"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.

I still don't understand what Sonic means by showing my 'hand'? Are you implying I am male or are you implying I should not be making my points about this specific case for some reason?

I think some of the media interest is because it's an abnormal story - man raping heterosexual men (and the numbers of course) in the same way that Joanne Dennehy was sensationalised because it's so different and unusual to the normal situation.

Oh look muddles
www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5306885

Canadian case, reporting specifically quotes the prosecutor saying ""The complainants [were] all young nubile attractive slim females between the ages of 17 years and 22," Huyser-Wietenga said. Their identities are protected under a publication ban."

Or this one regarding multiple rapist Joseph McCann
www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/joseph-mccann-man-accused-of-sex-attacks-on-women-and-children-convicted-of-kidnap-and-rape-11879372

Specifically says one victim "decided to walk home alone".

This article reports the QC saying a rapist acted out of sexual need and describes him wrapping a belt round a woman's neck as "during sex" when she was actually being raped

www.google.com/amp/s/www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/jason-lawrance-st-ives-rapist-16678214.amp

I could go on. The reporting of womens rapes conflated sex with rape, implies rape is somehow a reasonable response a man would have to not getting sex, comments on the victims appearance or decision making.....
None of this was apparent in the articles I read about singaya. Female victims deserve the same respect as Male victims.

But this case is so unusual. I think many of the victims have still to be identified, many of them are probably only just realising what happened to them. It is a situation where the police are seeking out the victims rather than victims going to the police.
If you are going to compare examples from the past, perhaps you need to compare with cases such as those carried out by Stephen Port. ( I have given a link in a previous post). The police mismanagement of the rapes and murders of his victims can not in any circumstances be described as favourable.
The fact that an estimated 90% of make rapes go unreported shows that most men see little point in going to the police.
Hopefully the publicity given to this case will encourage both men and women to come forward and report rape

You keep insisting this thread must only be about discussing "this specific case". The OP started this thread to discuss the differences in the way this specific case is being reported in comparison to cases where the victims are women. That is: the lack of victim-blaming, despite these men doing the same thing on a night out which causes the media, society, the justice system, etc to suggest that women were either at fault, or consenting, when the same thing happens to them.

The fact that an estimated 90% of make rapes go unreported shows that most men see little point in going to the police.

More than 80% of female rapes go unreported. That's because rape is horrific and causes a sense of shame in all victims.

I dont really see your point muddles

My hope is that from now reporting on rape will focus more on the damage to the victim rather than how they got to be in that position, what they were wearing, if they were drunk, their sexual history etc (regardless of what happens in the courtroom)

My second hope is that the police, in future, will start to be much more open to believing victims of crime rather than dismissing it as "rough sex gone wrong" etc etc (for everyone)

Finally, i hope that rape victims - ALL of them - see how this has been handled and will come forward. People are almost universally shocked that this has happened and almost universally appreciative of the lengths the police/CPS have gone to to identify victims and persuade them to take action. The bravery of the victims can't be underestimated.

I actually don't see what is particularly unusual about this case.

There are loads of men who go out every weekend to nightclubs to prey on very drunk women, get them on their own, possibly then spiking their drinks, then raping them. It is also not unusual for men to video themselves assaulting these women, share the footage with their friends, or upload it to the internet onto porn sites.

What is unusual in this case is that the victims were men, and he got caught and found guilty. But let's not kid ourselves that this exact thing isn't happening to women.

Did anyone hear the Woman's Hour feature on this yesterday?

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000d1tz

I tried not to shout 'But what about the women?' at the radio. At the end of the programme they read out emails that had come in on various subjects and Jenni Murray read one out (at 38.40 on) from someone who said he had been raped by a woman 20 years ago. Murray read out his words: 'the police need to be more alert to the fact that women are just as capable of being predatory and a rapist.'

Apart from the fact that rape legally requires the insertion of a penis, so a woman can't technically rape (this is what I've always understood, anyway) why did Woman's Hour broadcast such a misleading statement – because all the statistics and evidence show that women are far, far less predatory and inclined to commit sexual assault than men. Women still, despite this recent case, remain by far the majority of victims and rape is a crime that largely goes unpunished.

Why does Woman's Hour, ffs, feel the need to be constantly doing a 'but what about the men?' number and why did someone in the editorial team choose that email to broadcast? This isn't balance, it was a highly questionable statement and what it asserted should have been examined, not let go as fact. Listening to it again, you can actually hear Murray's inject some incredulity into her voice as she reads it. She knows what we know. So why read it out?

Because the BBC has a lot of anti-women activists in positions of power and influence. They will let us have our "Women's Hour" programme, as long as it follows and promotes the 12 Rules Of Misogyny.

Listening to it again, you can actually hear Murray's inject some incredulity into her voice as she reads it. She knows what we know. So why read it out?

Maybe she is given what to read out by the producers and she didn't know what it said until she was already reading it? I hope that's it.

It's extremely frustrating for listeners. I think it must be extremely frustrating JM & JG (and other feminist women at the BBC) to work there too.

You can email and complain at

[email protected]

i've just done it.