CDC’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey

Trigger warning for rape, abuse, sexual violence, and stalking.

The CDC has recently released the results of a new, national, methodologically sound study about the prevalance of sexual violence and rape.

Statistics, commentary, and angry ranting below.

Rape

Finally, finally, FINALLY we have a national study talking about how common rape by envelopment is. Of course, they don’t call it rape by envelopment, they call it “being forced to sexually penetrate someone,” because everyone knows that kinds of rape that tend to happen to dudes are not as real as kinds of rape that tend to happen to chicks.

18.3% of women have been survivors of rape (defined as completed or attempted forced penetration or alcohol and/or drug-assisted penetration). 1.4% of men have been survivors of penetrative rape and 4.8% of men have been survivors of rape by envelopment. Although we don’t know the overlap between the two groups, which is a serious flaw, we do know that roughly six percent of men are rape survivors.

Men who are raped are not a negligible group. Approximately a fourth of rape survivors in the United States are male! Given how many rapes occur in correctional facilities, to people who are obviously not available for a telephone interview, the percentage of rape survivors who are male may be even higher. There is no excuse for continuing to exclude male survivors from the discussion about rape culture and rape prevention.

Certain other categories of rape have even closer gender parity. Nearly a third of all survivors of coercive rape are male (6% vs. 13%); similarly, nearly a third of all survivors of unwanted sexual contact are male (11.7% vs. 27.2%). Is even a third of the conversation about coercion and unwanted sexual contact about men? Thought not. Men are hypersexual beasts, don’t you know? They always want sex!

Abuse

The single thing that most startled me about this report is that men and women are equally likely to be emotionally abused. This isn’t one of those “men make up a significant proportion of victims” things; this is one of those “the difference between the number of men and women who have been emotionally abused is literally .4%” things. There is functionally no difference.

Maybe I expect too much from American culture, but I figured that if literally half of the people getting emotionally abused are male, that we would mention that men can get emotionally abused, um, ever. We could run a few PSAs? Maybe talk about it in health class? Perhaps mention to women that they are capable of committing emotional abuse? Something?

Also, feminism? Can we stop saying that committing emotional abuse is a male privilege thing now? Because I am pretty sure, looking at these stats, that is not. Seriously, the next person who talks about (for instance) gaslighting as if it were a thing that only happens to women (glare) will be fed to the laser-headed sharks.

Roughly 44% of domestic violence survivors are male: 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime. 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men have experienced severe physical violence from an intimate partner, such as being hit with a fist or something hard, beaten, or slammed against something; a little more than a third of survivors of severe physical violence from an intimate partner are male. 

Men are less likely to experience domestic violence than women, particularly severe domestic violence. They are also less likely to be injured from domestic violence, as several other studies have attested (although some of that is because men tend to be larger and stronger than women). However, the assumption that survivors of severe domestic violence are necessarily female is bullshit. Our policies on domestic violence must work from a position of gender equality: it is a moral necessity to end domestic violence shelters that don’t provide services for male survivors, PSA campaigns that don’t include a single male survivor or female perpetrator, and awareness campaigns that assume that men must be taught not to abuse and women to identify abuse, instead of teaching everyone both.

Male survivors may be the minority, but they are not insignificant, and we must stop treating them like they are. 

Stalking

16.2% of women are survivors of stalking and 5.2% of men, which means that roughly a quarter of stalking survivors are male; while both were likely to be stalked by an intimate partner, women were more likely than men to be stalked by a former intimate partner, and men by an acquaintance. Women survivors were more likely than male survivors to be stalked for the first time under the age of 25.

Female Perpetrators

Guess what? Except for rape by penetration, non-contact unwanted sexual experiences, and stalking, the majority of perpetrators of every type of sexual and intimate partner violence against males are female. Turns out estrogen is not the magic protection against being an abusive fuckhead we thought it was! Oops. Guess we’ll have to change the name of Men Can Stop Rape now.

I personally think there is a massive lack of awareness among women that they are even capable of committing abuse. If a man hits a woman, it’s abuse, but if a woman hits a man, it’s a hilarious joke. (Don’t even talk about queers. We don’t exist.) Emotional abuse is shamefully ignored for all genders, but particularly for men: if a woman verbally abuses a man, either he’s a pussy or pussy-whipped (and hence it’s all the fault of his lack of masculinity), or he did something wrong to deserve it.

Women are not perfect creatures of sweetness and light. Women can be abusers too. If we want to end abuse, we have to teach everyone not to abuse and not to accept abuse, not fall into an outdated and inaccurate gender paradigm.

This entry was posted in abuse, noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz, rape, rape culture and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

84 Responses to CDC’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey

  1. BlackHumor says:

    *claps*

    Nothing else to add, really.

  2. GudEnuf says:

    I have a bad habit of commenting only when I want to disagree. This post is amazing.

  3. Lamech says:

    You might have wanted to mention the 12 month stats, but other than that quite good! (Although I can think of some reasons why one might want to question them)

  4. Hugh Ristik says:

    Great post, Ozy. You may also want to include the similar numbers for men and women raped in the past year.

    Approximately a fourth of rape survivors in the United States are male!

    That’s a good way of looking at in. In other words, if you had a support group for rape survivors, every fourth chair would have a man in it.

    Of course, that number might not be exactly right, and the study might still be undercounting (by not including prison rape, not asking explicitly about envelopment, and perhaps other methodological flaws.

    But, I’m not going to quibble about numbers anymore. Rather, I want to say that given these apparent numbers, your responses are spot on.

    Maybe I expect too much from American culture, but I figured that if literally half of the people getting emotionally abused are male, that we would mention that men can get emotionally abused, um, ever. We could run a few PSAs? Maybe talk about it in health class? Perhaps mention to women that they are capable of committing emotional abuse? Something?

    That would be nice. But I’m worried that a lot of feminists doing abuse PSAs would say “That’s not our job! Why don’t men organize make PSAs about abuse towards men?” Would you find this response satisfying?

    Also, feminism? Can we stop saying that committing emotional abuse is a male privilege thing now? Because I am pretty sure, looking at these stats, that is not.

    Yup. I think you are starting to realize why so many male survivors have problems with typical feminist discourse around abuse and sexual violence.

    Our policies on domestic violence must work from a position of gender equality: it is a moral necessity to end domestic violence shelters that don’t provide services for male survivors, PSA campaigns that don’t include a single male survivor or female perpetrator, and awareness campaigns that assume that men must be taught not to abuse and women to identify abuse, instead of teaching everyone both.

    I’m glad that you are thinking through the logical implications of these stats.

    And even from a purely selfish feminist perspective, I think it would help men get on board with preventing abuse towards women if abuse towards them was acknowledged. This would give them a better stake. In contrast, treating men only as potential perpetrators and women as potential victims mainly appeals to chivalry.

    Guess we’ll have to change the name of Men Can Stop Rape now.

    Good luck with that. See what I mean by chivalry? The notion that “men can stop rape” assumes that either rape other than male-on-female rape doesn’t exist, or that men can stop those other forms of rape, too (which would imply that men can stop rape of women against men, rather than placing responsibility on the women who rape to stop raping… exactly the attitude that feminists object to when women are expected to stop men from raping them!).

    not fall into an outdated and inaccurate gender paradigm.

    I think “outdated” is a good word. The feminist movement did good work by unmasking sexual violence and abuse towards women, yet since their focus was on women, they never realized the extent of sexual violence and abuse towards men. Fueled by large studies with bad methodology, like the NVAWS and other studies that never asked about forced envelopment, these feminists managed to confirm their second-wave views that violence and abuse were highly gendered. Other studies with different conclusions were ignored, or suspected to be flawed. Classic confirmation bias.

    Consequently, it became a “fact” that sexual violence and abuse were highly gendered in prevalence rates. I can understand how it looked that way to many feminists at the time, yet now that we have better evidence, we can see that those feminists were biased by their greater involvement with female victims, and the flawed studies they relied on to confirm their views.

    Moving forward, I hope that other feminists will become better educated about the new data on sexual violence and abuse, and that they will take the sensible stances you have taken of making anti-violence and anti-abuse activism more inclusive.

  5. dancinbojangles says:

    “If a man hits a woman, it’s abuse, but if a woman hits a man, it’s a hilarious joke.”

    This, and related attitudes, is what kept me from feminism during my formative years, and which continues to keep me from it. There’s this arrogance, an assumption that just because violence against men is less common, that it isn’t a problem, or that it isn’t a priority. It baffles me that a movement can expect people to join it while ignoring and mocking (teh menz) their problems. It’s nice that this problem is being acknowledged, and especially nice that there are now objective, up-to-date statistics to counter the traditional 1970’s vintage anecdotal ones which mainstream feminism has been harping on for years.

  6. Hugh Ristik says:

    @Ozy,

    I personally think there is a massive lack of awareness among women that they are even capable of committing abuse.

    That’s an important point. I’ve experience a bunch of female friends or lovers violating my physical and sexual boundaries, such as my playfully or slapping my face or punching my arm hard, kissing me when I was trying to pull my head away, or some bigger violations that I don’t feel like talking about right now.

    Yet none of these women were horrible people, and I’m sure they wouldn’t have done what they did if they had understood the potential for harm. They just weren’t thinking about the consequences, because since they were female, obviously nobody had ever told them to think about the consequences, and the importance of men’s boundaries.

  7. ballgame says:

    As usual, BlackHumor and I agree completely.

    😉

    Nice post, ozy.

  8. Jared says:

    Very nice post!

    I have a quibble, but it’s more of a general “Huh?” with some of the data presented in the report, than any issue with the post.

    In the report, lifetime incidence is reported alongside the 12 month rate. For women, as stated in the OP, lifetime incidence of rape is 18.3%, in comparrison the 12 month rate is 1.1%. That both of these numbers are accurate seems unlikely, the rate of re-victimisation amongst survivors would have to be kind of high. As such, I suspect that the lifetime % is at least a little and possible a lot higher than the reported number.

    For men, however, the discrepency is even more glaring; according to the report, 1.1% of men were made to penetrate in 2010 (table 2.2 if anyone wants to confirm), while the lifetime prevalance was only 4.8%. This just really doesn’t work. You would need a completley implausible rate of revictimisation to only get to 4.8% through a lifetime with a 1.1% annual incidence.

    As such, it looks like the lifetime incidence of rape is being under reported by a small to moderate degree by women, but by a very large degree by men. Alternativly the 12 month prevelence is being over reported, but it seems to me that the reporting of recent events is more likely to be correct. Or maybe I’m missing something. Any thoughts?

  9. Feckless says:

    Great post, with the exception that the important men are raped (includes attempted & drug induced) at the same rate than women in the last year, that really was mindblowing for a national study. Even though a large multinational study had even higher results -> http://feck-blog.blogspot.com/2011/05/predictors-of-sexual-coercion-against.html

  10. ballgame says:

    Jared, I don’t know how you made your calculations, but I think I agree with you. (To be fair, I don’t understand the report’s calculations, either, having only given it a scan.)

    If you assume that a person has a 1.1% chance of being raped in any given year of their life, beginning, say, at age 11, and extending through age 78, the chance they’ll have been raped at least once in their lifetime is over 50%. That figure presupposes re-victimization is purely random (which probably isn’t true).

    If you start at age 15 and extend through age 50, you’ll still get a lifetime risk of about 33%.

    Let me say for the record that I don’t think either scenario I propose represents how people’s chances are actually distributed (I’m well aware that very young and very old people are raped); I was just trying to tweak the figures in very crude ways to somehow get close to what the study was saying. I assume the study’s sample skews towards pre-retirement adults.

    The only dimly plausible explanation for the discrepancy between one year incidence and lifetime risk for males which you haven’t alluded to would be the possibility that women-raping-men is a relatively new phenomenon. I’m not endorsing that explanation, but I’m not sure it can be ruled out on a prima facie basis.

  11. Ullere says:

    It has some really interesting information regarding the last 12 months. 1,270,000 women reported experiencing some kind of rape victimization in the last 12 months and 1,267,000 men reported having been forced to penetrate someone (which is definable as rape, though not by the FBI) this shows a parity over the last 12 months between male and female victims. However allow me to run with this a little further the study did not include any kind of prison rape or abuse of the homeless, both groups are largely male and suffer violent crime disproportionately compared to the general population. If there were even 3001 (and most reports put the number far higher) Penetrative rapes of men in the last 12 months then that study finds that more men than women were raped in the last 12 months in the USA.

  12. Jared says:

    My calculations, I’m sorry to admit, were rather rough and can be summarised by the below equation.

    (Annual rate) X (life expectancy) = shit cannot be right

    You’re right about the new phenomenon explanation (both on its possiblility and its unlikelihood)

  13. JE says:

    Most likely explaination of the lifetime discrepancy is that people are less likely to include incidents that happened a long time ago

  14. Adi says:

    We could start by spreading the ‘discovery’ that testosterone does NOT cause aggressive behavior:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091208132241.htm

  15. Tamen says:

    Good post, but I have task the question why the 12 months prevalency numbers for men and women were omitted?

    Everyone else: The definition of both “rape” and “made to penetrate someone else” includes attempted efforts which did not succeed. With that in mind I don’t think an extrapolation ending up in a 50% lifetime prevalency is impossible high for either men nor women.

    The number for women were further broken up into “completed forced”, “attempted” and “completed drug/alcohol facilitated” like this: 0.5%, 0.4% and 0.7%. The sum is not 1.1% because of overlap between “completed” and “completed drug/alcohol facilitated”. Since CDC didn’t classify “made to penetrate someone else” as rape that number is not broken down in the same way. In my view anyway both a succesful rape and a rape attempt is equally morally reprehensible. One might have the impulse to point to a difference in harm done (less harm if it wasn’t completed), but tread careful to not tell someone how much harm they deserve acknowledged depending on whether their rapist succeeded or not. It’s not difficult to imagine that an unsuccessful attempt may be very traumatic indeed – in fact one way it can be even greater for men if it fails because one wasn’t erect. In the context of appr. 88% of the perpetrator are an intimate partner or acquaintance there may be addition shaming and abuse related to that failure to “comply”.

    The 12 month prevalency number is an important one because it describes the situation now and rape prevention programs and anti-rape campains should reflect that. CDC has several programs, some of them directed at men and boys, but they don’t have any programs aimed at women and girls. Of the three prevention Resources they mention in their “Preventing Intimate Partner & Sexual Violence Program Activities Guide” two of them is specifically aimed at preventing violence and rape against women: http://www.vawnet.org and http://www.preventconnect.net. The third (www.nsvrc.org) is described in gender neutral terms, but if we look at the homepage there are categories for “Violence against women” and “Working with men/boys”, but no “Violence against men” and “Working with women/girls” categories. Hopefully the results from the CDC report will change that, but for that to occur the 12 months prevalency number needs to be made known, not hidden away because it’s uncomfortable.

  16. monkey says:

    I realize that it’s a minor part of the article, but the stuff about emotional abuse… really hit home for me. That “gaslighting” article really hit home. The actual article was boilerplate chivalry, but the comments….

    My main problem with emotional abuse is that it is so much easier to dismiss than physical or sexual abuse. Few people, when hearing about someone getting punched or assaulted, would say “now, let’s hear the other person’s side of the story.”

    I am coming to terms with the fact that I was probably emotionally abused as a kid, and this article was triggering, but in a good way, because it’s forcing me to deal with this.

  17. Blackhumor says:

    I did notice that the yearly rate and the lifetime rate seem to be contradictory, but I don’t think it’s wise to assume that one or the other is correct. Maybe one is wrong, but we don’t know which one it is. Maybe there’s some other set of unusual circumstances that made one or the other incorrect.

    I SHOULD say, however, that amortizing the yearly rate every year from 18 to 50 only makes sense if you assume all the people in the survey were over 50. And that the rate is the same every year of your life. The median age in the US is about 35; a 1% chance per year from 18 to 35 is about 15%.

    (Also based on the labels for that table and the fact that the numbers don’t add within the chart I am HIGHLY suspicious of our own ability to add them. Clearly some kind of statistical fiddling has been done with the data and so they don’t mean what we think they mean.)

  18. Tamen says:

    Blackhumor:

    Also based on the labels for that table and the fact that the numbers don’t add within the chart I am HIGHLY suspicious of our own ability to add them. Clearly some kind of statistical fiddling has been done with the data and so they don’t mean what we think they mean.)

    Are you questioning the validity of the report here?

    I am asking since fiddling to me read as a loaded word
    suggesting manipulation and distortion and I don’t want to presume that that’s what meant.

  19. Lamech says:

    @Blackhumor: “I SHOULD say, however, that amortizing the yearly rate every year from 18 to 50 only makes sense if you assume all the people in the survey were over 50. And that the rate is the same every year of your life. The median age in the US is about 35; a 1% chance per year from 18 to 35 is about 15%. ”
    A 1.1 chance per year from 18 to 35 (18 years) is roughly 18% actually. Did the study not include people under 18? Because that would mean a match for female rates.
    On and the formal to calculate this (assuming a constant rate), and an average number of years alive would be: lifetime victimization rates=(1-(1-yearly rate)^years total)

    The numbers in the charts probably don’t add do to overlap. If a person in the interviews had three things happen to them that qualify for three different subcategories of the rape category they would qualify for all three subcategories and only hit the main category once.

  20. makomk says:

    Oooh, can I feed Hugo Schwyzer to the sharks? Please? (For bonus points, by the slightly odd definition of gaslighting he’s using I think he was actually doing it to men in that blog post!)

  21. Tamen says:

    makomk: Wouldn’t it be better to do that in the open thread?

  22. makomk says:

    Tamen: possibly, was just very strongly reminded of it by Ozy’s comment.

    On a more on-topic note, not only do we seem to be lacking any kind of messages telling women not to rape men, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this kind of rape has become more common. The only obvious thing discouraging women from raping men is that they aren’t supposed to want sex, and feminism has worked hard to dismantle this barrier over the last few decades. It appears no-one thought about the consequences of this and bothered to tell women to make sure that their partners actually consented.

  23. I want to look at the results of this study in much more detail before making complete, detailed conclusions. It seems interesting and important upon first glance, to look at how Men and Women differ as well as the Percentages of Males as Victims in the study.

    My impressions are:

    1. It clearly shows that MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more attention needs to be paid to Men as victims of abuse including:

    a. 22.2 % of Men Lifetime (and 5.3% in the past 12 months) being subject to – Other Sexual Abuse (not Rape)
    b. 28.2 % of Men having been physically assaulted in their lifetime (and 4.7% in the past 12 months – this figure higher than the 4.0% for women),
    c. The high figures of reported emotional abuse – which I can’t find exact figures on at this moment

    2. It seems important – to look at future similar studies relating to – abuse as a Child – Not by one’s “Intimate Partner” – e.g. parents primarily – where I’d guess the figures of Men Abused – together with 1. above – would be an extremely high figure

    3. Be clear – that Rape – and Stalking – and general – abuse of people Not Intimate Partners – seems much Higher with Female Victims – though the Male Victims aren’t insignficant numbers – contrasting – with the percentages in Domestic Violence – Emotional Violence – being far, far closer.

    This study seems to indicate a need to look much, much more at men as victims – as well as looking at where there are and are not significant gender differences.

  24. Blackhumor says:

    @Tamen: No, I think it’s one of the best reports I’ve seen.

    I am saying they may have been manipulated, but that certainly doesn’t imply distorted. In fact sometimes statistics have to be manipulated in order to say anything meaningful. Just because you apply math to statistics doesn’t mean those statistics end up being worthless on the other end.

    But, it DOES mean that simple math might not give a meaningful result since the statistic you’re working with doesn’t necessarily correspond to what you think it does. Just to give an example, <a href=http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ Nate Silver's projections of the Iowa caucus, based on what I’m sure is a sound empirical framework, give Mitt Romney and Ron Paul both 40% chances of winning, Newt Gingrich 10%, and all the other candidates combined 1%. A naive observer might think that Romney, Paul, and Gingrich are polling at about 40, 40, and 10 (or, at least, that Paul and Romney have similar numbers and Gingrich has about a fourth of them) but actually the numbers are about 22, 22, and 15.

    So, just because this report gives a correct answer to “How often are men in the general population penetrated by force?” and “How often are men in the general population forced to penetrate by force?” it doesn’t follow that we can assemble a statistic “How often are men in the general population raped?” because we just don’t know the method they used to arrive at that answer. It could be a fairly complicated process to translate the raw data into an estimate for the sample and then to translate that estimate into an estimate for the general population, and that process might make math on the results produce deceptive results because doing certain kinds of math contains an assumption that the statistics imply things they actually don’t.

    For example: one of the reasons we can’t add those two specific statistics is that we don’t know the percentage overlap, and not only do we not know it we don’t even know if that’s a sensible question to ask. It could be that these two statistics entirely don’t overlap and so you can add them easily. It could be that one group is entirely a subset of the other and so you can’t add them at all. Or it could be that the way these were produced we can’t say anything meaningful about the overlap, that the sample may have had a certain percentage of overlap but due to the statistical method of getting a meaningful answer for the general population that overlap percentage is entirely different for the result (and, because the stats didn’t mean to conserve that information, that result is essentially meaningless.) Basically what I’m saying is that the only thing you really can say about these statistics is what they mean to tell you, and no further; you can’t read between the lines and infer statistics not given.

  25. superglucose says:

    “If a man hits a woman, it’s abuse, but if a woman hits a man, it’s a hilarious joke.”

    My dad always taught me to never hit girls. I asked, “what if I’m hit first?” He basically said, “take it.” After all, girls can’t hit hard, right?

    *pukes*

  26. Tamen says:

    From the NISVS 2010 toolkit:

    Q: What is meant by “made to penetrate”?
    Made to Penetrate is a form of sexual violence that is distinguished from rape. Being made to penetrate represents times when the victim was made to, or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetrate someone else without the victim’s consent. In contrast, rape represents times when the victim, herself or himself, was sexually penetrated or there was an attempt to do so. In both rape and made to penetrate situations, this may have happened through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threats to physically harm; it also includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.

    So it’s a conscious reason for not categorizing “made to penetrate someone else” as rape – they just consider it distinguished from rape. So – not quite rape – is what I hear…

  27. baniak says:

    This is a really enlightening study, and I hope we as a society can take its findings seriously, and start to confront intimate violence, regardless of the gender of the person who it was perpetrated against, or who perpetrates the violence.

    I agree that there is a huge empathy deficit when it comes to how society responds to intimate violence against men. We should address that. We, as a society, need to be present for men who are victims of intimate violence – we need to be non-judgemental and willing to listen and offer whatever help we can.

    However, whenever a report like this comes out, it seems to be greeted with a large sigh of relief by men, and used as a bludgeon against feminists. “See! Women are violent too!” I often see reports like this used to diminish the message of groups that are focusing their efforts on minimizing male complicity in intimate violence. [See Ozy’s “Guess we’ll have to change the name of Men Can Stop Rape now.” comment from the original post, and @makomk’s comments against Hugo Schwyzer] The thing is, these reports don’t do anything to diminish male complicity in intimate violence, they just shine a light on female complicity.

    If anything, we should be helping those groups, because they are helping to reduce attitudes that lead to intimate violence and through that they are helping men with a huge image problem that they face – and it wasn’t Hugo Schwyzer or “radical feminists” that caused that image problem, it is the reality of the situation [In the Executive Summary linked in this article, on page 3, heading: “Number and Sex of Perpetrators” – it states that still the vast majority of violence committed against women is committed by men. Additionally, of sexual violence and stalking experienced by *men*, the majority of the perpetrators were men.] If you want to fix this problem, and reduce violence then maybe you should consider supporting organizations such as Men Can Stop Rape. Perhaps they can modify their programs to do more outreach to male victims, or recognizing the reality of male on male intimate violence, but I don’t think they should need to change their name and mission just because it makes us as men feel uncomfortable that the amount of violence we commit is acknowledged.

    That said, this does not diminish the fact the women commit intimate violence. It just means that we should not use this report to call into question efforts to stop male perpetrated intimate violence. We just need to make sure that women also acknowledge their role in intimate violence as well.

    @dancinbojangles Why does the idea that “If a man hits a woman, it’s abuse, but if a woman hits a man, it’s a hilarious joke.” keep you from supporting feminism? Do you have any experience with feminists laughing at abused men? I don’t. I have much more experience hearing men laugh or deride other men for being abused, since it is a breach of masculine conduct to be abused by a woman. Feminists may not necessarily take the issue as seriously as you would like, but have you legitimately heard feminists laugh at a raped or abused man?

  28. Lamech says:

    @baniak: “I often see reports like this used to diminish the message of groups that are focusing their efforts on minimizing male complicity in intimate violence. [See Ozy’s “Guess we’ll have to change the name of Men Can Stop Rape now.” comment from the original post”
    The only way “Men Can Stop Rape” makes sense is if ONLY men rape. Otherwise all men not raping anyone would not stop rape, females would still be doing it. Hence, “Only men can stop” rape implies ONLY men rape, which means there are no female rapists. This is wrong. It needs to end now. Consider “Women can stop child abuse”.

    “it states that still the vast majority of violence committed against women is committed by men. Additionally, of sexual violence and stalking experienced by *men*, the majority of the perpetrators were men.]” First read the article again. It is one kind of victimization ONLY non-contact sexual experiences have majority males against males. What it actually does is it states that still the majority of sexual violence committed against men is committed by women. For example 80% of the rapes* of men in the last twelve months were committed by women.

    “Perhaps they can modify their programs to do more outreach to male victims, or recognizing the reality of male on male intimate violence, but I don’t think they should need to change their name and mission just because it makes us as men feel uncomfortable that the amount of violence we commit is acknowledged.” They could modify there programs by not gendering the programs. Read the report in the last 12 months 40% of cases of rape* were committed by women. Would you think it okay if I started an anti-child abuse organization called “Women can stop child abuse”, made the whole focus on women who abuse, and had a little side bar about male abusers? Or would you call that blatantly sexist?
    Oh and if they want to reach out to male victims they need a name that doesn’t imply only men can rape since 80% of males had a female perpetrator.

    *either forced penetration or forcing someone to penetrate; yes this isn’t the CDC’s definition. Their definition is wrong-bad.

  29. Geo says:

    Male relevant information – from the report’s summary:

    – 1 in 7 men (13.8%) have experienced severe physical violence by an intimate partner (e.g., hit with a fist or something hard, beaten, slammed against something) at some point in their lifetime.
    – Psychological aggression by an intimate partner in their lifetime 48.4 % (women) and 48.8% (men)
    – Male rape victims and male victims of non-contact unwanted sexual experiences reported predominantly male perpetrators. Nearly half of stalking victimizations against males were also perpetrated by males. Perpetrators of other forms of violence against males were mostly female.
    – Approximately 1 in 20 women and men (5.6% and 5.3%, respectively) experienced sexual violence victimization other than rape by any perpetrator in the 12 months prior to taking the survey.
    – More than one-quarter of male victims of completed rape (27.8%) experienced their first rape when they were 10 years of age or younger.

    Much more attention needs to be paid to male victims. I’d also note that:
    – Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives – While 1.4% is a lot of men – 18.3% is a huge number of women!
    – 1,270,000 – women raped in the past 12 months vs. 1,581,000 men in their lifetime
    – 44.6 % = 53,174,000 women vs. 22.2% = 25,130,000 – lifetime victims of other sexual violence
    – Total Victimization Amongst Men:
    — Hispanic = 37.1% = 5,596,000
    — Black = 43.7% = 6,349,000
    — White = 34.6 % = 28,053,000
    — Asian – Pacific Islanders = 19.6% =1,110,000
    — Native American = 46.0% = 400,000
    — Multi-Racial = 53.8% = 729,000
    ***** Note: significant – racial differences *****
    – Note: Clearly – Domestic Violence and Psychological Aggression – are areas of “near equality” in many areas, and predominate in the numbers of Male Victims (particularly with Female Perpetrators). Men in general as victims are – mostly Domestic Violence related while far more Women have multiple areas of victimization
    – Men – who are stalked (significantly lower numbers than women), are stalked by almost as many men as by women, while women are stalked nearly totally by men.
    ** Rape is MUCH more commonly – Men against Women. Other Sexual Violence is twice as common against Women vs. against Men.
    *** – Men Can Stop Rape – seems to me NOT the appropriate – area of primary focus – Domestic Violence Related Agencies and things that focus upon Child Victims – need MUCH more focus upon Men and Boys as victims and survivors.

  30. Clarence says:

    Since this is probably the single most important and useful thing posted on this site, possibly ever, and since Ozymandias wrote a kick ass post I will post this to congratulate her. I basically agree with every single thing she said in her post, and while I think the over survey overstates instances of rape and sexual violence (and I also wish they didn’t “not count” forcible envelopment as rape, but the law in the US currently doesn’t recognize it) via SOME of the alcohol wording , overall the CDC study is a major step in the right direction.

  31. Darque says:

    Yeah, it’s also my tendency to only post something when I disagree, but I’ll have to make an exception in this case and thank Ozy for the wonderful post.

    You’re doing a good job. Keep up the good work.

  32. Tamen says:

    BlackHumor:

    “How often are men in the general population penetrated by force?” and “How often are men in the general population forced to penetrate by force?” it doesn’t follow that we can assemble a statistic “How often are men in the general population raped?” because we just don’t know the method they used to arrive at that answer.

    Well, if we take the highest of those numbers (which for last 12 months prevalency is 1.1% for being made to penetrate someone else) and we agree that being made to penetrate someone else is rape (based on the definition CDC gave) then we can say that in the last 12 months at least 1.1% men were raped (or were a victim of a rape attempt).

    Geo:
    When you note that:

    Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives – While 1.4% is a lot of men – 18.3% is a huge number of women!
    without any caveat that the rape definition used by CDC doesn’t include the form of rape (being made to envelope someone else) it sounds like you don’t think “being made to penetrate someone else” is rape. And then you go on to say: “** Rape is MUCH more commonly – Men against Women.” it’ pretty clear that you are not counting “being made to penetrate someone else” as rape. I’ll ask directly: Do you think a man “being made to penetrate someone else” (in quotes because I use it as CDC has defined it on page 17) has been raped?

  33. Tamen says:

    Clarence: Is that really true that US rape laws doesn’t recognize rape by envelopment as rape? As I understand rape laws in the US is not federal, but are state laws. I took a look at the laws for NY I find:

    § 130.35 Rape in the first degree.
    A person is guilty of rape in the first degree when he or she engages
    in sexual intercourse with another person:
    1. By forcible compulsion; or
    2. Who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless;
    or
    3. Who is less than eleven years old; or
    4. Who is less than thirteen years old and the actor is eighteen years
    old or more.
    Rape in the first degree is a class B felony.

    Sexual intercourse is defined as:

    “Sexual intercourse” has its ordinary meaning and occurs upon any penetration, however slight.

    This minimal definition does not seem to exclude classification of men being made to penetrate someone else as rape. So I guess at least some states will recognize it as rape.

  34. Cel says:

    I’m confused as to why attempted penetration is classified as rape.

    Rape requires to be forced to have sex against your will. I understand that sex has a somewhat fluid definition, but I fail to see how unsuccessful penetration (what exactly do they mean by that?) counts as sex.

  35. Geo says:

    (from CDC report directly – with comments noted separately)
    -Being made to penetrate someone else includes times when the victim was made to, or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetrate someone without the victim’s 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 female’s 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 one’s own penis; orally penetrating a female’s 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.
    — Men forced to penetrate other = : 4.8% in Lifetime = 5,451,000, In Past 12 Months = 1.1% = 1,267,000
    — Being Raped: Women=18.3% = 21,840,000 — Men=1.4%=1,585,100
    (my evaluation of data) ** Women are Much more likely to be raped than men are. The figures are closer (see above and below for totals not limited to intimate partners) if one includes forced penetration of another, but still not close to equal.
    ——————————–
    Made to Penetrate: (women few) – Men= 4.8% = 5,451,000
    Rape + Made to Penetrate: Men = 6.2% = 7,036,100
    Stalked: Women=16.2%=19327000, Men=5.2%=5863000
    —Stalked by Other Gender: Women=13.365%=15,944,775—Men=2.43%=2,738,021
    (My evaluation: close to half the stalked men, were stalked by other men – when one looks at the gender of the perpetrator the stalking of men by women is less “serious” – though still far from insignificant. 40% of men who are stalked are stalked by other men, while over 80% of stalked women are stalked by men only.
    ———————
    Assaulted by Intimate Partner:
    Rape: Women = 9.4%, Men = (few) **
    Stalking: Women = 10.7% — Men= 2.1%
    Physical Violence: Women = 32.9%, Men = 28.2%
    Combination of the above = 35.6%, Men =28.5%

    (My evaluation) – Note: these numbers relating to sexual violence, focus only upon rape – given that the percentage of men sexually assaulted – but not raped by women is close to 50% of the (high) figure for women, whereas the percentage of men raped by partners is low – this makes the figures a little misleading. Men – who are raped – over 27% – are raped at age under 10 – which clearly wouldn’t be their intimate partners. Men – besides those otherwise sexually assaulted – as discussed here – are Mostly (28.2% vs. 28.5% ) exclusively physically assaulted. Women – are more likely to have been – raped, stalked and physically assaulted – their physical assault (alone) figures are close to men’s.

  36. Schala says:

    Men – who are raped – over 27% – are raped at age under 10 – which clearly wouldn’t be their intimate partners

    You think people have some quota of rape whereas if it happened in childhood they are thus immunized of it happening in adulthood? Hence that the lifetime rate of male rape by females would almost ALL be during childhood?

    I beg to disagree.

  37. Ozy,

    “Can we stop saying that committing emotional abuse is a male privilege thing now?”

    Not sure to what this refers, but I must agree that certain emotional abuse is particularly gendered or at least vulnerable to it. Somebody mentioned gaslighting; the idea that women are somehow more “emotional” and “illogical,” and expected to be in the supporting role does cultivate more of a vulnerability to gaslighting. Just as taunting and shaming a partner for not having a job is something to which men are particularly vulnerable and in larger numbers more negatively impacted by. Not to discount the hurt faced by a man gaslighted or a woman shamed for not having a job, but is there room for considering that lumping all self-reported instances of “emotional abuse” together and accepting it uncritically can be problematic?

    Otherwise, thanks, Ozy! And thanks everybody else for evaluating the statistics further. I’m just very interested in seeing everything in context.

  38. Geo says:

    Schala and others, (What you said in response to what I said – is dealt with in part in the Report. Below are the data and explanations I was able to find which address that which you spoke of.

    Click to access NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

    if you want to look things up yourselves:

    Women: Age when first raped, among those who were raped:

    10 and Under = 12.3%
    11-17 = 29.3%
    18-24 = 37.4%
    25-34 = 14.2%

    More than one-third (35.2%) of the women who reported a completed rape before the age of 18 also experienced a completed rape as an adult, compared to 14.2% of the women who did not report being raped prior to age 18

    More than one-quarter of male victims of completed rape (27.8%) were first raped when they were 10 years old or younger (data not shown). With the exception of the youngest age category (i.e., age 10 or younger), the estimates for age at first completed rape for male victims in the other age groups were based upon numbers too small to calculate a reliable estimate and therefore are not reported.

    Too few men reported rape victimization in adulthood to examine rape victimization as a minor and subsequent rape victimization in adulthood.

    The data – seems to suggest that of the men who were raped, a much higher percentage were raped before age 10 than the age that women were first raped. It should be noted that given the wide differences between Numbers of Men and women – who were raped in total (e.g. 27.8% of 1.4.% of men who have been raped per the data = .34%), that the Numbers of women raped while young is still quite high (e.g.12.3% of 18.3% of women = 2.25%) in proportion to the total number of men raped.

    Most perpetrators of all forms of sexual violence against women were male. For female rape victims, 98.1% reported only male perpetrators. Additionally, 92.5% of female victims of sexual violence other than rape reported only male perpetrators. For male victims, the sex of the perpetrator varied by the type of sexual violence experienced.
    – Also: 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).

  39. Hugh Ristik says:

    @Collete,

    Not sure to what this refers, but I must agree that certain emotional abuse is particularly gendered or at least vulnerable to it. Somebody mentioned gaslighting; the idea that women are somehow more “emotional” and “illogical,” and expected to be in the supporting role does cultivate more of a vulnerability to gaslighting. Just as taunting and shaming a partner for not having a job is something to which men are particularly vulnerable and in larger numbers more negatively impacted by.

    I do think you have a point that the processes of abuse are still often gendered.

    I suspect that Ozy’s point is that the prevalence of abuse is not as gendered as was once thought, and that “male privilege” isn’t a requirement for being abusive.

  40. Schala says:

    More than one-quarter of male victims of completed rape (27.8%) were first raped when they were 10 years old or younger (data not shown). With the exception of the youngest age category (i.e., age 10 or younger), the estimates for age at first completed rape for male victims in the other age groups were based upon numbers too small to calculate a reliable estimate and therefore are not reported.

    Completed rape obviously always being without envelopment and needing penetration, right? So they cannot be raped with their own penis (ie enveloped or masturbated), right? Think that might influence the adult numbers just a tiny bit? I do.

    Also: 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%)

    This is screwed up data. “Being made to penetrate” (envelopment) IS rape. It’s not “other sexual violence. If rape NEEDS to have penetration, of COURSE, men will be the majority perpetrators in all fucking cases.

  41. The_L says:

    @ballgame: Another possibility accounting for the low men-being-raped lifetime figure is that older men and/or men who were victimized further in the past may continue to view it as Not-Rape for the myriad reasons that have already been discussed in this thread, and are thus unlikely to ever report it.

    @Lamech: But the campaign isn’t “ONLY Men can Stop Rape.” It’s “Men Can Stop Rape.” Which they can, to the same degree and in the same ways that women can: to wit, they can stop themselves from raping others, even when they’re strongly tempted. I consider it a case of eliminating rape in one form at a time: Yes, it’s sexist compared to “YOU Can Stop Rape!” but the “My Strength Is Not For Hurting” campaign makes it clear that they’re not trying to blame the victim. It’s not the best campaign, but it’s better than no such campaign at all. Rape prevention must include “Don’t rape people. That includes not doing the following things” in order to be effective, and Men Can Stop Rape is the first example I’ve seen thus far of an orginization that does this.

  42. Schala says:

    It’s not the best campaign, but it’s better than no such campaign at all. Rape prevention must include “Don’t rape people. That includes not doing the following things” in order to be effective, and Men Can Stop Rape is the first example I’ve seen thus far of an orginization that does this.

    To me, when an organization genders rape as male on female mostly or pretty much all, they’re just reinforcing “what we know”, they’re not solving anything.

  43. Lamech says:

    @The_L: “But the campaign isn’t “ONLY Men can Stop Rape.” It’s “Men Can Stop Rape.” Which they can, to the same degree and in the same ways that women can: to wit, they can stop themselves from raping others, even when they’re strongly tempted. I consider it a case of eliminating rape in one form at a time: Yes, it’s sexist compared to “YOU Can Stop Rape!” but the “My Strength Is Not For Hurting” campaign makes it clear that they’re not trying to blame the victim. It’s not the best campaign, but it’s better than no such campaign at all. Rape prevention must include “Don’t rape people. That includes not doing the following things” in order to be effective, and Men Can Stop Rape is the first example I’ve seen thus far of an orginization that does this.”
    You didn’t stop global warming if you slowed it down by 60%. We don’t say you stopped your patients from dying if you stopped 3 out of 5 of them from dying. More to the point a would you accept a campaign “Women can stop child abuse”? Would you consider the statement “Most women are not emotionally fit for national office” sexist? Somehow I don’t think the excuse “those apply to men” would fly here either.
    Furthermore it repeatedly talks about rape as gendered violence, anti-female violence. This absolutely sends the wrong message. Just ask any male victim of this kind of sexual violence what they think about it. Would you say coercive control gendered since it happens to men 60% of the time?

  44. Narcissist says:

    Thanks for the article Ozy, but there is a slight of hand there in these new definitions. WE all know that envelopment is rape, but is its still officially not rape. Women’s Law Project and Feminist Majority have screwed over male rape victims. Their equivalent feminist groups in Israel successfully blocked passage of laws that would define forced envelopment of men and children by women are rape this year too. Being a fun feminist and glossing over the reality of what the political radicals that run the feminist movement do, is all very well, but what these groups are doing to male victims of rape by envelopment is likely deliberate, in the case of Israel it definitely is deliberate and that’s not right, That’s a conversation that really needs to be had.

  45. Hugh Ristik says:

    @Narcissist,

    WE all know that envelopment is rape, but is its still officially not rape. Women’s Law Project and Feminist Majority have screwed over male rape victims. Their equivalent feminist groups in Israel successfully blocked passage of laws that would define forced envelopment of men and children by women are rape this year too.

    That wouldn’t surprise me at all. Feminist legal advocacy groups tend to be way more radical and second wave-leaning than the average feminist. They are running around trying to get their second wave views made into law, even though those views would horrify moderate feminists, like tossing civil liberties on college campus in the trash in sexual misconduct cases.

    It wouldn’t surprise me at all if these sorts of feminist activists have their dirty paws on the “male perpetrator, female victim” view underlying the gross asymmetry in sexual violence definitions, policies, and education. (Of course, they aren’t the only ones to blame. The conservatives they ally with are part of the problem, too.)

    Do you have any links to help track the involvement of feminist activists groups in these injustices?

  46. Danny says:

    Also, feminism? Can we stop saying that committing emotional abuse is a male privilege thing now? Because I am pretty sure, looking at these stats, that is not. Seriously, the next person who talks about (for instance) gaslighting as if it were a thing that only happens to women (glare) will be fed to the laser-headed sharks.
    I know right? (Compare that one to the popular Duluth Wheel.)

  47. fannie says:

    I see a lot of talk here about feminist groups’ influence on the “male perpetrator, female victim” view. Are folks here also concerned about tracking and opposing mainstream and rightwing non-feminist narratives that contribute to that view as well?

    It’s not like the mainstream media is exactly all over the fact that men can be raped too. When they remember, it tends to be in the context of big scandals like Penn State, and then everyone is all, “OMG, little boys can be raped. Who knew?!” which seems to perpetuate the view that the rape of boys and men is extremely rare.

    Rightwing commentators tend to be worse. I believe it was Ann Althouse who linked to this blog (or maybe it was the Good Men Project?), and the vast majority of the commenters there mocked sites like this, implying that issues like the rape of men weren’t serious issues and that men caring about these issues are “manginas.”

    So, when I see people here only take issue with “feminists,” for their complicity in invisibilizing the rape of men, I see people letting others who are also complicit off the hook really easily. Frankly, that tactic is going to alienate you from potential feminist allies. I am more than willing to advocate for better and more accurate tracking of rape statistics, but I wouldn’t be a part of a movement that is only critical of feminists and lets non-feminists voices who perpetuate rape myths go unchallenged.

  48. pocketjacks says:

    @Ozy,

    I fully agree with this post. One quibble, though:

    “Our policies on domestic violence must work from a position of gender equality: it is a moral necessity to end domestic violence shelters that don’t provide services for male survivors, PSA campaigns that don’t include a single male survivor or female perpetrator, and awareness campaigns that assume that men must be taught not to abuse and women to identify abuse, instead of teaching everyone both.”

    Err… did I read that right? Existing services for abuse survivors need to be shut down until and unless they’re made gender-neutral? That doesn’t sound right. Should religious hospitals that deny certain reproductive services be shut down and its patients tossed back out onto the street?

    I agree that PSA’s should be more balanced, though, especially those aimed at children.

    @The_L

    “But the campaign isn’t “ONLY Men can Stop Rape.” It’s “Men Can Stop Rape.” Which they can, to the same degree and in the same ways that women can: to wit, they can stop themselves from raping others, even when they’re strongly tempted. I consider it a case of eliminating rape in one form at a time: ”

    Would it be okay to plaster local mosques with “Muslim-Americans can Stop Collusion with International Terrorists”? The word ‘only’ isn’t being used here either.

    @Cel,

    I can’t tell if you’re setting up a springboard for the point you really want to make, but okay, I’ll bite. I would consider “attempted murder” a form of murder when evaluating crime statistics. (For instance, if I were deciding which neighborhood to move to.) Why should this be any different?

    @adi,

    “We could start by spreading the ‘discovery’ that testosterone does NOT cause aggressive behavior:”.

    Yes. In men, at least, estrogen increases aggression, I believe. I don’t think the same is true for women though.

    @fannie,

    Why do feminists criticize liberal men, progressive men, or the Democratic Party? Each of these groups are better at pretty much every single feminist issue than their counterparts. So criticizing them is ungrateful. By doing so, you’re alienating potential allies. And you have only yourselves to blame.

  49. Hugh Ristik says:

    @fannie,

    I fully agree with you about holding right-wingers, the media, and other non-feminist groups accountable for propagating the male perpetrator, female victim model of sexual violence.

    I suspect that when people criticize feminist groups for contributing to that model, those people aren’t intending to erase how non-feminist groups do the same thing. Rather, people making those criticisms might feel that feminists already agree with them about the traditionalism of non-feminist groups.

    When mainstream and traditionalist groups propagate the male perpetrator, female victim model, it’s not a surprise. It’s old news. When people calling themselves feminists are contributing to that model, it’s a lot more disturbing, because they should know better. Furthermore, feminists have a lot of influence on sexual violence legislation, education, and funding.

    Unfortunately, focusing on how feminists uphold this traditional model might have given you the impression that non-feminists are being let off the hook, but I very much hope that’s not the case. Personally, I already take it for granted that conservatives and the media have a skewed, Victorian perception of sexual violence.

    It would be nice if it was possible to criticize particular feminists without having a give a list of all the other non-feminists who do the same thing. But, maybe that’s not the most constructive way to do things.

    Perhaps it would be most constructive to also criticize traditionalist, non-feminists, alongside feminists, and make clear that not all feminists are to blame for this sort of view. That make feminists feel less singled-out.

    That’s actually what I tried to do in my previous comment. I did mention conservatives, and I tried to make clear that it’s a particular minority of feminist activists who are responsible for these skewed policies and definitions.

  50. ballgame says:

    @ballgame: Another possibility accounting for the low men-being-raped lifetime figure is that older men and/or men who were victimized further in the past may continue to view it as Not-Rape for the myriad reasons that have already been discussed in this thread, and are thus unlikely to ever report it.

    I agree, The_L. While all explanations are speculative at this point, I strongly suspect that your theory here is responsible for a big part of the discrepancy.

  51. Lamech says:

    @pocketjacks: “Err… did I read that right? Existing services for abuse survivors need to be shut down until and unless they’re made gender-neutral? That doesn’t sound right. Should religious hospitals that deny certain reproductive services be shut down and its patients tossed back out onto the street?”
    Well private ones can do what they want, but basically yes organizations that only service half the victims either need to change or stop getting federal funding. Remember Title IX? That is how discrimination needs to be dealt with. If a group discriminates based on gender we cannot support them. The funds can then be sent to some place that is gender neutral.
    Also don’t forget we have a limited amount of money, if we don’t spend money one place it can be spent in another. If the government stops giving X dollars a year to a group that discriminates they can give the money to a group that does not discriminate. Victim services won’t be cut. The money will simply be going to different places.

  52. $ocraTTTe$ says:

    The CDC study is already being misinterpreted in other spaces on the web. It seems folks have a really hard time wrapping their heads around the idea that women rape men with any degree of frequency, so they are misreading the findings and coming up with wildly inaccurate conclusions.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/23/1048317/-Rape-by-Proxy:-What-the-New-CDC-Study-Tells-Us-about-Male-on-Male-Sexual-Violence?showAll=yes&via=blog_573021

    This blogger states:

    “Theoretically, this could mean that a woman might force a man to penetrate her, but the survey makes it clear that not a single instance of this was reported. No, what we’re talking about here is men who use violence to coerce other men into committing rape. These are instances in which the perpetrator is also the victim. A 4.8% rate means that if you’re in a room with 21 men, odds are that one of them will have been violently coerced to rape.”

    This feminist blogger seemed to think that the “forced to penetrate” statistics involved men who were forced to rape women by other men. She didn’t realize that 80% of the perpetrators were female and that they were forcing men to penetrate them. Apparently she seemed to think “forced to penetrate” meant “forced to rape,” rather than a situation in which the penetrated party wanted the sexual contact and the penetrating party was non-consenting.
    I believe she (or he, I’m not sure of the blogger’s gender) was confused by the CDC’s reference to attempted forced penetration. She quotes the report here.

    “– Among men, being made to penetrate someone else could have occurred in multiple ways: being made to vaginally penetrate a female using one’s own penis; orally penetrating a female’s 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. [Emphasis is mine. And, curiously, missing from this description is being forced to perform oral sex on others — a common form of sexual abuse of males by males.]”

    Apparently she thought that the statement “also includes female perpetrators attempting to force male victims to penetrate them, though it did not happen” meant that female perpetrators attempting to force male victims to penetrate them “did not happen,” rather than the “did not happen” referring to the incomplete nature of the sexual assault. This statement in the report is simply referring to attempted forced penetrations by female (and male) aggressors.

    Go check out the blog. I feel that the misunderstanding here is innocent, but it speaks to how colored our understanding of this issue is. It’s difficult for someone to read the report and even perceive the fact that women assault men, it’s much easier to misread it an think men make other men rape women, because, after all, women aren’t ever supposed to rape men.

    Getting people to understand and propagate the knowledge that women sexually assault men is going to be one hell of an uphill battle.

  53. Narcissist says:

    Hello Huge Ristik

    I don’t have anything concrete, really. Your take on it (the article you linked) is how I believe that it works – radical extremists get it done, the mainstream are used to support it and spread the propaganda/”create awarness”. For example, I believe that average young feminists are used to spread male perp’d rape hysteria and normalise fear of men (eg. Schrodinger’s rapists propaganda) on campus to generate conditions that will be more favorable for installing extremist legislation. You see the same system working for VAWA, VAWA and the Deluth Model are clearly extremist ideologies, yet in moderates that believe that they are not extremists – there is monolithic support for the legislation and misinformation that is produced by the VAWA system. Most recently its been moderates coming out to minimize and defend the excesses at Radfem Hub.

    Thankfully we have dissident feminists, mra’s (I think that many mra’s could actually be described as dissident feminists) whistleblowers etc.

    A writer that goes by the name of Kyle Lovett at AVfM is planning to publish about this system soon, it sounds promising.

    “After taking some time to digest a lot of the information that wasreleased about the RadFem Hub this past week, I decided to take a closer look at this organization and it’s ties to both the Australian government (if any)as well as evaluating whether any of these radical feminists or their associates had significant input into crafting new legislation that would be going before the Australian Parliament. What I found after several days of research can only be described as a deep and twisted network. Academicians, non-profit organizations, several public departments and public officials and dozens of individual authors, speakers and public health professionals, all linked together by personal or professional relationships and all working towards a structured ‘gender’ agenda similar to what Sweden has already begun implementing.
    At the center of these endeavors are the usual subjects such as domestic violence, sexual assault and affirmative action for women. These goals are being pursued by increasing the scope of existing governmental policies and procedures, lobbying for additional funding and grants and writing and gathering volumes of ‘research’ and ‘academic’ papers which culminate into a laundry list of new Australian legislation to be enacted into law. At the core of this network are about three to four dozen (almost all self-proclaimed) Australian radical feminists, many of whom are directly and personally linked to members of the RadFem Hub, and/or have even made a guest post on that site. Almost all the members of this group were guest speakers at several radical feminist gatherings, including the 2011 Perth SCUM Conference and the 2007 Townsville International Feminist Summit Conference.

    “Make no mistake, while the “mainstream” feminists, or what the radical feminists mockingly like to call the “fun-fems,” sit back on their blogs or write in opinion pieces saying radical feminists are only a tiny minority, the radicals are doing their work. Sometimes “moderate” feminists take this further, defending the actions and statements of radical feminists who, in key positions throughout the academic, non-profit and public sector, are highly motivated to implement their agenda and effect policy. Over the next few weeks I will write a series of articles on this subject, making the information more manageable and digestible. Hold on to your hats ladies and gentlemen as I fully intend to expose the deep roots of radical feminism in Australia, as well as their powerful sway over public policy.”

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/australias-path-to-radical-feminism-part-1/

    What he has found is what you have described – a small group manipulating and achieving a lot.

    Sort of off topic but not, I believe that the Enthusiastic Consent movement is another case of mainstream feminists being used to promote extremists ideology, Enthusiastic Consent taken to its logical conclusion, results in separatism. If they ever did manage to build a legal and social standard that required Enthusiastic Consent for each and every sexual escalation, there would be a large mood killing structure there in between heterosexuals that want to engage in normal consensual PIV intercourse or any heterosexual sexual contact, that would not exist for other orientations. If the Enthusiastic Consent movement is not crypto-separatism designed by radical separatists, it might as well be.

  54. Narcissist says:

    “Our policies on domestic violence must work from a position of gender equality: it is a moral necessity to end domestic violence shelters that don’t provide services for male survivors, PSA campaigns that don’t include a single male survivor or female perpetrator, and awareness campaigns that assume that men must be taught not to abuse and women to identify abuse, instead of teaching everyone both.”

    Isn’t this exactly what “anti-feminists” and the men’s movement have been saying for decades?

    Here are some established organisations that are working to the ends you describe.

    http://www.mediaradar.org/
    http://www.saveservices.org/
    http://glennsacks.com/blog/?cat=88
    http://ncfm.org/
    http://breakingthescience.org/

  55. YmcY says:

    Great work Ozy, and great work everyone here speaking up in support.

    Here’s to more and better data, and more awareness, and more action to end rape, violence, abuse, and help its survivors (of any gender.)

  56. pocketjacks says:

    @Lamech,

    “Well private ones can do what they want, but basically yes organizations that only service half the victims either need to change or stop getting federal funding. Remember Title IX? That is how discrimination needs to be dealt with. If a group discriminates based on gender we cannot support them. The funds can then be sent to some place that is gender neutral.”

    On the other hand, however, we have examples like the religious hospitals I mentioned in my initial post. Places that do discriminate, yet get public assistance anyway because it’s deemed that the other work they do more than offset the negatives. The question is, in terms of the gravity and social importance of their work, are battered spouse shelters more like hospitals or college sports teams? I submit that they’re more like hospitals.

    I think a lot of men’s advocacy energy is being wasted on this particular issue and this particular argument. We shouldn’t be in the business of closing shelters, it’s not morally persuasive to those outside the movement, and frankly not to many of us inside it, either.

    @$ocraTTTe$

    I… am just left speechless. Wow. Exhibit A on how an obviously well-meaning person can promote, and there’s no other term for it, bigotry. She literally cannot conceive of a situation in which women as a group can do wrong.

  57. Schala says:

    “I think a lot of men’s advocacy energy is being wasted on this particular issue and this particular argument. We shouldn’t be in the business of closing shelters, it’s not morally persuasive to those outside the movement, and frankly not to many of us inside it, either. ”

    Don’t close the shelter, but don’t finance it with public funds if they’re not working according to the simple guidelines they’re held over (for example: offer equal services for men and women).

    If they absolutely want to only help women, they can finance privately, see, not closing there.

  58. noahbrand says:

    If they absolutely want to only help women, they can finance privately, see, not closing there.

    Well, no, they probably can’t. Private donations never make up for a lack of public funding, despite the fervid fantasies of various libertarians. (I’m not accusing you of being a libertarian in general, BTW. That’s an awful thing to call someone without evidence.) So in practice, your plan does call for closing shelters. Let’s not be disingenuous here.

  59. Schala says:

    The few men’s shelters that exist (1, maybe 2, in Canada) are privately funded, so it’s not impossible.

  60. makomk says:

    “Private donations never make up for a lack of public funding, despite the fervid fantasies of various libertarians.”
    Oddly, I’ve also seen a lot of feminists insist that it doesn’t matter that state funding for rape counselling and domestic violence services is pretty much entirely for women-only services, and that anyone complaining about this should stop trying to hijack money aimed at women and set up their own privately-funded ones. In fact, it seems to be the most common rebuke to anyone objecting to this imbalance in funding.

    @$ocraTTTe$: wow, that’s incredibly blatent, and not a single comment seems to have been posted pointing out that the CDC study quite clearly says the exact opposite of what she’s claiming it does. I’d tend to disagree with the innocent interpretation, though; if she hasn’t actually read the parts of the study that talk about the gender of the perpetrator she shouldn’t be claiming it shows they were always male, and if she did then there’s not really any way to misinterpret it. Besides, even if the CDC did come to the conclusion she says they did, her entire argument relies on the idea that it’s only real rape if the victim was penetrated; she’s treating men that were forced to penetrate someone else as rapists and those that were penetrated as victims, despite the fact the former clearly didn’t consent and were forced to do it and the latter may have not only consented but even been the one threatening them. (Yes, male perpetrators can do this too.)

  61. Narcissist says:

    Noahbrand

    Since it was taken over by radical feminists the 1970s the shelters movement has insisted on discriminating against men and children that are being abused by women, and have published mountains of misinformation about abuse and the nature of it (the information that abuse is not gendered has been there for decades, feminism has been suppressing it) and so willfully contributing to abuse in society, not forcing them to change immoral. Its entirely reasonable to forcefully insist that they obey anti-discrimination laws and not lie to the public and government about abuse rates.

    Reasoning doesn’t work, its been tried for decades now.

  62. makomk says:

    @Narcissist: Mustn’t forget about trans women – the feminists running many of the shelters and rape support groups have been refusing them service and spreading all kinds of harmful misinformation about them for decades too. (They even managed to get anti-discrimination laws here in the UK written with an exemption specifically to allow them to go on doing it.)

  63. Narcissist says:

    Makomk,

    Its amazing how these groups have maintained their public Florence Nightingale image when they have been willfully engaging is such corruption and bigotry for decades now.

    I’d to know more about their treatment of trans women. Is there a site where I can read up about it?

  64. makomk says:

    Was the reference to Florence Nightingale’s questionable actions intentional? In any case, I don’t think there’s a good summary, but some good starting points to look at if you want to research it yourself would probably be this post by Roz Kaveney and Questioning Transphobia in general, the effects of Mary Daly, her protege Janice Raymond, and their sadly influential work The Transsexual Empire (on Sandy Stone in particular), and how the last major feminist blog that could claim to be trans-friendly handled this. More recently, there’s stuff like Julie Bindel’s transphobic Guardian pieces, her position of influence, and the Equality Act 2010 in the UK which had an exemption allowing rape counselling services and domestic violence shelters to exclude trans women based on arguments startlingly like hers. (The bill itself was introduced and later forced through without a proper debate by a prominent feminist woman who was at the time the second most powerful person in the UK. The only reason trans people got discrimination protection at all was because the EU Court of Human Rights required it; the government dragged their feet as long as was politically viable.)

    On a more on-topic note, if I can dig them up at some point I seem to recall several of our more influential feminist lobbying groups in the UK sent submissions to the Equality Act consultation claiming that rape and domestic violence-related services that provided for both men and women were an attack on equality and local governments must be pressured to only fund women-only ones. They’re a bit tricky to find online now as a result of the change of government though.

  65. makomk says:

    Oh bugger, that got mangled and stuck in moderation at the same time. Short version, there’s no real summary that I’ve seen but this post by Roz Kaveney http://www.questioningtransphobia.com/?p=384 is a reasonable starting point as is Questioning Transphobia in general.

  66. YmcY says:

    wow, that’s incredibly blatent, and not a single comment seems to have been posted pointing out that the CDC study quite clearly says the exact opposite of what she’s claiming it does. I’d tend to disagree with the innocent interpretation, though; if she hasn’t actually read the parts of the study that talk about the gender of the perpetrator she shouldn’t be claiming it shows they were always male, and if she did then there’s not really any way to misinterpret it.

    @makomk: I think on the contrary she can interpret it that way “innocently”, because privilege. The kryiarchy really is The Matrix, or Satan/Original Sin for anyone else with a feminist (Christian) theology bent. The cultural pre-conceptions get entrenched in brains; and cognitive biases that *want* to believe things that happen to say nice things about you or make the world work in your favour – those do the rest.

    Breaking your mind out of whatever part of The Matrix its stuck in right now, especially when you are the party privileged rather than oppressed by that part, is….. non-trivial.

  67. noahbrand says:

    @Narcissist: I’m confused. Not about your conspiracy theory; I get that you’re married to the idea that feminism is a malevolent undercover monolith designed to wreck everything, its members sworn to silence about the true agenda except for those that aren’t. It’s a pretty standard conspiracy structure, and indeed I’ve seen that particular incarnation before.

    No, what really throws me is your apparent notion that this theory would be particularly welcome on a feminist blog, particularly one that by its very existence is evidence against your theory. That’s like trying to peddle geocentrism at the Air & Space Museum.

    Let me be clear: wild-eyed anti-feminist frothing is not welcome here. This ain’t They Live, and you’re no Roddy Piper. Consider yourself warned.

  68. makomk says:

    noahbrand: see, your comment is exactly what I mean when I say that essentially all feminists are defending transphobia. There is actual, demonstrable evidence of a not-so-secret conspiracy to drive anyone who wasn’t an utterly transphobic asshole out of feminism – read Roz Kaveney’s piece, take a good look at what happened to Sandy Stone and Olivia Records, think about all the other trans women who didn’t reach positions where they could speak out, count up all the big-name 60s and 70s and 80s and 90s feminists who were massively, publicly transphobic and all the womens-only events that were and are in fact cis women only.

    For some odd reason, though, this isn’t talked about much – probably because protecting feminism’s good name from being besmirched is more important than accountability or not harming women. Your comment is so far from the first I’ve seen trying to silence discussion of feminism’s history of transphobia by claiming it’s an attack on feminism that I basically gave up hope a long time ago.

  69. Narcissist says:

    Noahbrand

    I’m not talking about a conspiracy theory. What I’m talking about is very well documented.

    And just because someone is talking about problematic aspects of feminism, like the abuse cover up and the discrimination by the shelters movement, it doesn’t make them anti-feminist, unless of course feminism is a monolith, I actually said “thankfully we have dissident feminists” further up the page.

    DISABUSING THE DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC
    ABUSE: HOW WOMEN BATTER MEN AND THE
    ROLE OF THE FEMINIST STATE
    LINDA KELLY*
    h tt p://law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf

    CURRENT CONTROVERSIES AND PREVALENCE
    CONCERNING FEMALE OFFENDERS
    OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

    Click to access V75-Straus-09.pdf

    You can get the story of how the original domestic violence movement was co-opted here.
    h t tp://www.sossandra.org/2007/04/13/this-way-to-the-revolution

    I brought up a theory – was suggesting that putting a large legal and social structure in between heterosexual sexual interactions was really crypto-separatism and if not it was unintentional separatism. I also said, that fun mainstream feminists monolithically come out to support and minimize extremist aspects of feminism and feminist abuse denial, that part is fairly self-evident.

  70. YmcY says:

    It doesn’t need to be a Conspiracy Theory, because its The Matrix. Its All the Fucking Matrix. Seriously. Maybe if I say it more and more people will be bludgeoned into agreeing? 😛

    This shit – privilege, oppression, etc – works on two levels:

    1) Wiring. You’re (almost certainly) cognitively biased toward your own cause, because Evolution. Robin Hanson (warning: libertarian of a kind, transhumanist, probably not a feminist) calls this Homo Hypocritus. Worth a lookup.

    2) Society. 1) is bad enough, and then we go and turn it into institutions. This is the kryiarchy any social justice type knows all too well.

    Between 1) and 2) you’re fucked. Thats the Id and the Superego conspiring together against you if you speak Freudian. The Matrix doesn’t need to be a goddamned computer simulation because your genes and your society will gladly work together to build it inside your brain.

    So yes, it kind of is a conspiracy, but not the “let us now convene the 3357th meeting of the Knights Templar, Freemason division” kind. Its far more powerful than that crap could ever be.

    And if you break out of the Matrix you just end up in a slightly less Matrix-y part. See: feminism, to the extent its transphobic, or misandric, or whatever. Its hard enough to even reach feminism let alone keep going.

    And if you fall down the wrong Rabbit Hole you maybe even end up worse than where you started – a feminist who literally wants to genocide men or trans people being an instance of someone who would probably be making an improvement if they just went back to Patriarchal gender roles. Sure those people are very rare, but they exist.

  71. Narcissist says:

    Also Noahbrand

    The truth about symmetry and bi-directional DV has been out since the 80s. “by 1986 there were already 23 studies showing equal rates including two national studies”. [1]

    The fact that the people that control the shelters movement and abuse industry to this day are using taxpayers money to make dishonest PSAs in order to lie to the public about gendered abuse is a huge scandal. The fact that honest researchers have been threatened, intimidated and ostracized for telling the truth is a huge scandal.

    What makes it most difficult to change, be main thing that’s standing in the way of creating awareness about this, is mainstream followers of feminism acting like monolithic drones that think that criticism of feminism is extremism is a personal attack and believe that because they identify as feminists, they have to attack and censor people that talk about this scandal.

    If that type of feminist would just get out of the way and stop defending the extremists that run the movement, the transition from the current patriarchy theory model to an evidence based, non discriminatory science based system would be a hell of lot easier.

    [1] http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V75-Straus-09.pdf

  72. ozymandias42 says:

    Narcissist: Radical feminists are a huge and widely varied group, ranging from misandric transphobic asshats like Mary Daly to people like bell hooks, who actually raised awareness of female abusers (particularly of boys). Not even are feminists not a monolith, but radical feminists aren’t even a monolith. 🙂 Enthusiastic consent is not crypto-separatism, unless you think that heterosexual couples couldn’t possibly have both parties really enjoying the sex (although enthusiastic consent is off-topic so if we wish to continue discussion of it please take it to the Open Thread.)

    Other than that, I agree with YmcY. This shit’s the fucking Matrix.
    .
    makomk: Both Noah and I believe that feminism is all-too-often directed at the concerns of straight, white, middle-class, abled, cis women, and we’re well-aware of the endemic transphobia, particularly in second-wave feminism but still sometimes in third-wave. It’s just… not particularly on topic. Take it to the Open Thread!

  73. Schala says:

    The Quebec feminist site/group Sisyphe, will often say that Quebec MRA are all spouting lies, even if it’s based on neutral statistics.

    Tell them that men should get DV funding for shelters, and they’ll say it’s all about abusing women and negating feminist funding, so it’s obviously anti-feminist. Bring up the anti-male court bias in sentencing or custody, and they’ll say it’s all about not paying child support and beating their wives and girlfriends, while the sentencing discount will be justified with things about how women are truly inherently less violent and more reabilitable, while men are not.

    Try to argue with them, you will lose, time, energy, and no one will really care you even tried. Because politicians trust them implicitly, and mistrust MRAs, based on the say of those feminist themselves.

  74. Narcissist says:

    Ozy

    “Other than that, I agree with YmcY. This shit’s the fucking Matrix.”

    Its not the matrix, the story I’m telling ‘has been published in the mainstream media and by the scientific DV research community, It only seems like matrix-y. Its just that because it’s women covering up abuse and the abuse is of men, it doesn’t register as something seriously in society and feminists, monolithically defend and minimise it by attacking and censoring anyone that tries to talk about it. Mainstream feminism’s unwitting collusion is self evident as is it monolithic support of extremist laws like VAWA. As is the proliferation of abuse misinformation via. mainstream feminism.

    “Enthusiastic consent is not crypto-separatism, unless you think that heterosexual couples couldn’t possibly have both parties really enjoying the sex”

    Reductio ad absurdum. I know you rightly pointed out this is off topic but I’ll just reitterate what I said because you are misrepresenting it. This is what I said.

    “Enthusiastic Consent taken to its logical conclusion, results in separatism. If they ever did manage to build a legal and social standard that required Enthusiastic Consent for each and every sexual escalation, there would be a large mood killing structure there in between heterosexuals that want to engage in normal consensual PIV intercourse or any heterosexual sexual contact, that would not exist for other orientations. If the Enthusiastic Consent movement is not crypto-separatism designed by radical separatists, it might as well be.”

  75. The_L says:

    When Ozy says “it’s the Matrix,” she doesn’t mean it’s fiction. She means that it’s a system that you don’t recognize until you are able to step outside it. Just like the virtual-reality program in the movie The Matrix: if you’d told Neo a week before the events of the movie that he was living inside a computer simulation, he’d have thought you were crazy.

    Similarly, most people don’t see things as being misogynistic or misandrist until they are able to step outside the box and look at the situation from another perspective.

    As for all feminists unilaterally covering up evidence of abuse against men–did you even fucking read this post? The entire fucking post is about how woman-on-man abuse is more common than the average person believes, and this is a feminist blog.

    And I don’t see how enthusiastic consent would kill the mood, unless you have such a hard-wired rape fetish that you are incapable of having consensual sex with another human being. That sort of extreme fetishization of rape is extremely rare. As a woman who enjoys sex and makes her enthusiasm clear to her partners, I honestly don’t see how “Oh god, YES!!” kills the mood of heterosexual PIV intercourse–it usually enhances it. Encouraging enthusiastic consent may slightly decrease the amount of sex being had in the short term, but would encourage positive healthy intercourse of all types in the long run.

  76. Narcissist says:

    A case in point here.

    The main group that pushed through these new definitions that exclude envelopment as rape. (FMF). Have these deliberate lies about domestic violence up on their website.

    “”A Crime Against Women”
    Although men are more likely to be victims of violent crime overall, a recent study by the U.S. Department of Justice reports that “intimate partner violence is primarily a crime against women.”2
    Of those victimized by an intimate partner, 85% are women and 15% are men.2 In other words, women are 5 to 8 times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner.3
    The vast majority of domestic assaults are committed by men. Even when men are victimized, 10% are assaulted by another man. In contrast, only 2% of women who are victimized are assaulted by another woman.2”
    http://feminist.org/911/crisis_facts.html

    As well as openly lying about domestic violence. They are also connected the rape culture hysteria propaganda/”creating awareness” on every college campus in the states. The president of that group, is an ex pres of its sister organisation NOW that set up Take Back the Night. Legal Momentum, formally known as NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund are the people behind VAWA,, and the same people that have rolled back fathers rights and civil rights for male partners, are pushing to remove civil rights for men on campus on the strength of campus rape hysteria, which Feminist Majority Foundation are involved in creating.

    That’s just one group of second wave radicals spread over a couple of organisations, that are openly lying about DV, that are running campus rape culture hysteria, lobbing for the discriminatory VAWA which funds all the PSA’s that lie about abuse and is working to remove civil rights for men on campus etc.

    There is monolithic, cult like support for the activities of these groups among fun feminists, yet the average fun feminist has no clue that they are being lead by this small group and acting as cheerleaders for them, while at the same time believing that radical 2nd wave radical are unconnected to them but will attack anyone that is critical of them or their policies and misinformation, because they monolothically believe that’s “anti-feminism” and therefore bad.

  77. Narcissist says:

    The_L

    “As for all feminists unilaterally covering up evidence of abuse against men–did you even fucking read this post? The entire fucking post is about how woman-on-man abuse is more common than the average person believes, and this is a feminist blog.”

    Did you even read my fucking posts? I specifically mentioned dissident feminists. (now let that be the end of us swearing at each other!) and abuse rate misinformation is monolithic in feminism. Just go to any large feminist site, anything to do with VAWA, Shaksville, Feministe, any feminist PSA etc. they are all pushing misinformation. Ozy is different, she is a feminist that is learning about the truth because she is being exposed to dissident feminists and mra’s and non feminists through her interest in mens issues.

    “And I don’t see how enthusiastic consent would kill the mood, unless you have such a hard-wired rape fetish that you are incapable of having consensual sex with another human being.”

    What I said was that if a social and legal standard where Enthusiastic Consent is required from the heterosexual female, for each and every escalation of sexual contact between her and a heterosexual male, or else a very serious crime has been committed that could potentially destroy the male heterosexuals life, it would be mood killing. Such a legal and social structure, would represent a coercive speratism between heterosexual men and women. You know that’s what I said, I’ve said it twice, so please don’t misrepresent what you said, so that you can work a little false rape insinuation into your posts to me.

  78. Illannoying says:

    These men’s rape numbers sound low if one uses the actual definitions that the study, and feminists in general, tend to use. Most of the things I could list have high kindling potential, so I’ll just point out that sabotaging BC is hard to argue as not-rape using those definitions. Which then amuses me watching feminists hem and haw about a victim’s actual ability to strike back at his assailant.

    But, uhm, yeah. It would be nice if it were understood that not all regrettable sex was skeevy sex, and that not all skeevy sex was rape. Otherwise, while I don’t expect this study to actually change anyone’s minds or gain any traction, good on catching those numbers.

  79. Emily says:

    Hiya- this is my first visit to the website. I was redirected from a specifically feminist website to this post and I’m excited to have found it. I’m typically not a commenter AT ALL, but I’m so excited to find an egalitarian group that aims to discuss male equality in a positive way that I decided to break my rule just to say YAY for this website : D

    I tried to think of something useful to add to the conversation and even typed out a few things but nothing sounded like it wasn’t just preaching to the choir or repeating what others have already included. So, without trying to make anything about me, I just thought I’d add a voice to say that there are people who care about this issue, and other male-centric issues of equality. I personally know a lot of women and men who describe themselves as feminist who are also quite invested in the ways sexism affects men negatively. So even if we don’t often see them out and about or they may not know that sites like this exist, I just thought I’d say that we’re out there.

    I know the collective feminist voice is louder than the masculist- or even ‘generically’ egalitarian one… and certainly there should be many more people aware of the seriousness of the double standard against men and the unfair and unhealthy expectations and limitations on male behavior and on male justice. However, in the mean time, I guess I just thought I’d wave a flag and say, yay, look, here’s one more random woman saying there -are- women out there that take mens’ issues seriously and don’t think any of this bullshit is okay. And while there are certainly feminists who don’t give mens’ issues the time of day, as there was some mention to, let me serve as one more example that that’s not true of all women who are passionate about womens’ issues and that there is more than just enough room for both mens’ and womens’ issues in the world. And not just that, but that both are intrinsic to the well being of us all. So let’s keep fighting the good fight, and all that. Or, you know, whatever.

    This is why I don’t comment : D Cause I’m an awkward fucker when I talk. So, sorry. BYE n…n;;

  80. Pingback: Asymmetric Insight and the Gendersphere | GendErratic

  81. Pingback: Virginity Loss and Teenage Boys | No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz?

  82. I’d just add that in addition to the erasure of prison populations, the homeless population and the patients of psychiatric institutions would no doubt affect the study.

  83. Pingback: Teenage Boys and Virginity Loss — The Good Men Project

Leave a comment