Manufacturing Female Victimhood and Marginalizing Vulnerable Men

Toxic victim-consciousness is the process by which women are made into class “acted upon” by emphasizing a disproportionate victimhood where none actually exists or isn’t proven.

In “Women Do Not Benefit: The Science“, I outlined how toxic victimhood limits women and socializes them to undermine their own achievements. Toxic victimhood promotes the perception that women are “acted upon” rather than actors. When a society is promoting toxic victimhood, there is no need to limit women overtly through legal, financial or social restrictions. Instead women will limit themselves through their own mental foot-binding.

Here I will look at a recent and very successful effort to manufacture toxic female victimhood whole-cloth, the CDC’s 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey.

The much publicized figure on rape from this survey is that 1 in 5 women versus 1 in 71 men are victims of rape in their lifetime. (If the rate men are raped is reported on at all.)

Let’s see exactly how the female-as-victim juggernaught churned this nugget out.

Question: When is Rape Not Rape? Answer: When a Rapist Uses Her Vagina

The first thing to note is that the NIPSVS decided that men being forced to have sex with women isn’t rape. Let’s think about this again. The NIPSVS finds that men are the majority perpetrators of rape. 98% of female rape victims and 93% of male rape victims had a male perpetrator. A woman shoving her fingers up a man’s anus is rape, but a woman shoving her vagina down on his penis is not. The latter is not classified as rape, but as “made to penetrate” and is placed in the category of “other sexual violence”.

Logically, if you define rape as penetration, but not envelopment, you are going to end up with an arbitrarily large number of male rapists compared to female rapists.

Rape could easily be redefined as forced envelopment, which is exactly as arbitrary as the NIPSVS’s redefinition of rape. In that case we would find that 80+% of rapists are female. Which is as fatuous a finding as the reverse.

So why are significantly more men than women rapists and significantly more women raped than men? Because when women rape using their vaginas it’s not rape, it’s “other sexual violence”.

Men are the vast majority of rapists and women are the vast majority of victims because rape was defined in such a way to make sure that this was so.

The Real Risk of Rape in the Last Twelve Months

It should be noted the NIPSVS presents no statistics on male victims of rape through penetration for the last 12 months. This is interesting because the 2000 National Violence Against Women Survey found that 0.3 percent of women and 0.1 percent of men surveyed said they were raped via penetration in the previous 12 months.

The NIPSVS says: “The estimates for male victims raped by other types of perpetrators were based upon numbers too small to calculate a reliable estimate and therefore are not reported.”

The NIPSVS surveyed 18,000 people; The NVAWS surveyed 16,000. Did the risk of rape of men by other men take a nose-dive between the NVAW survey and the NIPSVS survey?

Luckily the NIPSVS did track the risk of “made to penetrate” for men in the last year. It was 1.1%, identical to the 1.1% of women “made to envelop”.

If the act of forced envelopment is correctly classified as rape—namely a woman forcing a man to have sex using her vagina, the vagina being one of the two most commonly used instruments of sex—then you get an equal risk of rape between men and women in the last twelve months.

An equal risk of rape between men and women in the last twelve months.

Why then, is the lifetime risk of rape so different?

Men Rape; Women Are Raped

Researchers into the field of traumatic memory recovery note that the longer the period of time a person is asked recall a traumatic event, the less likely they are to remember it. How this works is that surveys that ask about a traumatic event in the last six months get less false negatives than those that ask about a traumatic event in the last twelve months which, itself, gets considerably fewer false negatives than lifetime prevalence.

For men this effect is even more pronounced.

16% of men with documented cases of sexual abuse considered their early childhood experiences sexual abuse, compared with 64% of women with documented cases of sexual abuse. These gender differences may reflect inadequate measurement techniques or an unwillingness on the part of men to disclose this information (Widom and Morris 1997).

Only 16% of men with documented case histories of child sexual abuse disclosed that abuse on a survey intended to capture child sexual abuse. Sixteen percent of men compared to sixty-four percent of women.

That amounts to a disclosure rate of child sexual abuse four times higher in women than in men.

Is it any wonder that the CDC’s 2010 survey (correcting for their mis-categorization of female-on-male rape) found that 18.3% of women and 6.2% of men were victimized over their lifetimes?

Comparing the lifetime rate of sexual abuse for men and women is misleading in determining their relative risk of sexual violence, simply because men disclose childhood sexual abuse four times less often than women.

There may be many reasons for this. It’s unlikely that it’s due to sexual abuse being less impactful on men because studies have shown that sexual abuse does have a profound impact on men, and this includes female-on-male sexual abuse. For instance, the link between sexual abuse and suicide attempts is stronger in boys (Rhodes et al. 2001) and sexually abused boys are twice as likely to commit suicide (Molnar et al. 2001) than sexually abused girls. In addition to that, there is a risk factor for sexually abused men to sexually abuse others is if their abuser was female (Salter et al. 2003.)

One possible reason for men not disclosing, or even “forgetting”, is quite simple: our social narrative does not allow for, nor does it depict, the sexual abuse of males. To a degree it allows for the sexual abuse of boys by men, but not boys by women or adult men by anyone.

In a study on the effects of retention interval and gender on the perception of violence, Ahola et al. (2009) found that eyewitnesses rated female perpetrators less violent than male when reporting after an interval of one to three weeks as opposed to ten minutes. Ahola et al. (2009) proposed that over time eyewitnesses reinterpreted the behavior of perpetrators in order to conform to gender stereotypes regarding violence.

Widom and Morris (1997) propose that a similar process is occurring with male victims of sexual abuse (particularly by females) as, over time, they reinterpret their victimization to conform with the dominant social narrative regarding sexual abuse: that it happens to women and is perpetrated by men. They will do this by reframing their abuse as consensual or as a rite of passage or less violent than it was or by “forgetting” it completely. The more time passes, the more our memories conform to the dominant social narrative.

Gender differences in reporting and in perceptions of early childhood experiences may reflect early socialization experiences in which men learn to view these behaviors as non-predatory and non-abusive. Many of the sexual experiences considered to be sexual abuse (showing/touching sex organs, kissing in a sexual way) may be seen as developmental rites of passage, part of a learning process (Widom and Morris 1997.)

Note that this “forgetting” does not mean that there is no psychological effect; only that the source of that effect is buried, becoming a silent trigger for self-destructive behavior.

The Real Ratio of Male to Female Rapists

If we look at the more reliable statistic, the risk of rape in the last twelve months, and we fix the NIPSVS’s mistake in classifying forced envelopment as “other sexual assault” and not rape, we find that 80% of men report a female rapist and 98% of women report a male rapist. (This estimate is based on the sex of reported perpetrators for sexual assault over a lifetime. There is no reason to think the number of female perpetrators for ‘forced envelopment’ would decline between the lifetime and last year reports: if anything they would increase)

Since there were roughly equal numbers of men(forced to penetrate) and women(forced to envelop) raped in the last year, if we look at a population of 100 rape victims, 50 of which are male and 50 of which are female and apply the statistic that 80% of the male victims were raped by a woman, we get 40 male victims raped by a woman.

That works out to about 40% of rapists being female and 60% being male. A far cry from 95+% of rapists being male.[1]

Instant Female Victimhood, Just Add Media

The cautious and least sensationalistic position to take based on the NIPSVS’s findings is that men and women are most likely at an equal risk of rape and that the proportion of male to female rapists is not significantly gendered. [2]

But this is obviously not what anyone really wants to hear. Instead, the NIPSVS manufactured a non-existant female victimhood by first redefining rape to exclude the vast majority of female-on-male victimization. Then mainstream media (and other parties interested in female victimhood) followed up by selecting the statistic most likely to be fraught with reporting error while completely ignoring the more reliable statistic that suggests parity and further ignoring the ratio of female to male abusers (40/60).[3]

And so from a survey that strongly suggests that neither rape victimization nor rape perpetration is significantly gendered, we get a resounding shout of ‘MEN RAPE/WOMEN ARE RAPED!’

Men act, women are acted upon.

And the juggernaut rumbles on.


Ahola A. S., Justice needs a blindfold: Effects of defendants’ gender and attractiveness on judicial evaluation. 2010.

Black M., Basile K. C., Breiding M. J. , Smith S. G. , Walters M. L. , Merrick M. T, Chen J. and Steven M. R., The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey(NIPSVS): 2010 Summary Report , National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, November 2011

Rhodes A. E, Boyle M. H. , Tonmyr L., Wekerle C., Goodman D., Leslie B., Mironova P., Bethell J., and Manion I., Sex Differences in Childhood Sexual Abuse and Suicide-Related Behaviors, Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 41(3) June 2011

Molnar B. E., Berkman L. F. and Buka S. L., Psychopathology, childhood sexual abuse and other childhood adversities : relative links to subsequent suicidal behaviour in the US, Psychological Medicine, 2001, 31, 965–977.

Salter D., McMillan D., Richards M., Talbot T., Hodges J., Bentovim A., Hastings R., Stevenson J., Skuse D., Development of sexually abusive behaviour in sexually victimized males: a longitudinal study, The Lancet, Vol. 361, February 8, 2003

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. , Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey(NVAWS), Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, November 2000

Widom C. S. and Morris S., Accuracy of Adult Recollections of Childhood Victimization: Part 2. Childhood Sexual Abuse, Psychological Assessment, Vol. 9, No. l, 34-46, 1997

[1] When same-sex rape is excluded the ratio becomes 44/56 male/female rapists. One reason why same-sex rape should be excluded for an accurate picture of the gender proportions of rapists is because male-on-male rape may be inflated relative to female-on-female rape due to the large population of incarcerated and formerly incarcerated men. The greater rate of male-on-male rape may be a byproduct of more men cycling through society’s rape-camps (otherwise known as ‘prisons’) at a greater rate then women.

[2] The moderate skew in favor of male rapists may just be an artifact of using female interviewers. We won’t know for sure until a survey is done that doesn’t require male victims of female aggressors to disclose their victimization to a female interviewer. Likely the NIPSVS used female interviewers preferentially in order to capture as much female victimization as possible; the logic being that women would be more likely to disclose to another woman.

[3] The 80% rate of female perpetration of forced envelopment is based on the lifetime risk numbers. However, it’s likely that the ratio of male to female rapists who forced envelopment on a man does not change significantly between the twelve month and lifetime time frame. If there is any change, asking men to report sexual abuse by females over their lifetime likely undercounts the proportion of female rapists since female-on-male rape is not congruent with our social stereotypes regarding rape and gender. Additional data on this issue is provided by Predictors of Sexual Coersion. Although Predictors only studied college populations, it found a similar parity in rape victimization risk between men and women in the last twelve months. 2.3% of women and 3.0% of men reported forced sex, which gives a ratio of 57/43 female/male rapists.

105 thoughts on “Manufacturing Female Victimhood and Marginalizing Vulnerable Men”

  1. Great post. The blatant skew of the definition of rape in the study, and the skew in the coverage of the study by others, are both extremely frustrating.

  2. One thing that I don’t understand (from a perspective of amoral pragmatism) about the media completley ignoring the gender parity in the annual rate of rape is how none of them have noticed what an attention grabbing headline “American Men at Equal Risk of RAPE” would be. In the end I have to conclude that because the CDC wouldn’t call “forced penetration” rape, the news papers feel they can’t either. Which leaves me kind of fucked off with the CDC… (though I am still greatful they asked at all, I mean, they could have just left that question out like all the others).

    I remember ages ago there was a bit of a stink over at NSWATM about RAINN using a study which didn’t count forced envolopment in reaching the conclusion that dramatically fewer men than women were raped. I wonder if they’ve updated.

    (from a quick check I got this: and they have not)

  3. Thank you for a fantastic post. I learned a great deal from this and particularly the important 16% versus 64% discrepency in reporting. Mind blowing and so important when it comes to understanding the numbers. I think again it boils down to the problem of a man’s emotional pain being taboo in our culture. There are literally no containers to hold his pain and without containers it is simply invisible. Women’s pain otoh is something that everyone wants to do something about. There are multiple containers for women’s pain.

    Typhon – have you thought of putting some of these articles together into an ebook and selling it on amazon?

  4. @typhonblue

    First of all, great post!

    Regarding footnote [3]. You wrote: “The 80% rate of female perpetration of forced envelopment is based on the lifetime risk numbers.“ As far as I can tell the 80% rate is based on the last 12 month and not the lifetime risk. Is this a mistake or am I missing something?

    I believe “Predictors of sexual coercion” is not only about college students but about college students in relationships. I can’t find the questionnaire right now, but I remember that they specifically asked about sexual violence in relationships. So stranger rape would not be documented in the study. But stranger rape is probably much more gendered, with a vast majority of female victims, than date rape, relationship rape. Though, a minority of all rapes a committed by strangers. Just as an additional note. Your overall point obviously stands.

  5. @ Thomas

    “But stranger rape is probably much more gendered, with a vast majority of female victims, than date rape, relationship rape.”

    You might not be considering the large number of male-on-male stranger rapes though.

  6. Actually, I thought about this, but I have never seen any actual numbers. Prison rape is certainly a huge problem, at least in the US. I have no idea if the stereotypical stranger in a dark alley scenario happens to men too at a mentionable rate.

  7. Thomas, what does happen to men a lot is acquaintance rape – sex with a drunk man, sex by coercion – and usually only feminists or people who have been sensitized by feminists ot the issue ever consider it rape.

  8. Your statistic that “40% of rapists are female” is demonstrably false. 

    If you look at the CDC’s reports regarding sexual violence, about 62% of women will be the victim of some form of sexual violence during her lifetime, compared to only 22% of men. Now, only about 56% of the people who commit some form of sexual violence against men are women, and women make up less than 5% of those who have committed some sort of sexual violence against women. Thus, 44% of people who rape men are men, and 95% of people who rape women, are men. And while roughly 59% of women can expect to be sexually assaulted by a man during their lifetime, only 12% of men can expect to be sexually assaulted by a woman.  

    If we define rape as “forced penetrative intercourse,” the stats are 18% of women, 2% of men, more than 98% all of the perpetrators being male.  If you want to expand that to include “forced to penetrate,” it is still 18% of women, 6% of men, with 61% of those men being victimized by women and more than 98% of those women being victimized exclusively by men.

    Now the stats of those surveyed in the CDC report —


    Forced Penetrative Intercourse

    Penetrated by force: 1,581,000 (100% male perps)
    Forced to Penetrate: 5,451,000 (79.2% female perps)

    Total: 7,032,000 total male victims
    • 4,317,192 (men raped by women)
    • 2,714,808 (men raped by men)


    Forced Penetrative Intercourse

    21,840,000 (98.1% male perps)
    • 21,577,920 (women raped by men)
    • 262,080 (women raped by women)
    Total: 21,840,000 (women raped by anyone)

    Victims of Both Genders by Gender of Perp

    28,872,000 (people raped by anyone)
    • 24,554,808 (people raped by men)
    • 4,579,192 (people raped by women)

    Grand total, 14% of rape victims are raped by women. 86% of rape victims are raped by men.


    If we expand the definition to include any kind of unwanted sexual contact, the numbers change, but the percentages remain pretty consistent. Let’s see how those numbers break down when we widen the parameters:

    26,711,000(m) vs. 75,014,000(f) = 101,725,000 rape victims total
    • 21,577,920 (women raped by men)
    • 49,451,820 (women assaulted by men)
    • 71,029,740 (women raped or assaulted by men)
    • 262,080 (women raped by women)
    • 3,722,180 (women assaulted by women)
    • 14,958,160 (men raped or assaulted by women)
    • 11,752,849 (men raped or assaulted by men)
    82,782,589 people raped or assaulted by men
    18,942,111 people raped or assaulted by women

Now using these numbers, provided by the CDC, dividing by our total, we get the following: 

    18.6% of rape victims have been assaulted by a woman.
    81.4% of rape victims have been sexually assaulted by a man.
    These statistics are from the CDC, not some random feminist website. So tell me, where did your statistics come from?

    Of course, by this, I most certainly do not mean to assert that sexual violence against men is more acceptable than sexual violence against women — merely that it is more prevalent, which is impossible to dispute. Most rapists are male. Most rape victims are female. And some of the factors that contribute to this discrepancy are cultural.

  9. Kathy with a K,

    My stats come from the most current CDC survey, as cited.

    Incidentally I believe you’re using the lifetime victimization numbers, which, as I illustrate in my post, are unreliable. Far more reliable are the 12-month numbers, which find parity between male and female rape victims (as long as you define ‘forced to penetrate’ as rape, which I do.)

    Now, 80% of men ‘forced to penetrate’ were forced to penetrate by female aggressors while approximately 100% of women were forced to envelop by male aggressors. That means out of one hundred rape victims, 50 male and 50 female (parity indicated by the 12 month stats), 40 of the male victims will have been raped by women. That makes 40 female rapists and 60 male. And if you exclude same sex victimizations the numbers get even more equal at 44 female rapists for every 56 male rapists.

    Please read the original post more carefully before responding next time.

  10. I’ve been kicked in the nuts and have my pants pulled down in front of others. Do people consider this sexual violence? I’ve had strange women put their hands down my pants and up my shorts. Does this count? I’ve had a strange drunk man (granted a fellow student) come into my dorm room and get into bed with me while I was asleep. Does this count? I’ve never “reported” any of this. Sorry , if I am minimizing truly unconscionable acts. I ask out of legitimate curiosity. I imagine a lot of other men have had similar experiences, probably even worse, and they barely bat an eye over it…at least externally. And, for me, these experiences I’ve had were not traumatic for me, but neither were they completely trivial.

  11. First I would like to say that both of my parents are victims of some form of sexual assault or abuse. My mother was molested by a doctor as a child, and raped by multiple men while partially unconscious at a party. My father was sexually molested by a female teacher. Both of my parents were equally traumatized by these events. So even though I think world wide, an adult female is more likely to be raped than an adult male, I think that the emotional impact of being violated in such a way is such that male victims should not be overlooked.

    I didn’t go through the statistics of the CDC article myself. I’m not familiar with the circumstances in which these “forced to penetrate” incidents most often occur. But I know one thing about rape of adult males, and that’s that it’s a very big problem in prisons, some prisons more than others, and prison staff more or less allows this to occur. Just because someone is incarcerated doesn’t mean they deserve to be raped, and I think it’s appalling that this is such a well known problem that no one does anything about.

  12. @ M. Smith

    “So even though I think world wide, an adult female is more likely to be raped than an adult male”

    There is no solid evidence to make a proclamation like this.

  13. “There is no solid evidence to make a proclamation like this.”

    In fact we are likely to find that if the same standards are used to identify rape, more adult men than women will be found to have been raped, since social and legal sanctions against men committing those acts are so muchmore widely understood and applied.

  14. Just wanted to point something out, although I’m not sure if I’m correct.

    If we take ‘made to penetrate’ as rape, then we can make the following calculations according to CDC statistics (the one you are using when you say %98.1 of females report a male perpetrator). First, as %4.8 of men accepted being ‘made to penetrate’, and %79.2 of those reported a female perpetrator, we get that %3.8 of men were raped by women. We don’t know how many men were ‘raped’ (in the CDC’s sense) by a women, sadly. So the only thing we know for sure is that, in our definition of rape, %6.2 of men surveyed were raped in their lifetime.

    So we now have to calculate how many men were raped by a female perpetrator. To do that, we calculate %3.8 as a percentage of the %6.2 (i.e. 3.8*100/6.2) and we find that %61.3 of men reported being raped only be female perpetrators.

    This contrasts with your %80 lifetime number, that I’m not sure how you calculated, although I would like if you could enlighten me.

    As we are using lifetime numbers, we must continue using lifetime numbers, we cannot change to 12 months now and continue with those numbers. So we know from this survey that 18.3% of women surveyed reported being raped, and 6.2% of men reported rape (including ‘made to penetrate’). If we use the percentages calculated, now can calculate what the number for rape with female perpetrators is.

    We don’t know any numbers of only women perpetrators against women, sadly, but we know that %3.8 of men were raped solely by a woman. If the total population in this case is %24.5 (18.3% and 6.2%), we get that 15.5% of those cases were done solely by women. If we calculate the same for men, we first calculate the percentage of women raped by men, which is the %98.1 of %18.3, which is 17.9%, which is 73.1%.

    From these numbers, we get that mostly, in lifetime numbers, men were the perpetrators of rape, while women also did their share. Of course, sadly, as we cannot mix lifetime with 12-months, we can only come to this conclusion that does not really explain today’s situation. So if you had a room filled with people that were raped, most probably were raped by men.

    I must give you that almost the same amount of men and women were raped in the last twelve months according to NISVS report, but as we don’t know the sex of the perpetrators in these cases, unfortunately, we cannot guess what percentage of women were the perpetrators.

    Of course, it is real that mostly women are central when we talk about rape, and that is a sad fact. But, and this is a big ‘but’, these numbers only account for rape in the U.S., so maybe the rape-women thing is something international that permeates american culture.

  15. @ Random

    If we can’t use the lifetime stats for male-female perpetration then we don’t know how many women in the 12-month stats were raped by other women.

    It could be any number therefore we can either say ‘we don’t know the ratio of perpetrators in our most reliable statistic on rape prevalence’ or ‘we will approximate the ratio using the life time numbers.’

    Neither case supports a finding that men rape women significantly more then women rape men.

  16. Random,

    Thanks for that. I have to look at your umbers to make sense of them, but either way, thanks.

    ” But, and this is a big ‘but’, these numbers only account for rape in the U.S., so maybe the rape-women thing is something international that permeates american culture.”

    It is bound to be country and culture specific. In cultures with intense slut-shaming of women women do NOT have the liberty they do in the US to apporach and pressure men. There goes a big tranch of rapes right there. In countires liek these young men and women are much more closley supervised than in the Us – which is not hard, considering that oyung men and women are not supervised at all in the US – so that means they don’t have drunken parties together at college and have drunk sex that pretty quickly shades off into rape. So you’re probably right.

  17. @ typhonblue:

    Well, what I meant is that we can use those numbers, to say things like how many people raped were raped by men or women. We cannot say that in the last month itself more men or more women raped other people. Luckily, there’s improvement in this area and more surveys and studies are being done to look at what’s happening.

    @ ginkgo

    Yeah, it’s probably a culture specific thing. Either way, we can estimate global numbers and make sense of that, and we can also try to see rape in only western countries and things like that. Basically, we need more research done in these topics to unequivocally find the root of the problems.

  18. “‘Penetration’ is a one-sided view of sexuality. If I eat a corndog, it’s not ‘penetrating’ me.”

    I just came across this quote and thought it relevant to this thread.

  19. Great article. Very well argumented.

    Looks like this ought to be a scientific paper, to be published at a peer reviewed journal (not reviewed by feminists, though)

    So rape of males by females is seriously under-reported. We need more males to come forward.

    Most men I know have been raped by a woman, but were not aware they were. Very common for a man to orgasm and want to stop. And the woman still wants to get her rocks off in spite of the man’s protests (what part of “stop” don’t you understand?). Men just swallow it, and don’t take it seriously

    Women on the other hand report “Five second rape” (go google it) and other terrible traumas

    Come over to human-stupidity and comment. You might want to choose the categories, about men’s rights.

  20. Actually, our preferred solution would not be for men to report more, but for women to stop making a police case out of every little inconvenience (like harassment complaints because of a dinner invitation).

    While things as they are, increasing male complaints is a good policy.

    But we think rather the re-definition of rape is wrong.

    Rape should refer to true forcible rape, and not to all types of consensual activities turned sour. Or to a wife that, 10 year after the fact, accuses the husband of one instance of rape.

    We should stop over-burdening lawyers, police, the justice system with the avoidable and less serious types of rape. Especially with the he-said she-said unproven uncorroborated rape.

  21. HEY guess what.

    Kathy with a K is right. Typhonblue is CLEARLY wrong.

    Yes, both of you did the math perfectly correctly.

    Typhonblue, you have chosen to take 100 rape victims, 50 male and 50 female to create your statistic that 40% of rapists (including forced to penetrate) are female. This is true only in a world where the number of men raped (50) is equal to the number of women (50)! You’ve stated in this very same article that this number is not equal. Since the percentage of men in the population is roughly half, this does not mean that they comprise half of the rape victims in this scenario. You cannot calculate this 50/50 based on sex/gender, but rather need to calculate it based on the percentage of men/women that comprise the total number of rapes!!

    I urge everyone to take with you the MESSAGE from this article; we cannot overlook sexual violence targeted towards men. Men can be victims too. But please disregard the ultimate 60/40 finding.

  22. stj1127 :

    Typhonblue, you have chosen to take 100 rape victims, 50 male and 50 female to create your statistic that 40% of rapists (including forced to penetrate) are female. This is true only in a world where the number of men raped (50) is equal to the number of women (50)!

    Typhonblue looked at the “last 12 months” prevalence numbers when she calculated this. 1.1% of female respondents reported being raped in the last 12 months while 1.1% of male respondents reported being made to penetrate someone else the last 12 months.
    To simplify a bit one could say that in the context of NISVS 2010 “the last 12 months” means 2009. The calculation by Typhonblue then is that the gender distribution of rapists who committed rape in 2009 are 60% male and 40% female.

  23. @ Tamen

    It’s getting annoying how many people are commenting on this article without having read it.

  24. Typhon, your piece was extremely compelling. But I haven’t been able to find the “smoking gun” it points out. How did you find out that the CDC’s survey does not count “made to penetrate” as rape and counted it instead as “other sexual violence”? This verification is absolutely invaluable to the credibility of your assertions and I haven’t been able to find it anywhere (I apologize in advance if you listed it and I missed it).

  25. @ Dave Heide

    “How did you find out that the CDC’s survey does not count “made to penetrate” as rape and counted it instead as “other sexual violence”?”

    Here is a link to the tables in the CDC’s report:

    Note how “made to penetrate” is listed under “other sexual violence” rather then rape.

  26. Dave Heide:

    Although typhonblue did not link to the NISVS 2010 Report it is readily available just a short google search away. As a public servive I’ll supply the link here:

    If you read the report yourself it is very clear that “being made to penetrate someone else” is considered not to be rape.

    It is stated outright on page 84 with the following sentences (my emphasis):

    Being made to penetrate is a form of sexual victimization distinct from rape that is particularly unique to males and, to our knowledge, has not been explicitly measured in previous national studies.

    This idea that it’s not rape is not incidental, it’s intentional. Take a look at this post on this blog which links to an article by well-known feminist rape researcher Mary P. Koss in which she underlines the importance of not counting male rape as rape unless the man have been penetrated:

    It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.

    The exact definitions of rape and “being made to penetrate someone else” used in NISVS 2010 can be found on page 17 in the report.

  27. thank you , thank you, thank you. a million thank yous. you folks (especially you, typhonblue for putting that article together) are exactly what this world needs.

  28. “80% of men report a female rapist and 98% of women report a male rapist.”

    This aspect leads to men being 60% rather than 50%, right?

    I say we look closer.

    Is it possible that we are underestimating the number of female rapists because of under-reporting or lack of inclusion of lesbian rapes?

    We are aware of how ‘forced envelopment’ of the penis is overlooked. Is the forced envelopment of the clitoris also overlooked? Perhaps the only segment of lesbian rapes represented here are those who stick things into the vagina.

    This means we would not be including as female rapists, women who forcibly envelope (or fondle) the clitoris.

  29. Tyciol,
    “Is it possible that we are underestimating the number of female rapists because of under-reporting or lack of inclusion of lesbian rapes?”

    The telling silence around lesbian rape in the outrage over rape in the military is not anomalous. You have probably idnentified one source of error here.

  30. Is it possible that we are underestimating the number of female rapists because of under-reporting or lack of inclusion of lesbian rapes?
    Chances are women raped by women are severely undercounted. Even more so than men raped by women. Women who are raped by women have the double whammy of being in a homosexual situation (not that the women being attacked are gay just that woman against woman rape is a homosexual situation) and being attacked by a woman.

    Homosexual abuse and raped are often left out of the conversation and abusive women are left out of the conversation.

  31. I can’t stop crying I didnt think what she did was rape but maybe it was. I was only seventeen when it happened. I didnt think that women could rape boys but I guess I was raped then.

  32. I am so sorry for your pain Shilo.

    Recognizing it for what it was made it easier to resolve that she ultimately was completely responsible for her own actions which she decided to do to me while I was asleep. That brought closure and healing to me regarding that incident, although I now find myself pretty angry about the way our society either ignores or ridicule male rape – and female-on-male rape in particular.

    I hope you are able to find healing and comfort.

    Best wishes,

  33. The front page of this blog has a list of Non-ideological Survivor Resources near the bottom of the right bar. One of the links goes to Toysoldier’s blog which have a few more links to survivior resources.

  34. Looking at the original paper, here are the numbers I found:

    For female victims:

    A. Male perpetrator (rape): 98.1%
    B. Male perpetrator (other, inc. envelopment): 92.5%

    For male victims:

    C. Male perpetrator (rape): 93.3%
    D. Female perpetrator (other, inc. envelopment): 79.2%

    Seems like when you guys corrected the numbers to include envelopment, you ONLY went for the D statistics (~80%) and forgot to include C (males being raped by males). But also, you seemed to have done this ‘correction’ for male victims only, and left out the one for female victims (B).

    Taking all of this into account, the overall percentage of male ‘rapists’ would come up to about 76%.

    Am I missing something?

  35. @ Mahyer

    You are missing the fact that we’re using the 12 month numbers and the “forced envelopment” statistic for men wasn’t reported for the 12-month numbers(similarly the “forced to penetrate” statistic for women wasn’t reported for either 12-months or lifetime, so we don’t know the rate of women being to forced to penetrate). Therefore the numbers you’re citing are irrelevant to determining the 12-month figures.

  36. Typhonblue,

    I run a new literary and social analysis e-magazine, Farrago, and I couldn’t help but show the other editors this essay. They all agreed that it would make a great and refreshing publication, and we’ve decided that we’d like to publish it on our website. If you’re interested, please send us a message at the unpublished email included in my post (including a biography and a self-portrait, if you’re so inclined).

  37. Unfortunately, I’m not sure of your credentials. Mine include both a Master’s degree in Public Health and field/administrative experience in that field. From this alone I am well aware of the fact that all it takes to skew statistics is the choosing of an inappropriate baseline or the exclusion of relevant numbers. A case could be made for both in this article.

  38. “Unfortunately, I’m not sure of your credentials.”

    Credentials are irrelvant if the conclusions are sound. You evaluate conclusions on thier own merits. That is how you avoid the ad hominem and ad auctoriatatem fallacies. Your field of endeavor as a community has blood on its hands.

    “A case could be made for both in this article.”

    Which is the case she is trying to make.

  39. Have you seen the recent rebuttal to your analysis?
    IMHO, I think you need to go down there and really give them a piece of your mind …!

  40. Mji: “IMHO, I think you need to go down there and really give them a piece of your mind …!”

    Surely it’s more sensible to check that what the CDC is saying is correct first? It’s only feminists who fly off the handle based on nothing but someone posting something that disagrees with their views.

  41. mji, welcome!

    “Have you seen the recent rebuttal to your analysis?”

    If it’s manboobz, then it’s not any kind of serious rebuttal. That is a satire site – he says so himself.He’s not really capable of logic.

    “IMHO, I think you need to go down there and really give them a piece of your mind …!”

    I wouldn’t give him the dogshit off my shoe.

  42. @adiabat mr. futrelle presented a message from nisvs researchers themselves, explaining how the 40% stat is wrong. im awful with statistics, so im attempting to gather insight from some of the manboobz commenters (many who seem very knowledgeable and helpful in maths) and hopefully from the authors here?
    ms. typhonblue, this comment addressing your article stuck out to me. do you find any validity in their critique?

  43. hannasoumaki, welcome!

    I’m going to let Typhonblue answer that herself because I am about in the same boat as you when it comes to statistics.

  44. Let’s not let it go that the NISVS authors are the very people who tried to bury their own data which showed female-on-male rape. Getting their opinion on the matter, as opposed to that of an independent statistician, is probably another part of Futrelle’s sense of humor. The CDC “rebuttal” consists primarily of doubling down on their axiomatic claim that it’s impossible for women to rape men and calling that a “math” error. They point out weaknesses in what the data can tell us that the MRM had already carefully examined and explained in-depth. They ignore the MRM arguments which bolster the 40% argument and set it into the proper context, so they’re not even coming close to a “rebuttal”. Moreover, these weaknesses only serve to point out weaknesses in their own study design, not in the MRM take on their study. They had all the resources and opportunities to perform an evenhanded study that didn’t ignore female rapists by the very design, but they chose not to.

  45. Hannasoumaki: Hi, I’m aware the response is from the CDC researchers. Hence why I said to check it out first.

    “do you find any validity in their critique?”

    I’ve only had time to briefly check it out and Tamen is the residnet expert on the CDC report but Yes, inasmuch as they point out what was already known. Points A and B are only valid because the researchers won’t publish their raw data, despite several FOI requests from MRA’s (yet one request for info from a feminist gets an almost instant response. Weird?!). They claim that the required statistic for the 12 month data is not available because it is statistically insignificant. However very similar figures are published and it’s hard to see how they are valid while the critical one that goes against the narrative the CDC seems to be pushing isn’t. While this is possible, it requires an explanation beyond the CDC’s vague statements, preferably the raw data. I don’t believe that we should just accept the CDC’s word for it.

    Regardless of this, the lifetime figure extrapolated to the 12 months is the best figure available, and while it should be taken with the understanding that it may inaccurate I don’t see the basis for the claim that the CDC make. They don’t support it or explain WHY what they claim is true (by showing their working out as we were told in math class in school). As it stands what the MRA’s have produced is the best figure possible from the available data, and the only people to blame for that are the CDC researchers. By “best figure available” I mean that this figure should be taken as our ‘working’ figure until more research is done to provide a better estimate. It is a very weird practice to claim that such a figure should just be thrown out, as the CDC is claiming. If we did that in my field there would be no progress whatsoever. (Using ‘working’ figures derived from what is already available helps us to choose the best approach and the ‘best place to look’ to find more accurate figures. We use a Bayesian approach to derive these, as this gives us a figure telling us how correct we are in thinking that the ‘working’ figure is correct (turtles all the way down 🙂 ). I don’t think such an approach is possible in this case though). All this critique from the CDC shows is that they need to address the flaws within their own studies in future, instead of criticizing those who are making best use of the results they have. This is doubly so when there are other studies supporting the 40% figure, as detailed in the link to toysoldier.

    Points C and D are about how the study doesn’t measure perpetrators, as it doesn’t capture multiple crimes done by the same perp. While this is correct it has been dealt with on the Manboobz thread by the commentator Blair. The only regular over at Manboobz who seems to know anything about statistics is Argenti, and even he agrees with Blair that if MRA’s claimed that “37% of rape victims in 2010 were raped by women” instead of “40% of rapists are women” then the CDC critique largely becomes a damp squib. I agree with the CDC isasmuch as MRA’s just need to careful in phrasing what the 40% figure is showing. (However the “40% of rapists are women” would be valid if you believe that rates of repeat offending is roughly the same for both male and female rapists. But this would be an assumption). Argenti does the same with the lifetime figures and finds 20%. Which figures are more useful is a matter of debate, but even 20% would be shocking to most people and means that any campaign to stop rape shouldn’t ignore female perps, a position the people at manboobz are defending.

    Point E has many of the same issues as points A and B and also reaffirms the CDC’s controversial definition of rape, and what doesn’t count as rape. Despite Manboobz claiming that the CDC have clarified why they use this usage, it appears that they have not; they just restated it. To their credit many of the feminists over at Manboobz spotted this as well, even if Futrelle didn’t.

    Like I said I only glanced at the CDC critique so don’t take the above as gospel. Look around and see how it’s being interpreted by several people on both “sides”. If you are unsure about the statistics this may be the best approach for you to take to get a good idea of how valid it is.

  46. “I don’t believe that we should just accept the CDC’s word for it.”

    I should clarify this: unlike some I don’t generally believe that government agencies “conspire” to push false narratives. However in light of the fact of the definition of rape that diverges from the one they used in previous studies, the lack of an explanation or justification for using this definition, the non-response to requests for additional information from their critics, plus the lengths they seem to have gone to hide certain data in the original report means, to me, that additional skepticism of vague claims and unsupported statements from the researchers is required.

    I may be wrong, and there may be innocent explanations for all this, but healthy skepticism in light of abhorrent behavior from researchers can only be a good thing.

  47. I meant “aberrant behavior” in that last line, not “abhorrent behaviour”. I blame the spellchecker 🙂

  48. nah, tamen’s ass got beat like a bongo drum back there. and adiabat you may want to check the math some of the mbzers broke down to explain why blair was wrong – in particular “argenti” who I think actually is a statistician.

  49. Being piled on by a bunch of ideological bullies does not equal being “beaten by a bongo drum”, anonymous commentator.

  50. “some of the mbzers”

    Ah. Manboobz. So that means they couldn’t beat a third-grader in a fair argument.

    ” in particular “argenti” who I think actually is a statistician.”

    You don’t have to be a statistician to see when a report is suppressing information.

  51. – : That is of course your opinion to have although I am somewhat curious as to what your definition of “ass got beat like a bongo drum” is. Perhaps you are thinking of that commenter who was unable to understand the difference between “groping” and “grouping” or of hellkell and cloudiah who just called me names – when I grew up I learned that the one first resorting to name-calling was the one losing the discussion.

    I don’t think anyone disagreed with anything I said in that thread. In the end David Futrelle did change his mind about it making sense to categorize made to penetrate as not rape.

    Although there are a few commenter there who seem to know what they are talking about there are many more who seem unable to read or to follow a line of reasoning.

  52. -: I’m afraid not. Tamen made several points that are still to be addressed by anyone over there. If by ‘beat’ you mean trolled and mocked then yes, it is Manboobz after all. But his points are still standing. Even if they weren’t, he hasn’t made a post yet addressing the main thrust of the CDC email so the idea that he has already been ‘beat’ is erroneous.

    What makes you think I didn’t already read the comments on the manboobz thread?

    Argenti’s own analysis led him to the conclusion that the 12 month data, which is the only data collected that feeds into the lifetime figures, “is an outlier”. While *technically* this is possible, when your analysis essentially entails disregarding the only data you have, in order to make your conclusions sound, it is usually a bad sign. Argenti essentially spends his remaining posts after this revelation trying to invent ways to justify his conclusion that the 12 month data is an outlier.

    To be fair to him his analysis isn’t bad, he *could* be right, but I have my doubts.

    Hanna: I’ve just seen your latest comment on the manboobz thread. If you have any questions on what I said above feel free to ask. The raw data refers to the data that the researchers collected and analysed to produce the report. Providing it would be standard practice to enable others to check the conclusions in the report, and it would also back up their unevidenced assertions. This has been requested with a FOI request which by law has to be responded to within 30 days. It’s been six months and no response has been received.

    Regarding the data, someone at manboobz responded that it risks ‘nasty MRA’s’ identifying the participants in the study. This is *complete* bullshit. The data would be anonymised and releasing it would pose no risk to participants, even if MRA’s are as nasty as claimed (which I don’t believe is true – I’m not an MRA btw and beyond genderratic I don’t really check out any MRA blogs regularly). That he would reply to your question with that should trigger alarm bells as it is so monumentally wrong and manipulative.

    Now for that 4th paragraph: I was being lazy and rounded off to 40% and 20%. Sorry if that confused you. I suspect the uncertainties are sufficient to round off to 1 sig fig but I should’ve kept the figures the same to avoid confusion. Basically it says that if MRA’s are careful with their phrasing the stat is valid.

    My point in the third paragraph is that the argument is revolving around whether the lifetime stat can be applied to the 12 month data. The CDC and Argenti say it can’t but haven’t really provided an argument as to why. If the figures were completely unrelated I would agree but the lifetime stat and unknown 12-month stat are interconnected, as fundamentally the 12-month stat is one part of what informs the lifetime stat. The more the unknown 12-month stat deviates from the lifetime stat the larger that effect on the lifetime stat to compensate. It’s not an ideal situation, as I said in my last post, but due to the dearth of information from the CDC it’s acceptable. The only issue that would change that is if the 12-month data is a large outlier, which would mean that the only year we have data for is vastly different than every other year, which conveniently for Argenti and the CDC we don’t have data for. If we did and Argenti is forced to conclude that the additional year is an outlier, his own calculations become less tenable. (Conversely if we had more data and it matched Argenti’s figures we could more confidently write 2010 off as an outlier.)

    If 2010 was a large outlier, this would mean that the 40% figure is incorrect. However claiming it’s an outlier would mean throwing out practically all the yearly data we have on the issue and we’re back at square one. However assuming that the 12 month data represents a ‘typical’ year (or close to one) gives us a starting point to direct future research.

    Despite what they are claiming over at manboobz, and what the CDC are claiming, whichever approach is taken involves assumptions. Personally, since there is no indication that 2010 was an unusual year wrt this issue, I’m going with assuming it was a typical year.

    Hopefully that’s cleared things up for you.

  53. “the 12 month data, which is the only data collected that feeds into the lifetime figures”

    I’ll just clarify this, due to the tendency of some to quote-mine.

    I mean the 12 month data for 2010 is the only data that both feeds into the lifetime figures and is separated for analysis, NOT that the lifetime figures are made exclusively from the 12 month figures. Obviously data from before the last 12 months is part of the lifetime figures as well, but is not broken down*.

    I was making the point that disregarding of the last 12 month figures is in effect throwing out all we have in terms of the breakdown of the lifetime stats, which, incidentely would be required to confirm our models.

    *(incidentely, if it was, we could use it to constrain the variables more with regard to the construction of the lifetime stat, essentially solving the inverse problem and assigning probabilities to each proposed model. This way we could rank them and obtain a more objective conclusion. Of course all this could be avoided if the CDC just asked for perp info for the 12-month stats)

  54. “Tamen made several points that are still to be addressed by anyone over there.”

    Wrong. All of Tamen’s points have been addressed. Please read the thread for the MB post on the CDC email.

    Also, Argenti is genderqueer – ze prefers ze/zir/zirs as pronouns. Don’t refer to zir with masculine pronouns. I really hope you didn’t say “he” on purpose.

  55. @adiabat hi im sorry if this is an inconvenience but yes, your comments have been answered by argenti and athywren in manboobz. im sorry that I cannot articulate well, im not well, but i would like to know why you thought lifetime stats would be considered outliers. i would like some clarity

  56. Ally S: I think you’ve been spending too much time on manboobz. Making a snarky comment in reply to someone is not addressing their points. The only argument of his that has been addressed is about Futrelle’s rape apologism, where it is Futrelle who “got his arse beat like a bongo drum”.

    And I didn’t say ‘he’ on purpose, but if it gets it out of the way then fine, I’m an asshole. I also eat babies and commit genocide on a massive scale every Summer. None of which means anything with regard to any points I make.

    I’m glad we’ve got the obligatory game of ‘Gotcha!’ and associated pointless moral positioning out of the way.

    Hannasoumaki: Regarding the raw data I’m afraid you and Argenti are clutching at straws, and I suspect you both know it. There’s no reason not to release it. The participants knew they were participating in a scientific survey where it is standard to have their anonymised contributions released (most orgs have ethical guidelines where the researchers have to make such things clear to the participants. It’s reasonable to assume the CDC is such an org). That’s how science works. Argenti’s claim that MRA’s are just going to pick random women and accuse them of taking part in a study is frankly just weird.

    Instead of making excuses for the CDC any good scientist (and anyone who actually cares about this issue and want to further our understanding of the extent of male victims etc) would be calling for the raw data to be released. Calling for this and maintaining your current views are perfectly consistent, but I guess that would be admitting that the MRA’s may have a point. I suppose the question you have to ask yourself is whether you care more about ‘beating the MRAs like a bongo drum’ than helping male victims, by collecting as much data as possible on the issue.

    As for your outlier question and Argenti’s response on November 1, 2013 at 10:45 pm, they are related so I’ll reply to them together. Everyone agrees that there is a discrepancy between the figures. The debate mainly revolves around why, which I haven’t commented on but your link to gives a few good suggestions regarding male rationalisation. I haven’t looked into it enough to give an opinion though.

    I’m just disagreeing that the discrepency means that the figures need to be thrown out. If you are a statistical purist (or frequentist 🙂 ) then you would agree with Argenti and decide that the discrepency means that borrowing the lifetime figure to calculate the 12-month figure is incorrect. But such a view practically destroys many statistics that are applied to the real world every day. (A Bayesian approach is often superior, which deals which probabilities and extends logic to areas where there is uncertainty.)

    In the real world, dealing with situations where you don’t have the liberty of perfect statistics, making various assumptions is seen as okay. Let’s take the ice cream example of Argenti’s. Let’s say we know that in the past year men’s preference for chocolate ice cream has gone up from 15% to 30%. We also know that the figure for men who like sprinkles that we had before was 75%, but we don’t have this figure for this year. Argenti claims that you cannot claim that 22% (75% x 30%) of men like sprinkles on their chocolate ice cream because we don’t have this year’s figures for sprinkle lovers. My argument is that, given the information available (and if you really have to have an answer), you can claim the 22% stat, as it’s the closest we can get to the actual numbers. It’s possible the 75% stat also changed, but using the 75% stat to calculate the figure is going to give a more accurate answer than picking a random number, and it is definitely better than just throwing your arms into the air and giving up.

    Maybe this’ll help you understand our respective positions:

  57. Allt S, welcome!

    “Also, Argenti is genderqueer – ze prefers ze/zir/zirs as pronouns. Don’t refer to zir with masculine pronouns. I really hope you didn’t say “he” on purpose.”

    Probably not. Probably just based on the rules of English grammar. “He” is the default pronoun.

    (Masculine gender as the default in Indo-European languages –

    “Ze” has yet to achieve the kind of currency that would make it part of the English pronoun system. My personal prefernece is for “te” because it works better in speech and because “z” is a semi-foreign sound in Englsih as word-initial, but that’s only a matter of taste.

    Adaiabat can do what he wants but I will remember to refer to argenti by “ze” from now on. That’s how the form gains currency!

  58. Ginkgo: “My personal prefernece is for “te” because it works better in speech and because “z” is a semi-foreign sound in Englsih as word-initial, but that’s only a matter of taste.”

    I prefer Schklee and Schklim, just because those were the gender-neutral pronouns on Futurama. If we’re ranking them by cultural currency I’d argue that being on a mainstream tv program beats ‘te’ and ‘ze’ hands down. 🙂

  59. @Adiabat

    Ally S: I think you’ve been spending too much time on manboobz. Making a snarky comment in reply to someone is not addressing their points. The only argument of his that has been addressed is about Futrelle’s rape apologism, where it is Futrelle who “got his arse beat like a bongo drum”.

    And I didn’t say ‘he’ on purpose, but if it gets it out of the way then fine, I’m an asshole. I also eat babies and commit genocide on a massive scale every Summer. None of which means anything with regard to any points I make.

    I’m glad we’ve got the obligatory game of ‘Gotcha!’ and associated pointless moral positioning out of the way.

    I wasn’t trying to address any particular point you made. I was merely pointing out that, as far as I can tell, Tamen’s points have already been addressed.

    I responded to you in a bitter fashion because I’m trans myself, and I’ve seen a lot of anti-feminist folks intentionally misgender trans people (even more often than various feminists). You really can’t blame me for getting upset at you. But I’m glad you didn’t misgender Argenti on purpose.


    Probably not. Probably just based on the rules of English grammar. “He” is the default pronoun.

    That’s not an excuse. Of course masculine pronouns are used occasionally in gender-neutral ways. But that doesn’t change the fact that they connote masculinity. This is a website devoted to tackling gender issues – how does it not make sense to use distinct gender-neutral pronouns in order to avoid misgendering people? You don’t have to be a feminist, MRA, etc. to see that misgendering people on a blog devoted to gender issues is a shitty thing to do.

  60. “That’s not an excuse. ”

    No, an explanation.

    “Of course masculine pronouns are used occasionally in gender-neutral ways. But that doesn’t change the fact that they connote masculinity.”

    Historically they were neutrally animate. Historically there were animate and inanimate nouns, and the same for pronouns. The development of the feminine gender in IE languages about 5,000 years ago drove the re-assigment of animate to masculine, but it has never been complete. “Masculine” pronouns are inherently gender-neutral, even though, as you say, they tend masculine.

    ” This is a website devoted to tackling gender issues – how does it not make sense to use distinct gender-neutral pronouns in order to avoid misgendering people?”

    Yep, but I won’t legislate it here. “Ze” works for me since that si the form that is developing, thoughas ai say i prefer “te”. But unfortunately it is not standard in the language. Usage will make it that way, and pointing this out will hasten that day, so thank you. But it’s going to remain optional until the language catches up.

    rest assured i will refer to argenti as ze unless I slip up.

  61. Missed this:

    “You don’t have to be a feminist, MRA, etc. to see that misgendering people on a blog devoted to gender issues is a shitty thing to do.”

    Yeah, and I get that pronouns are an especially sore point.

    At least you don’t have to put up with verbs, every goddamed verb every time you use use one, being gendered the way they are in Urdu and Hindi, and even Russian in the past tense.

  62. Reasonably suspecting that someone is being cissexist, asserting that someone’s points were already addressed in an off-site comment thread, and arguing about why it’s important to not use the masculine pronouns in gender-neutral ways – those are all forms of bullying? Gee, with a definition that broad, you might as well call me a bully for even bothering to respond to you.

    Anyway, I’ll stop now. I made a mistake in coming to this silly blog in the first place, although I do appreciate the fact that Adiabat and Ginkgo care about not misgendering people. That was nice to see. Farewell.

  63. I’m a red pill guy, as anti-feminist as it possibly gets, but I must confess my mind has trouble imagining a scenario where females rape almost as much as men. I’m not doubting you, merely asking for clarification. How does the typical female on male rape occurs, exactly? Does she put a gun to his head? Does she drug him? Subdue him by muscle alone? In that case, is it mostly committed by outlier women of particularly advantaged musculature? Do they prey mostly on juvenile specimens? What’s the typical victim profile? How does she get an erection out of him, under duress? Is this information known at all?

  64. @ Scorpion Wasp

    How does a man rape a woman? Penetrating a woman even when she’s consenting and encouraging can be difficult; how the hell is it possible to penetrate a woman when she’s dry and resisting?

    And how does a male rapist get a woman wet? Obviously if she isn’t into it she won’t be aroused. So how is it even possible for a male rapist to overpower a woman physically and manage penetration.

    Have you ever tried to nail a fish to a board?

  65. “Subdue him by muscle alone? In that case, is it mostly committed by outlier women of particularly advantaged musculature? Do they prey mostly on juvenile specimens?”

    It takes less strength for a woman to overpower a man because most men fear using excessive force in retaliation. Simply having stronger muscles isn’t necessarily enough. Imagine the typical rape resistance scene in a movie where the woman takes a heavy object and strikes the rapist on the head. Now switch genders. Yea, right. Men are not allowed to fight back, remember? Considering the survey involved college aged adults and asked about their experience in the last 12 months, it does not seem to be the case that female rapists prey mostly on juvenile specimens. The assumption that all men are 6′ tall and jacked and all women petite and delicate is flawed. A woman with the full weight of her body on top of a man does not need a lot in terms of muscle to overpower him.

    However, all that aside, I have a serious question. What is so bad about rape? I mean what is it about rape that makes it such a horrible thing? Not only do I find the distinction between “rape” sexual assault/abuse and “other” sexual assault/abuse to be meaningless, what exactly is the difference between assault/abuse and sexual assault/abuse? People suffer from PTSD after getting mugged or bullied. Is having your genital organs “violated” really any worse than the humiliating degradation that men undergo as a deliberate policy during military training? What makes us as a society define some abuses as acceptable and others as not acceptable?

  66. Eh. As someone who’s been forced-to-penetrate, I don’t get why I should be so hung up on claiming the term “rape”. I’d rather cut the Gordian knot of semantic quibbling and let the forced-to-envelope victims keep the r-word if they want the terminology to be that specific, so we can get on to arguments that matter.

    All we really need is a term less verbose than “forced-to-penetrate”. I propose “pare”. If someone has been forced-to-penetrate, he has been pared by a parist and is a paring victim. This doesn’t mean that being pared is objectively preferable to being raped, or that parists are morally superior to rapists, any more than punching someone is more acceptable than kicking them. All the difference in terms means is that the attacker used a different body part, not that they didn’t commit assault.

Comments are closed.