolific" rapist reporting - male vs female victims

[QuentinWinters]

Was just reading that about the conviction of the "most prolific rapist" for raping over 100 men.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50987823

My impression was the reporting focused more on the impact on his victims and used much stronger language about him being a "monster" who preyed on men "just out to have fun with their friends" than reporting on rapists targeting women. There is a description of how being raped has ruined the male victims lives (previously I associated the terms "ruined life" with men who were found not guilty of rape).

So I looked up reporting on John Worboys as he came to mind as a similarly prolific rapist

In his initial reporting it is more focused on Worboys and describes him crying at the guilty verdict.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/mobile/england/london/7931975.stm

Later reporting as the scale of his offending has become clear is still much more focussed on Worboys and his reasons for raping, and more objective and factual about his MO with no discussion of the emotional impact on his victims.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-london-48702572

Seems like rapes of men are treated much more sympathetically than those of women. Quelle surprise.

The reporting on this case has, rightly, been respectful and sympathetic to the male victims. All we're asking is that the same respect and sympathy be accorded to female victims of rape. How difficult can that be to understand?

Exactly. It’s conspicuous in its unconditional sympathy for the victims (and quite rightly).

Absolutely. Well-said.

someone on the AIBU thread made the point that so far there haven't been blurry CCTV pictures/films of the victims going back to the rapist's flat - although that's quite a staple from reporting on women/gay male rapes.

A CCTV picture showing exactly that, was on TV the other day.

No, haha. I just remembered The Scousers when I was trying to think up a username

It goes slightly wrong at the end........I'd leave the final 'do' off. "They do that, though, don't they". I live in Liverpool. I don't 'identify' as a Scouser.

What an odd thing to do; to obsess over the number of syllables in someone’s user name on a thread about rape.

So, after decades of GHB being known as the date rape drug, and umpteen campaigns telling women to cover their drinks’, not leave their drinks’ unattended etc the govt are finally going to look into the classification of the drug in question, but guess what? The fact that it’s been used to rape and drug thousands upon thousands of women is not the trigger. I find that so telling in itself. Until now women have just been expected to be vigilant at all times, and if she gets drugged and raped then she should have been more careful, but as soon as it’s shown that men can’t go out, get incoherently wasted, go home with any rando off the street suddenly it becomes a problem that needs looking at.

I hope that the victims in this case get all the support and help they need. I just wish when women are subjected to the same treatment they would get the same level of sympathy and compassion.

I remember watching Crimewatch when I was a kid and there was an appeal to find a male rapist my parents insisting that it was much worse for a man to be raped. Sadly this attitude seems to still be prevalent.

It is now worse for a man to be raped than a woman, or a gay man or straight woman to be raped than a straight man, it’s horribly violating and distressing for everyone. And yes, you’ll notice I didn’t include lesbians in that little sentence, as I think the attitude towards a lesbian raped would be even more toxic.

The fact that the police didn’t even believe a man who reported speaks volumes about their attitude. If they don’t believe the great white straight male then how have any of us got a chance?

Sorry about the incoherent typos in that post. Rushing

I hope the victims get all the support they need.

Agree there is a difference in reporting styles. Partly it’s because the general public find males being raped more unusual and therefore more shocking. (Not that it should be more shocking).

I do think it’s interesting that many posters wrote of the difference in reporting without first expressing any sympathy for the victims, when some of those same people chastised others for doing the same in the past. For example castigating posters for expressing sympathy towards/ discussing A Challenor, without first expressing sympathy for the father’s young victim.

I'm interested in the CPS's decision to prosecute absolutely all the rapes.

As I recall, they decided not to do that in the Worboys case - they didn't even prosecute the majority of them, even though there were many more victims who wanted to testify. And this was a factor in the later-reversed decision to give him parole.

Perhaps it wasn't pure misogyny motivating the different treatment. Maybe given all the criticism they've received about rape prosecutions lately they wanted to beef up their conviction statistics?

(aibu to think that it's bizarre to complain in haughty tones about someone derailing a thread and then two comments further down to derail it yourself? nevermind don't answer that, this discussion is more important.)

I've heard many accounts of rape on women. This is not the first time the victim impact on rape victims has been spoken about on the news or on the radio, tv, social media etc. There's been many cases of women being raped and them speaking about it or being interviewed about it.

I think this thread shows what selective hearing people have and how they'll search under every stone to find some sort of inequality. I have actually not heard about this case at all so it can't be that widely spoken about.

There's been many docuseries, films and TV programmes made about serial rapists of women and murderers of women and the impact of their actions. Why is all that being ignored because a few people used a different tone? This thread is basically victim shaming. 'They got more air time than women usually do'. Grow up, honestly. This feminism board here is getting ridiculous

*What an odd thing to do; to obsess over the number of syllables in someone’s user name on a thread about rape8

You misunderstand the tone and intent......nothing odd or suspicious at all. It was just a friendly interaction.

As I recall, they decided not to do that in the Worboys case - they didn't even prosecute the majority of them, even though there were many more victims who wanted to testify.

I've been told by someone who has dealings with the CPS that they had so much stick over the Worboys decision that it influenced their decision to include all 48 victims who were willing to testify in the charges this time round.

I think this thread shows what selective hearing people have... This thread is basically victim shaming.

Hilarious. And I also appreciated I have actually not heard about this case at all so it can't be that widely spoken about.

Love a good parody account but maybe you should do your act on one of the less serious threads?

RoyalCorgi

A big difference also being, it was all on video.

I've been told by someone who has dealings with the CPS that they had so much stick over the Worboys decision that it influenced their decision to include all 48 victims who were willing to testify in the charges this time round.

I'm glad to hear that at least.

Without getting graphic, why is a man raping a man considered by so many people to be "worse" than a man raping a woman? Is it because it's anal penetration, which isn't as "natural" as PIV penetration? That it's assumed no straight man would ever want anything up there? If so, why is it that so many, MANY women are also raped anally but that is considered not as big a deal, and also something she was likely to consent to, and needs to prove otherwise? Why is it considered more degrading and therefore not consensual when that happens to men than women, when actually it's men who have the equipment to receive pleasure from that act, not women?

Or is it because it's subjecting a straight man to a gay sex act and that is unconscionable because a man should never be forced into doing something so unthinkable - ie there is an element of homophobia to the mindset? As it seems it's less considered to be unconscionable to subject a lesbian to a straight PIV sex act, because that's what the vagina is for.

Before the derailers jump on this post, I am not suggesting that any of these men did consent. I am purely asking why there seems to be such a mindset of "of course no man would consent to anal sex", but yet women are assumed that they did consent to some extremely niche, violent, painful and degrading acts, with strangers.

I presume your question is rhetorical?

I'm just trying to work out the rationale/bias that society generally seems to have on this topic. Whether it comes down women not really being fully human and there is nothing that a man can do to us, no matter how degrading, injurious, life-changing consequences like pregnancy, etc that makes some people consider it as bad as a man being subjected to one particular act by another man.

Our bodies and our lives are less valuable.

I was very struck by this story as well when I saw some articles on fb.
A lot of commenters saying how terrible it was, which it is, it's horrific.
However I noticed a distinct lack of victim blaming comments which are prevalent on any story about women being raped.
No one was questioning why these men were drunk, no one questioned why they went with a strange man, no one commented on items of clothing.
The difference in how Male and female rape victims are treated is stark and it made me incredibly sad actually.

Watching the news last night, when they were talking about reviewing the drug classificaion, i commenetd that it was strange how they were only now clamouring for change after a load of men were raped using this drug, as if the thousands of women who have been date raped with it are of no consequence. Makes my blood boil.

But it does come down to women being of less value.

Listening to Woman's Hour about concussion affecting women in very different ways to men but very little research has been done.

And all Design and Technology revolves around the male physique.

As I recall, they decided not to do that in the Worboys case - they didn't even prosecute the majority of them, even though there were many more victims who wanted to testify.

In my (very few) dealings with the CPS (not related to rape or sexual assault cases), I have been frustrated.
They only want to proceed to trial in cases where they think there is a high possibility of conviction.
I've had two cases I was involved in not go to trial.
Could it have been the same in the Worboys case? - they only progressed the cases they thought most likely to succeed.
They did add some in later, once he was convicted, as is often the case.

And all Design and Technology revolves around the male physique.

Apart from those things related to housework.

I didnt think there was a bias in reporting these crimes. The reporting was quite is similar and it was not a case of victim believability and all but one never reported the crime as they were unaware it had occurred.

A young man on the news today (I think a different rapist) was saying he wasn't believed, was asked if he was homosexual or bi, asked if he had a girlfriend and so on.

I think all sexual crimes are treated with unwarranted suspicion.

@ConnorRipley No they haven't given out a helpline number to call because those victims will be believed, but because they have far more videos of men being raped than they have victims. So there may be many men out there who have been raped but who are unaware still and they have a right to know.

I don't think this is getting excessive coverage because it has happened to men, but because of the huge number of victims and the unusual way the perpetrator preyed on young men who were vulnerable.

Warboyes got similar coverage.

Here’s a link to that interview with the male victim. He is very brave.
www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-51016041/male-rape-survivor-i-just-wanted-to-die