Pages

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Men Are Victims of Sexual Assault Nearly As Much As Women

Given that the literature of sexual assault focuses almost exclusively on female victimization, I found this study's findings to be particularly interesting. I wonder what the study's authors expected to find when they set out to administer the same questionnaires about sexual victimization to men as they do to women...and if they were surprised when the data came back suggesting similar reporting rates of female-on-male victimization as male-on-female.  Thus I give you, dear reader, the highlights of Mmes French, Tilghman, Malebranche's lit review and findings in their study entitled Sexual Coercion Context and Psychosocial Correlates Among Diverse Males:
Coercion As A Function of Tactic (click to enlarge)
...among males, those ages 16–24 have the highest rates of sexual victimization

...among 600 college students, 16% of men experienced forced sexual intercourse while on a date, a rate comparable to women in this study (22%). Of the 55 (female=32, male=23) participants who provided additional narratives of their experiences, men described verbal coercion significantly more frequently than women. In 2003, Struckman, Johnson, and Anderson found that persistent kissing and touching were the most often reported sexually coercive tactic among predominantly White college males victimized by females.

...Over 4 in 10 males (43% n=120) experienced at least one form of sexual coercion and 31% (n=86) of males experienced verbal coercion strategies. The second most common tactic experienced was unwanted seduction strategies (26% n=73), followed by physical force (18% n=52) and then substance coercion (7%, n=19). Rates of sexual coercion tactics were comparable for males in high school and college. Asians showed significantly lower proportions for all types of coercion (p val less than 0.01) compared to Black, Whites, and Latinos. Blacks showed significantly greater proportions of verbal coercion (chi squared=19.72, p val less than 0.01) compared to Asians and Latinos, and unwanted seduction (chi squared=14.45, p val less than 0.01) compared to Asians.

...Of participants who reported sexual coercion, 95% reported female perpetrators only, one person reported coercion by a male, four participants (1.6%) reported both male and female perpetrators, and two people did not provide the gender of perpetrator. Across sexual coercion tactics, the majority of reported perpetrators were female: 96% verbal coercion, 74% substance coercion, 95% seduction coercion, and 92% physical coercion.

...The majority of respondents reported sexual coercion by females, with only four participants reporting experiences by males, challenging a common myth that men are not or cannot be sexually victimized by women. These results are consistent with studies across the U.S. exploring female sexual perpetration (Williams, Ghandour, & Kub, 2008).

...Specifically, participants whose sexual coercion experience(s) resulted in intercourse showed greater sexual risk taking and greater alcohol use compared to their counterparts who were not coerced or those whose coercion resulted in fondling/attempted intercourse.
Interesting stuff, and politically dynamite. Society as a whole is very invested (see more, next para) in the dual paradigm of the virtuous feminine and the dishonorable masculine, and won't easily accept any suggestion that women are the aggressors in relationships at rates roughly equal to men. Of course, we've already seen this sort of parity with IPV (links here and here and here), so it intuitively makes sense that the same trend present in relational violence extends to coercive tactics used to secure sex.

Speaking of being invested in the dual paradigm, some of the folks most resistant to the notion that men can be victims of female sexual coercion are...other men. It's just not manly, it's just taking responsibility for one's decisions, men who don't want women's sexual attentions are pussies / fags / losers, etc. Okay, fine, just so. However, for those naysayers, I submit that this is sauce for the goose, in that the very same sorts of questions typically asked of women in surveys of sexual victimization, when asked of men

Text of Questions Asked (click to enlarge)

...yield results that suggest that women are equally guilty of coercing men into sexual activity as the sexual assault hysteria industry says that men are. Either that, or that these sorts of questions are ludicrous examples of the sort of data one obtains when asking grown-ass adults questions that presume they have the agency of children.

Either way, I'm fine with using the rape alarmism industry's yardstick(s) to measure female sexual coercion, and since I don't see the sexual greivance-mongers going away anytime soon, perhaps this data will help Black Knights point the sexual assault lawfare cannons back at the very mavens who started this dustup in the first place.

15 comments:

Borepatch said...

And this ignores what goes on in prisons.

CM said...

Numbers 3 - 6, I can see as legitimate coercion and certainly do not make men pansies. Some of those examples WERE outright rape.

But 1,2,7, & 8, while I can be mildly compassionate depending on the specific degrees, those are outright choices to give in to.

I've especially been a "victim" of 7 & 8... but I had complete agency to say yes or no. That doesn't make it rape.

Is that really what "rape culture" people think rape is?

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ Borepatch,

Come now, prison rape is comedy, dontcha know.

@ CM,

"Is that really what "rape culture" people think rape is?"

To a certain extent, I think yes. This is the backstory behind all those campus rapey horror stories we've been treated to of late.

Eric said...

A good analysis of this subject:

http://eivindberge.blogspot.no/2009/10/feminists-believe-women-can-rape-men.html

Eric said...

As a side note, why do these studies about 'sexual coercion' 'harassment' sexual abuse' and so on, only seem to apply to HETEROsexuals?

Shouldn't it be presumed, since gay activists always say so, that homosexuality is really about 'a right to love' that there's some coercion going among them too?

Elusive Wapiti said...

Intuitively, homogamous relationships would exhibit the same vulnerability to sexual coercion as straight ones.

Moreover, I've seen stats that suggest IPV is more common in homogamous relatioships (both MM and FF) than hetero MF ones. Assuming that physical violence "capstones" lesser forms of violence (i.e., comes as an escalation of verbal coercion, substance coercion, etc), then it follows that homogamous relationships would feature even more coercion than straight ones.

Elusive Wapiti said...

Re: Mr. Berge's post: While I think he has an academic point about whether or not men can be raped by women that can be debated one way or the other, he is plaing the useful idiot for misandrist feminists by advocating for that old-school position.

In doing so, he helps perpetuate the double-bind on men that us dudes sexually assault women willy-nilly under the new modern definition of sex-assault-cum-rape, yet that same standard of behavior cannot be applied to equally atrocious and coercive women's behavior.

In essence, he help propagate the crudely titled "pussy pass" for the female sex, while encouraging the culture to come down hard on men for more or less identical acts.

Eric said...

Wapiti:
While Eivind does advocate enforcement of rape laws, he also advocates that false accusations from women should be punished just as harshly---so I don't think the 'pussy pass' would apply here.

However, what I'm not following is the idea that women can any way sexually violate or 'rape' men. While in the modern Slut Culture women can be quite aggressive, a man still has to take a measure of sexual initiative. The only situation I can imagine a man being sexually violated would be one where he was permanently physical damaged, such as the cases where femihags cut off penises, &c.

Part of the problem I see is that it plays even more into feminist hands to try and make men into a victim class and fuel the abuse industry---as Eivind again points out---the definition of abuse being based solely on the definitions the feminists themselves have created.

CM said...

I thought his post was more about how perpetuating "male-rape" fuels and reinforces the feminist definition of "oops I didn't really want that but I did it anyway" and "I totally regret that now" rape by bringing weak minded men into the fray and welcoming them onto the victim wagon.

I'm not entirely on board with the "impossible to rape a man" bit and I don't agree with his assertion that men have no sexual product of value.

The instance of a man who is not wanting kids with his girlfriend falling asleep and waking up to find her on top of him and condomless seems like it should be prosecutable as SOMETHING.

That movie, 40 days and 40 nights, where the horndog gives up sex for lent and is then drugged and ridden by his ex girlfriend... not rape?

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ Eric,

"However, what I'm not following is the idea that women can any way sexually violate or 'rape' men. While in the modern Slut Culture women can be quite aggressive, a man still has to take a measure of sexual initiative. The only situation I can imagine a man being sexually violated would be one where he was permanently physical damaged, such as the cases where femihags cut off penises, &c."

It goes back to the fem left's widening of the definition of rape to encompass simple sexual assault (kinda like 'racism' was widened to anything brown/yellow/red people don't like, or 'sexism' was widened to anything vaj-blessed people don't like).

The definition of "rape" has been broadened so wide as to roll up all sorts of "gray rape" acts that a normally socialized person wouldn't classify as rape (to include the wymyn themselves, who often have to be convinced that they were raped post-facto) yet are now mcrapey. This broadened definition has been used to much success in prosecuting the gender war on men.

And this is where my grudging support for the concept of women raping men comes in. Not that I'm enthusiastically behind it per se, but instead see an opportunity to go Alinsky on them and hold them to their own rules.

So, as with most things Left, I'm thinking the only way out of this mess is through, and by adopting the feminist's own definition of rape, Black Knights can leverage the sexual assault victim frame to joyfully give back to those who have given us so much.

Elusive Wapiti said...

"I thought his post was more about how perpetuating "male-rape" fuels and reinforces the feminist definition of "oops I didn't really want that but I did it anyway" and "I totally regret that now" rape by bringing weak minded men into the fray and welcoming them onto the victim wagon."

That is certainly a fair critique...that the feminists are expanding the def of rape to include men as part of a play to increase their power base.

"I'm not entirely on board with the "impossible to rape a man" bit ...."

Neither am I, even without adopting the cowering-girl-victim frame.

"...I don't agree with his assertion that men have no sexual product of value."

This was the most offensive and damaging part of his post. This biological reductionism is just as misandrist as it is misogynist when applied to women.

The value of men is far, far more than his semen contribution. Just like the value of a woman is more than her uterus.

Our culture accepts that men are disposable (because of the biological determinism mentioned above), with disastrous consequences.

Eivind Berge said...

"The value of men is far, far more than his semen contribution. Just like the value of a woman is more than her uterus."

Yes, if a man contributes more than sperm, then of course his contribution is greater. However, if a man is "raped" by a woman, then his only contribution is some cheap sperm and a few minutes of his time, and that is the issue here. In contrast to a woman, who at the very minimum must contribute her womb for 9 months towards any offspring. This profound difference in minimum parental investment by the sexes has given rise to different sexual mentalities. One of these adaptations is how each sex deals with sexual coercion from the opposite sex -- and men never had any reason to evolve fear or traumatization with regard to female sexual coercion, so we didn't. In other words, women "raping" men is gibberish. It all rests on the feminist lie that the sexes are equal. Please, let's be intellectually honest and admit that women cannot rape men. The female equivalent to rape is not forced sex at all but rather cuckoldry, which robs men of real reproductive resources. Pretending sperm itself of sex with a man has some great value or traumatizing power simply isn't honest, and it is a great red herring for the feminists to deflect attention from issues that really hurt men.

It is also a very foolish tactic to go along with the feminists on this in the hope that it will backfire on them, since it only legitimizes their redefinition of rape and provides the illusion that men need these new sex laws too, which is exactly what the feminists want. Haven't you noticed how feminists are the first to promote this charade at every opportunity? You are a useful idiot for the feminists while I am trying to preserve some sanity by resisting the feminist lie that women raping men is a huge problem. We can't fight feminist sex law reform by amplifying their bullshit. Instead we need to make it perfectly clear that the traditional definition of rape is the correct one, which required not just lack of consent but real violence or serious threats, and it sure did not include women raping men. Don't you think men would have thought of it at some point in history before feminists invented the concept in the late 20th century if men really needed legal protection from women "raping" them? Are feminists your greatest heroes since you feel the need to defer to them like that?

Emma said...

"That movie, 40 days and 40 nights, where the horndog gives up sex for lent and is then drugged and ridden by his ex girlfriend... not rape? "

I remember that movie. I was still small then, and don’t remember that scene as a rape. It was similar to that romantic trope where a jealous ex leaps at the hero and kisses him, to make the new gf believe he cheated. It makes you feel indignation, but it doesn’t feel like rape. And his main concern was to reduce damage done to his relationship, not his psyche… Perhaps we should remember why rape is considered a terrible crime in the first place. Because rape produces emotional wounds and feelings of sexual violation. If those do not happen, if the person is just annoyed, it’s not fair to treat it as a horrible crime worth several years in jail.

Elusive Wapiti said...

Hi Emma, thanks for your visit!

"Because rape produces emotional wounds and feelings of sexual violation. If those do not happen, if the person is just annoyed"

I don't think I can square with this. Rape is, or isn't, based on the actions of those involved. Or at least it was, and should be.

Making rape a function of the feelings of the accuser strikes me as very dangerous, especially since women tend to have much more powerful post-coital "regret" than men.

Elusive Wapiti said...

Hi Eivind, thank you for your visit as well!

I've answered your comment with this post here.

Comments on this thread are closed to direct the discussion at the new location.