Rape of men about as prevalent as rape of women

[Peterski]

The 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) found that 1.1% of non-incarcerated men were forced to have sex with another person in the past year. Defining rape victimization with the gender-neutral concept of being forced to have sex (including being “made to penetrate”), NISVS found that 1.1% of men and 1.1% of women were raped in the past year among persons outside of jails and prisons.[1] When is the last time you heard that roughly equal numbers of non-incarcerated men and women are raped? When is that last time you heard any concern about rape of men?

Men being forced to have sex by being forced to penetrate sexually is scarcely recognized. Before 2012, the Federal Bureau of Investigations’ Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) definition of rape explicitly limited rape to rape of females. The UCR apparently now includes as rape men being made to penetrate. Making that inclusion explicit is clearly needed for clarification. The major, annual, government-administered National Crime Victimization Survey doesn’t ask about men being forced to penetrate. NISVS asked men about being forced to penetrate, but NISVS didn’t include men being forced to penetrate under the category rape. NISVS pretended that men being forced to have sex with their penises isn’t real rape. That’s gender bigotry like surveys labeling men, and only men, as rapists in circumstances of true love.

NISVS buried the facts about rape of men. The executive summery of NISVS’s summary report listed as its first key finding:

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, including completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, or alcohol/drug facilitated completed penetration. [2]

These statistics don’t include men “made to penetrate” sexually another persons. NISVS found a lifetime prevalence of men raped in that way to be 4.8%.[3] Moreover, NISVS asked participants to recall sexual victimization across their whole lifetime and across the past year. Lifetime recall is much more likely to be faulty and biased than past-year recall. For example, regretted sex can be rationalized over time in memory as drunken sex. NISVS classifies drunken hetero-sex as rape of the woman.

The best, non-gender-biased rape measure from NISVS is that 1.1% of women and 1.1% of men were raped in the past year. Those key statistical findings are nowhere compellingly communicated in the NISVS summary report. The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control within the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention administered NISVS and publicly reported its results. Burying the facts about rape of men shows anti-men bias shaping public communication of an expert, government agency.

Anti-men bigotry combines with farce in a recent scholarly article. The scholarly article, entitled “The Sexual Victimization of Men in America: New Data Challenge Old Assumptions,” was published in the prestigious American Journal of Public Health. It begins thus:
The sexual victimization of women was ignored for centuries. Although it remains tolerated and entrenched in many pockets of the world, feminist analysis has gone a long way toward revolutionizing thinking about the sexual abuse of women, demonstrating that sexual victimization is rooted in gender norms and is worthy of social, legal, and public health intervention. [4]

This article doesn’t begin with concern about sexual victimization of men in America. It begins gynocentrically. A similar rhetorical strategy shapes the introduction to a scholarly article exploring the much neglected topic of men suffering much higher injury mortality than women, including men suffering a death rate from violence 4.1 times higher than that of women. Here, the scholarly article’s first sentence is simply preposterous. Sexual victimization of women has been of intense concern across all of recorded history. False accusation of rape has been of intense concern across all of recorded history until recent decades. The history of concern about false accusations of raping a woman makes no sense without parallel concern about raping women.

Acknowledging the reality of rape apparently isn’t possible without working earnestly to support entrenched discursive interests. The scholarly article observes:

The survey {NISVS} found that men and women had a similar prevalence of nonconsensual sex in the previous 12 months (1.270 million women and 1.267 million men). This remarkable finding challenges stereotypical assumptions about the gender of victims of sexual violence. However unintentionally, the CDC’s publications and the media coverage that followed instead highlighted female sexual victimization, reinforcing public perceptions that sexual victimization is primarily a women’s issue. [5]

Highlighting female sexual victimization was no more unintentional than is marketing stories with understanding of market demand. Female victimization attracts massive attention. No one wants to hear about male victimization.

Entrenched discursive interests are readily apparent in the scholarly article. With standard academic cant, the article declares:

We have interrogated some of the stereotypes concerning gender and sexual victimization, and we call for researchers to move beyond them. First, we question the assumption that feminist theory requires disproportionate concern for female victims. [6]

The article’s first concern is what feminist theory requires. Why should anyone care about requirements of feminist theory, as defined by the ruling feminist theoreticians? Elites today care, because if they don’t confirm their allegiance to feminist theory, they will be expunged from mainstream public discourse. The article concludes with a declaration worthy of feminist theory:

Finally, a gender-conscious analysis of sexual victimization as it affects both women and men is needed and is not inconsistent with a gender-neutral approach to defining abuse. Indeed, masculinized dominance and feminized subordination can take place regardless of the biological sex or sexual orientation of the actors. [7]

Biological sex or sexual orientation shouldn’t be relevant to concern for human suffering. While discounting those irrelevant factors, the article maps sexual victimization onto “masculinized dominance” and “feminized subordination.” The difference between hating men and hating masculinity is worse than splitting hairs. It’s chopping penises. “Masculinized dominance” and “feminized subordination” are worse abstractions than “feminized dominance” and “masculinized subordination.” The latter provides a better metaphor for reality today.

Read more:

death and gender: pathologizing masculinity, normalizing misandry
Selective Service in the ignored history of socially subordinating men
teaching rape, defying truth, and destroying great literature

Notes:

[1] Basile et al. (2011) pp. 18-9, Tables 2.1 and 2.2. These results are based on non-incarcerated persons’ statements about sexual victimization in response to survey questions. They are not findings of rape under criminal law. Rape in NISVS includes “completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, or alcohol/drug facilitated completed penetration.” The statistics cited above add to the NISVS “rape” category the sexual violence of men “made to penetrate” sexually another person.
[2] Id. p. 1. NISVS did not survey incarcerated persons. Men are highly disproportionately represented among incarcerated persons. Incarcerated persons suffer a much higher prevalence of sexual violence. If incarcerated men are appropriately recognized as “men in the United States,” rape of men is considerably higher than the NISVS statistics indicate.
[3] Id. p. 19, Table 2.2.
[4] Stemple & Meyer (2014) p. e19.
[5] Id.
[6] Id. p. e20.
[7] Id. p. e25. The article pursues “intersectional approaches.” Intersectional approaches detract attention from the fact that black men, Hispanic men, low-income men, mentally ill men, gay men, disabled men, and homeless men are all men.

Consider, for example, this statement:

Because the United States disproportionately incarcerates Black, Hispanic, low-income, and mentally ill persons, accounting for the experience of the incarcerated population will help researchers and policymakers better understand the intersecting factors that lead to the sexual victimization of already marginalized groups.

Id. p. e25. The article thus fails to mention that men are highly disproportionately incarcerated. About ten times more men are currently held in U.S. prisons and jails relative to women there. Gender-biased understandings of crime, such as gender-biased understanding of the crime of rape, contribute to the highly disproportionate incarceration of men.

References:

Basile, Kathleen C., Michele C. Black, Matthew Joseph Breiding, Jieru Chen, Melissa T. Merrick, Sharon G. Smith, Mark R. Stevens, and Mikel L. Walters. 2011. National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention.
Stemple, Lara, and Ilan H. Meyer. 2014. “The Sexual Victimization of Men in America: New Data Challenge Old Assumptions.” American Journal of Public Health. 104 (6): e19-e26.

Link to the article:

https://www.purplemotes.net/2014/07/13/rape-men/

[QUICAS]

Probably most men dont even tell the police. Some women also dont talk about it, men even less. War situations are the worser with high criminality, high animalism and low goverment presence in conflict zones. In WWII around 50% of the women were raped in some villages of East Europe and East Asia, but the numbers can be even higher since not many people talk about it.

[JohnSmith]

I doubt that,, but I do think men also experience issues but just do not admit to it much.

When I was 18 years old I worked at a restaurant and I remember one of the cooks used to touch me sometimes inappropriately. I was young ans stupid did not know what was going on. It really is one of those things where you are like is this for real did that really happen and then you deny it as if you are making a big deal about nothing.

[KMack]

There is probably no way to even track male rape in prisons.

[Heather Duval]

Probably most men dont even tell the police. Some women also dont talk about it, men even less. War situations are the worser with high criminality, high animalism and low goverment presence in conflict zones. In WWII around 50% of the women were raped in some villages of East Europe and East Asia, but the numbers can be even higher since not many people talk about it.

They dont tell because it doesnt exist. Stop pretending youre a minority.

[Peterski]

Stop pretending youre a minority.

Men are 1/2 of the population, actually about 49% (so yes, a slight minority).

[Heather Duval]

Men are 1/2 of the population, actually about 49% (so yes, a slight minority).

You a dumb shit

[Peterski]

I doubt that

If you doubt scientific studies, it means you are a religious nutter (and your religion is feminism).

BTW, there is one more similar study: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...=1#post4933925

[KMack]

Men are 1/2 of the population, actually about 49% (so yes, a slight minority).

And they most of the dangerous worn, not including fighting in wars.

[KMack]

What happens when the gays get into the Military. They can't control themselves.

A new report on sexual abuse within the American military sheds light on male rape and assault—and how little is actually known about the issue. Rates of military sexual trauma among men may be as much as 15 times higher than previously thought, according to the American Psychological Association, which published this new research in its journal Psychological Services.
https://psmag.com/social-justice/sex...han-we-thought