MALE DISPOSABILITY – Mary P. Koss and influencing a government entity to erase male victims of rape

Toysoldier have another write-up and another theory as to why CDC didn’t classify “being made to penetrate” as rape at: http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/cdc-being-made-to-penetrate-isnt-rape/

As I wrote in a comment there, I don’t think the two theories preclude eachother.

*some feminist’s opposition*

No quite the opposite. The not-all-feminists-are-like-that is about dismissing something as a problem in feminism as long as it’s not universal in feminism. Explicitly describing something as a problem with some feminists preempts that.

Reubenm welcome!
JE, welcome back.

“i’m saying feminists opposition of rape being amoral is universal.”

That’s kind of a tangle, but I know what you are saying. There are some feminists who have shouted and shamed each other into condeming female rape of men on nthe same grounds and in the same terms as male rape of females – Feministe is the place that coems to mind – but it stands out in my mind and that tells me how rare that level of honesty is in the feminist community. Then you have the feminists who full-throatedly condemn all rpae and define it in the same terms for all victims – and they are usually the ones the others call anti-feminist or shout down or just ignore into silence.

For those who didn’t know the whole story on Mary P. Koss’ history on Rape study and why the CDC is so eager to listen to her:

According to Christina Hoff Sommers in “Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women”, Mary P. Koss was the research designer for the Ms. Magazine survey in 1985 that created the much-lauded 1 in 4 and 1 in 6 figures we see today.

Not only did the definition of rape include any time the woman was given alcohol or drugs in order to inflate the number – regardless of whether the sex afterwards was actually coerced or consensual. Likewise, many of the questions regarding rape on the Koss report ask about having sex “when you didn’t want to”, rather than having “when you didn’t consent.”, ignoring the fact that many women have sex when they “don’t want to” in order to build relationships, maintain them, or get pregnant.

As a follow up they asked several questions including “do you believe that you were raped?” and asking if the respondent had had sex with the same man subsequently. 73% of the respondents said that they do not believe that they were raped, and 42% had sex with the same man again subsequently.

Koss decided that the women she surveyed (all Ms. readers of around college age) clearly didn’t know if they were raped or not, and their assessment of the experience shouldn’t be allowed to get in the way of the results she wanted. So instead of the number of 1 in 30 rape victims that a critical reading her data suggests, she chose to report 1 in 4.

She later in response to a series of critical articles (“The Making of an Epidemic” in the research journal The Blade) about her study painted these women as confused victims who didn’t understand their own experience. Ones who were, because they were so acclimatized to the threat of male violence, unable to see rape for what it is. She disregarded her “belief about whether the respondents were raped” and “further sexual encounters” data on that basis. She also tried to make implications about the prevalence of serial rapists based on the “second liaison” statistics.

She also insisted, despite the vague language that her survey represented rapes according to the ‘Legal Definition”, despite the loaded and vague questions until she was pushed hard on it in the same series of critical articles. (Hoff Sommers, 1994, p.210-223)

Farrell does a great job of breaking this particular down on page 316 of the updated edition of The Myth of Male Power.

In my own analysis, Koss has been pushing to create an image of a Rape Epidemic since 1985, based on a political agenda to make women seem like overwhelming victims of male violence – even if it requires her to ignore the stated experiences of women, ignore her own data, and misrepresent the law to do so.

Her actions imply highly Foucaultian view that feminists have a higher consciousness than most women, and that other women are to “mentally colonized” to be allowed to interpret their won experiences.

Her deliberate attempt to erase male victims is just doubling down on the same political agenda: make Women look like helpless victims, make all Men look like rapists. Maintain total control over the narrative.

Koss was hand picked by Steinem to conduct the survey after she published a famed but often mis-attributed quote: “Rape represents an extreme behaviour, but one that is within a continuum of normal male behaviour within the culture”. She has built her career on the belief that male sexuality is essentially Rapine.

It would not be surprising that a higher number of women that had been raped would gravitate towards feminism

It would not be surprising if a higher number of women who gravitated towards feminism would already have had similar views on sex as Mary Koss did when she ran the survey.

Koss is clearly a master of twisted language and cooked statistics. Her question was “do you believe that you were raped?” The key word in that was believe. That question was designed to exploit confirmation bias to the greatest extent possible. Survey questions like this have to be asked in more than one way to neutralize the effect of people being prone to answering such questions in the affirmative. For example if you ask one group of people, “Are you happy with your life?” and a little while later ask the same exact group, “Are you not happy with your life?” the majority will always say yes to both questions.

“@mensrightsrdt on 2013-04-18 at 3:28 pm said:
I hope it’s not terrible form to link my own engagement with two antirape agencies: (NISVS and OAESV)”

It’s not bad form at all here, in fact it’s a welcome contribution! Thanks!

Thank you so much, Ginkgo, I consider Genderratic to be one of the most important sites for me. This place is a goldmine of useful information and viewpoints. I never ceased to be impressed and challenged here!

Thanks, Dr. Ramore, you really are too kind! You and I must talk in another forum where you use a different username, and I suspect I know which one. If I am wrong, then really have my number!

I am hoping to create what essentially will be a Red-Pill-to-Pyschology dictionary as a wordpress blog. That project is slated to start in May. I’ve found a lot of Men I talk to need to be able to communicate with therapists and counsellors, but lack the vocabulary to do so.

To be honest, some days I worry I am a little too inoffensive with my voice, but I believe every movement needs a few compassionate moderates. Honestly, I would much rather build up Men – and ideologies friendly to them -than tear Feminism down.

I feel that Men (and free-thinking Women) ought to be informed about Game, the MHRA, MGTOW, Mythopoetism, Red Pill Marriage, and conscientious Masculine Traditionalism, and have someone encourage them to explore what is right for them – whatever that choice might be.

In any case, I am very flattered by your assessment, and all of your kind welcomes here!

Mr. Rideout:

Actually, Mary P. Koss’s original survey holds up (at least if you trust her data). Daran, of Feminist Critics did a whole series on this study and, as far as I remember Ampersand even linked the original questions.

http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2008/02/28/whats-her-point/

Now, if you go through that series of posts (linked to in the link above) you will find there are legitimate criticisms of Koss. But the behavior described in her questions DID INDEED match the legal definition of rape in effect in that State at that time.
So, the women were indeed describing being raped whether they called it that or not.

Now you may not know who Daran is, or be aware of the Feminist Critics blog. Needless to say they have debunked so many feminist studies I can hardly keep count, but alas, the main criticism of Koss by MacDonald et.all does not hold up. This is one of the few studies they’ve ended up *mostly* defending.

I respectfully disagree, as the text of the questions used in the survey does not establish consent or lack of consent… only desire during the initiation of the encounter. “When you didn’t want to” (which is the phrasing) does not mean “when you didn’t consent to.” I have had sex when I didn’t “want to” in order not to disappoint my partner. That does not mean I was raped.

That may seem like mincing words, but you must remember that this is a survey. Every phrase will be interpreted differently by each respondent. If I would respond like that, then many others might as well.

Rough sex often begins with things like pinning and grappling, and if a person had the sex when they didn’t care to, but still consented (remember, consent is not an emotion thing, it is a behaviour) it is not rape, by most definitions.

Question eight of the survey “Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?” is unbelievably ambiguous. That could mean anything from forcing a woman to have sex after spiking her drink with GHB to having pity sex with a guy at a bar because he was sweet and bought you a drink.

Eliminate question eight along and the number drops from one in four to one in seven.

Now, I understand we clearly cannot remove the results of question eight entirely, but at the time Ohio state law’s definition of rape specifically stated it was rape if the victim had been administered (that in and of itself is a very problematic word) drugs or intoxicant… excepting when an individual was plied with alcohol or drugs with hopes that lowered inhibition would lead to successful seduction. Thus even if we look past the “when you didn’t want to” the legal definitions of the time and this question are a significant mismatch.

The follow up questions and their answers were:
It was definitely rape: 27%
The event resulted from a miscommunication: 49%
It may have been a crime but it was not rape: 14%
I do not feel victimized 11%

That is not 73% unsure of being raped. I am unsure was not a recorded result. That is 27% believing they were raped, 14% sexually assaulted but by their experience clearly not raped, 11% rejecting the idea that they were raped, and 49% having not clearly communicated non-consent, thus their partners had no criminal intent or means of knowing that consent was not given or withdrawn.

You cannot simply ignore that and declare that 89% of the women responding to questions 8-10 of the survey were raped, because they cannot judge their own experience. The 49% who had a miscommunication chose that option in spite of other options put forward to them of the four have voiced the opinion that they were not raped, if they were, they would have chose that, or to characterize it as a crime other than rape.

Also, if you are going to use Ohio state laws for “legal definition” you cannot project the findings of “matching the legal definition of rape” onto the nation. Koss herself admitted to later coming to understand that the definitions she used were ambiguous regarding phraseology and correspondence to legal definition in “The Making of an Epidemic” in the Blade.

Also the 1 in 4 figure includes both completed (15.4%) and attempted (12.7%) rapes (including question 8), yet the common summaries of the report include 1 in 4 women “Will be raped” by the time they reach college age. This is a misrepresentation of the facts shown by the survey. Nuanced, yes, but with a connoatatively charged word like “rape” nuance does matter.

Listen, sexual assault is a horrible thing, I know, I’ve lived through it. I would never discount the pain and suffering sexual violence caused to any human being. But we serve nobody by distorting the facts. It trivializes rape and sexual assault, rather than making it seem more like a threat. Especially by misrepresenting its frequency.

We need real figures, not a fusion bad science and yellow journalism, ones involving both sexes to treat the survivors in a way that is humane, reasonable, and create a real dialogue between the sexes.

I would propose eliminating the distinction between “rape” and other forms of violent sexual assault, so that the matter of envelopment, penetration by an object, etc. is a complete non-issue. The definition of what is “rape” with all of its ideologically charged connotations, will stop being an issue – all human beings violated sexually will be treated together under a single definition whose long-term impact we can examine on a gender-equal basis.

If needed, we could grade this based on severity and potential impact, like we do theft, murder, or assault.

Many of you may be aware the the UK uses the archaic common law definition of rape in it’s Sexual Offences Act 2003 – it defines rape in a way that requires that the perpetrator must have a penis.

The brits have their own version of the NCVS called CSEW – Crime Survey for England and Wales. The most recent one was published January 2013. The Ministry of Justice, Home Office and the Office for National Statistics published in January a report looking specifically at the sexual offences part of the CSEW as well as police reports, court proceeding, sentencing, duration of cases, offender managemend and offender histories (recidivate rates, multiple convictions etc.). The report was published January 10th 2013 and is called
An Overview of Sexual Offending in England and Wales.

Let’s examine to what extent this report counts male victims of rape (including rape by envelopment) to see if it’s possible to estimate the number of male victims in the UK in a similar manner to how one could find the male number of male rape victims in the US by looking at the “being made to penetrate” category.

Rape and Assault by penetration are grouped by the report in a category called: “Most serious sexual offence”

A man being forced to have oral, vaginal or anal intercourse with a woman without his consent is a victim of sexual assault by the law The definition of sexual assault is:

Section 3 of the Act makes it an offence for any male or female to intentionally touch another person sexually without his or her consent. A person found guilty of this offence could be sent to prison for a maximum of ten years.

Meaning that by UK law a man raped by a woman forcing him to have unprotected vaginal sex with her without his consent are put in the same category as a woman being touched on the butt by a man – not to defend the latter, but there is a difference between those two.

It’s even worse in the CSEW survey because there it’s being categorized as “Other sexual offences”, which includes exposure , sexual activity with children (excluding rape and sexual assault) and sexual threatening behaviour

In fact when I look at the questionare used for the CSEW survey they base their findings on I actually found a set of question which male victims of rape by envelopment may answer affirmative on:

Since you were 16, has anyone ever forced you to have sexual intercourse or take part in some other sexual act, when you were not capable of consent or when you made it clear you did not want to?

By sexual intercourse we mean vaginal, anal or oral penetration.

This may have been a partner, a family member, a friend or work colleague, someone you knew casually, or a stranger.

If the respondent answered yes to the above they are asked another question (NIPV35AA- NIPV35AF):

You said that someone has forced you to have sexual intercourse or take part in some other sexual act when you were not capable of consent or when you made it clear you did not want to. What did they do to you?

If this has happened more than once since you were 16, please select all those that apply.

We need this level of detail to allow us to classify the exact type of sexual assault experienced.

Penetrated your [vagina or anus/anus] with their penis

Penetrated your [vagina or anus/anus] with an object (including fingers)

Penetrated your mouth with their penis

Did some other sex act not described above

Don’t know

Don’t want to answer

Here one would think that any male victims of “being made to penetrate someone else” must answer “4 . Did some sex act not described above” to be counted correctly. However, the question itself listed “some other sex act” as something separate from sexual intercourse – thus perhaps confusing the respondent. Conceivable victims of a forced kiss, a grope and so on could also answer yes here as those could be understood to be some sex act other than intercourse. As I understand it respondents are more likely to respond to questions which describes the acts rather than the name of the act or a bag-name of a set of acts. It also really doesn’t matter that this question was under the heading “SERIOUS SEXUAL ASSAULT”, because if the answer is “4” then it’s being put in the category “Other sexual offences” in the summary, tables and charts in the report.

Contrast that with this question asked under the section: “SERIOUS SEXUAL ASSAULT”:

Since the age of 16, has ANYONE ever done any of the following things to you, when you made it clear that you did not agree or when you were not capable of consent? This may have been a partner, a family member, someone you knew casually, or a stranger.

Penetrated your [vagina or anus/anus] with their penis, even if only slightly

Penetrated your [vagina or anus/anus] with an object (including fingers) even if only slightly

Penetrated your mouth with their penis even if only slightly

ATTEMPTED to penetrate your [vagina or anus/anus] with their penis, but did not succeed

ATTEMPTED to penetrate your [vagina or anus/anus] with an object (including fingers) but did not succeed

ATTEMPTED to penetrate your mouth with their penis but did not succeed

This is very specific, just about every possible combination of a way a victim can be penetrated is listed. It is therefore likely to catch more respondents.

Thre is a follow-up questions to those who reported more than one sexual assault, they ask about the nature of the last one (SSA6A- SSA6I) and the answer alternatives are:

Penetrated your [vagina or anus/anus] with their penis, even if only slightly

Penetrated your [vagina or anus/anus] with an object (including fingers) even if only slightly

Penetrated your mouth with their penis even if only slightly

ATTEMPTED to penetrate your [vagina or anus/anus] with their penis, but did not succeed

ATTEMPTED to penetrate your [vagina or anus/anus] with an object (including fingers) but did not succeed

ATTEMPTED to penetrate your mouth with their penis but did not succeed

Something else

Don’t know/can’t remember

Don’t wish to answer

Here our hypthetical male victim of forced intercourse with a female perpetrator has to answer “7 Something else”.

Again, as soon as he does answer 7 he is put into the “Other sexual offences” category in the report.

This survey make a poor job of capturing men who has been raped by envelopment. The way questions are designed almost ensure that it underreport male victims of being made to penetrate someone else. Grouping the percentage of men who actually had been made to penetrate someone else together with the probably higher percentages of victims having been groped, flashed and so on are very effectively hiding how many men are victims of “being made to penetrate someone else”. It also helps maintain the belief that women are victmized by sexual offenses more than men.

It reminds me of it’s often said that more girls than boys experience childhood sexual abuse. Statistics/studies often leaves it at that. However, the picture does change a but when another study found that while more women have experienced CSA it turns out that since more women than men reports touching an equal number of girls and boys experience CSA in the form of rape (intercourse).

Ampersand! Welcome!

“Regarding the OP, it’s ridiculous that the government won’t refer to forced envelopment as rape. It clearly is rape.”

We have feminists to thank for that correction to the common [mis]understanding of rape and hopefully one day the law will catch up.

Clarence,
“This is one of the few studies they’ve ended up *mostly* defending.”

The part they defend is Koss’ contention that the respondents in fact were raped. As Brian points out, even that is shaky because of the question of consent. The legal concept of consent is not whether one partner wants it at the time or not, although that is an essential element of consent. The legal concept requires both parties to be clear on consent or the lack of it. That is the main weakness of Koss’ methodology.

But that is not why I am criticizing her here. I am criticizing her for injecting a gender biased standard into her government work.

Pierce Harlan (Community of the Wrongly Accused) has something to say about her too.
http://www.cotwa.info/2012/03/frank-furedi-examines-culture-of-abuse.html

That ‘none’ at the end of the previous post is a mistake and means nothing.

femdelusion,

that was a great article and I share similar concerns…

I say loudly that Bernie Chapin and Paul Elam aren’t my voice….

It really pisses me off when people like Daisy and Futrelle call me an MRA…

(If you need a label- I suppose MGTOW-though my variant is just as much about turning my back on other men as much as women.)

there was an unfortunate event around the time of when Inmalafide was imploding and several of us tried to tell the arrogant and grandiose Elam that the place had been overrun by white nationalists. Instead of listening and having an “I’ll look into it” attitude, he really talked down to people.

http://stonerwithaboner.wordpress.com/2012/06/16/sometimes-im-not-so-articulate-but-sometimes-somethings-should-just-be-left-to-fail/

AVfM is not this man’s voice.

no Futrelle, I’m not on your “side” either, you bullying, fatuous bigot!!!

Clarence: honestly, I am the wrong person to be arguing this. My background is primarily humanities.

But again, the problem of the Koss report vis a vis 8, 9, and 10 is that they all fail to establish consent or lack thereof – because of their phrasing. While the letter of the law might describe the acts in detail, consent or lack thereof still must be established in a court of law to respect the spirit of the law.

As for question 6: it could describe blackmail, whining, seduction, or persuasion. Having sex with someone when there is no threat of violence, coercion, or blackmail may not be pleasant, but it is still the choice made by an acting agent who could have said ‘no.’

As to establishing context through the flow of questions from 6 to 8 and 9… that is mind-reading the respondent. We can’t know what they think, and so that does not provide a legitimate counterargument to criticism. I know plenty of people who, when responding to a series of questions, focus on each question, and ignore the wider context. How do we know which one it is.

We could also argue that such a question is designed to introduce bias into the study by using the progressively stark language to entice women to answer ‘yes’ to 8, 9, or 10 without considering whether or not they gave consent, changed their mind, etc., thereby inflating the numbers. Both are fatuous.

Nor is the intention of the question a good basis of judging the response. That is why criticize the survey design.

I distrust any reproduction with allegedly ‘tighter’ phraseology that produced the same or highly similar results “1 in 4”. You are asking different questions, the results would only be the same if a majority of women responding to the original study understood the intention of each question to mean ‘non-consensual’ – which I have trouble crediting in a heterogeneous society.

The experiences of any prostitute in North America could allow her to answer yes to 8, 9, and 10 (but not 6) while having consented to each for money. But a question that matched the legal definition of rape without ambiguity would not, for example.

Honestly though, the more legitimate criticisms that can be levelled at Koss is that she was being funded by an anti-male foundation, and had expressed strong anti-male bias before undertaking the study. She wanted to prove that rape was a part of a normal spectrum of Men’s behaviour to lionize her theoretical arguments. Steinem, the editor of Ms. who picked Koss and funded the study has operated consistently on a Marxist model of Men as Oppressors and worked very hard to provide evidence of that throughout her career.

I am not the one to break this down further, though. I am not the best-schooled in research methods. I just know my semantics and semiotics.

I don’t know about “rape fantasy” theories when discussing our current narratives. I would be willing to believe that they made this concept more acceptable – as does the tendency of all Apexual men to see each other as contemptible. But I don’t think that really covers it entirely – in fact I am not sure I am willing to accept the “rape fantasy” explanation too broadly even as a part explanation. Again – it is mind reading. That doesn’t help us with genuine understanding – but I would love to see a study find correlation between rape fantasy and willingness to believe high or false rape statistics.

In the meantime, I find it is most effective to do what I always do – follow the money: Who benefits from all these outrageous, misandric allegations? Well Koss and Steinem certainly have. From a human rights or mental health perspective Men certainly haven’t. Rich women have. Poor women, not so much.

Again, at this point I am better at building Men up than worrying about putting Feminism down.

matter of publishing this at AVfM – Typhon asked to pull this together for publication at AVfM in the first place, so it’s appropriate that it show up there finally. Remember that this was basically all Tamen’s work.

And that bears repeating. This was Tamen’s work, and Tamen advocates for male victims of rape by women. Posting at AVfM is a way to make something actually happen, to actually change things so that male victims of rape get respect and assistance. That won’t happen if I ghettoize an article here.

AVfM happens to have developed influence. Whatever issues one may have with them – two things. One is that they have gone through a process of weeding out the troublesome loudmouths that made the place come across as so misogynist, both for philosophical and practical reasons. The other is that if you want something to make a difference, you go through channels, and AVfM has become a channel.

Purism is a luxury. And as it happens I don’t share others’ bad opinion of AVfM anyway. I would not compare it to InMalafide at all and I don’t think the comparison fits.

By the way, Jim:

Here’s Asha:

“(While we’re on the subject of female-perpetuated sexual abuse, most surveys that ask college age women about the sexual abuse they perpetrate find a shocking levels of female-perpetrated sexual abuse. Other surveys find that men who perpetuate sexual abuse are also sexually abused, suggesting a cycle of sexual abuse on college campuses. Perhaps rather than being victims of an indifferent system these silent female rape victims–who are part of a culture of cyclical sexual abuse–fail to come forward to the authorities about their abuse because it would mean admitting that they also are rapists? So the constant drumbeat of feminist agitprop about making these women “comfortable” never will, unless feminists invent a ray gun that neutralizes cognitive dissonance.)”

I trust you can find the misogyny in that statement. Or heck, I trust you can find the misogyny in her whole article – you’ll note that while she calls for recognizing rapists are (often, though I’m sure we could easily quibble with her numbers as to whether it is MOST of the time, my God what a conclusion from limited, contradictory, and rather sparse data) at least sometimes sexually abused themselves, she doesn’t call for recognizing ALL male victims – instead through the whole article she only mentions women rapists as if young boys aren’t being raped by older men in Afghanistan.

Let me say this : I’ve known Asha a very long time. So (unlike what was apparently done to me by someone at AVFM) I’m willing to let her explain herself before consigning her to the depths of misogynist hell. Perhaps this essay was just poorly written. But it seems to me like it does three things all of them either morally or logically repugnent
A. From a logical point of view it is FAR FROM SETTLED that most male rapists were raped themselves. Besides, not all trauma is sexual.
B. From a moral point of view the very assertion that the reason that most female rape victims do not report because they are rapists themselves is disgusting. Even many of the radfems I hate don’t assert that “most men” rape, let alone most male rape victims. You have to be the type of rad fem who asserts that “all heterosexual intercourse is rape” to believe that most or all men rape and , ironically, the argument made is an INSTITUTIONAL, not PERSONAL argument. Asha’s argument is PERSONAL. Most female rape victims have individually taken some action that resulted in the rape of a man. Indeed, in this essay Asha seems to be pinning the whole problem of rape on women as a group, and totally excusing men -except the rapists themselves, and even then she seems to have nothing but sympathy for them.
C. Apparently if we demonized females like males are demonized we could Stop Rape. Instead of trying to stop Rape Hysteria, this simply seems to be feeding it.

Anyway, I’m going to get personal again in the sake of full disclosure.
I’ve told a few people that a close relative of mine was raped. Well it wasn’t JUST a close relative , it was my mother. She came home bloody, crying, and shaking and had to go the hospital for a few days.I was about 7 or 8 at the time. They never found the man who did it. My mother never sexually abused me or either of my brothers; I find it hard to believe she ever had the time or inclination to sexually abuse anyone, and of course she went to the cops. But if she hadn’t (this was in the late 70’s when victims support services weren’t nearly as numerous) – if the shame had been too much for her – I’m sure she’d appreciate Typhon basically accusing her of raping her rapist or something.

The other thing I’m going to bring up is that I was sexually abused myself though it was minor and I’ve never told a living soul the details. It was an uncle. I had been staying at his house (and so had my brothers) since I was a little kid. He was gay, but NEVER had tried anything or even seemed sexual toward me. But one night, at 13 or 14 (can’t remember the exact year but it was the mid 1980’s) I woke up from sleeping in his bed to find his hand on my penis.

Even back then, we had “stranger danger” training in schools and I had some idea of personal boundaries and stuff. Anyway, I was shocked… I told him to knock it off and that if he ever did anything like that again, I’d tell my aunt (his mother). He stopped of course, apologized, and was very profusely apologetic about it for nearly a month after. I never slept in his bed again (I was getting rather old, but please remember he had never hinted at or tried anything before in the 6 years or so I had been occasionally visiting him), but while things were very awkward for awhile I eventually forgave him. It helped that I smelled alcohol on his breath, something I had never smelled before in all the years I’d known him. I could have ruined his life, in hindsight, giving how things turned out I’m glad I gave him that chance – though I’ve never asked him WHY he was drunk that night.

Why did he abuse me or attempt to abuse me? Was it because his mother MUST have abused him even though he seemed to love her? Or was it more likely the effect of drinking and some personal issue (at the time) that he never discussed?

These things are complicated. What I’m seeing from A Voice for Men lately is anything but fair or nuanced and has, at times, verged into hate speech all on its own. They have much to answer for, and while I will continue to help them (because unlike SOME of their commenters MOST of their actual actions will help men without being unfair to women ) I’m now going to have to be very wary of what they may become.

My mother never sexually abused me or either of my brothers; I find it hard to believe she ever had the time or inclination to sexually abuse anyone, and of course she went to the cops… I’m sure she’d appreciate Typhon basically accusing her of raping her rapist or something.

I’ve heard you say a lot of idiotic things, Clarence, but this is by far the dumbest, most absurd misconstruing of facts and logic that I have ever seen you come up with.

Schala:
That’s being far more generous to Typhon than her argument would seem to allow, and it’s sort of like trying to criticize Koss’s original study rather than what I was criticizing which is what Typhon has written.
Typhon isn’t talking ‘gray rape’, she’s taking these numbers at face value as rapes.
Read the rest of her post.

I prefer to think the vast majority of people -men and women on college campuses- don’t rape each other, that this problem is exaggerated, and that a climate of fear does no one any good. Of course I pointed out debunking Koss isn’t as easy as some people like Heather MacDonald believe.

Typhon prefers to believe that women simply rape so much that they are scared to talk about their own rapes for fear of being caught.

It’s actually a rather breathtaking assertion.

“Typhon prefers to believe that women simply rape so much that they are scared to talk about their own rapes for fear of being caught.”

Do you remember that she is a rape victim? And that her rapist was a woman? Do oyu think she means to impute to ehrself what you say she is imputing to ther female rape victims?

Or is it perhaps simply that she recognizes that nothing is a problem in Anglosphere societies until it happens to women and that if we want some kind of balance and decency in the discussion around rape, women are going to have to be subjected to the same kinds of imbalalnace and indecency that emn are before anyone takes the problem seriously.

Typhon and GWW and Dr. Hellen Smith and any woman working on men’s issues routinely get labelled misogynist. It doesn’t really stick.

Oh, and Jim:
The reason it doesn’t stick is because when one examines their writings they don’t support the charge. Or perhaps one has encountered online feminism and gotten the aforementioned “you disagree with me you mainsplaining rape apologist misogynist” at the drop of a hat.

But in this case: it will stick, provided the piece is linked with the accusation.

While I agree that particular survey is rife with issues, I do take issue with the point about “As a follow up they asked several questions including ‘do you believe that you were raped?’ and asking if the respondent had had sex with the same man subsequently. 73% of the respondents said that they do not believe that they were raped” Someone not thinking of an experience as rape doesn’t mean it’s not rape. It could be, but without any other data there’s no way of knowing whether it is or not, thanks to the loosely worded questions. (Asking someone how often they use alcohol and the ways it affects their life is very different from just asking someone “Are you an alcoholic?”.)

Oh, and Jim?
Yes, I am saying that Typhonblue is attacking female rape victims. She’s attacking the ones who were raped by males. You know one of her legitimate beefs with feminism is that they have trouble with female/female rape let alone female/male rape. There is no large organized lobby of female rape survivors of rape by other females. Indeed, female/female rape is probably the least talked about type of rape, and there’s certainly no push on college campuses for help for female survivors like Typhon. Heck, even male survivors often get ‘lip service’ at least.

Patrick:
I’m actually not arguing against anything you said, but Typhonblue is NOT arguing what you are. She is arguing, as I’ve patiently shown with her own post that most female rape victims (at least on college campuses) don’t report because they are rapists themselves.
If she is appropriately skeptical of what constitutes rape : e.g, she doesn’t believe that social coercion or a few beers or whatever leads to rape – then she is SPECIFICALLY attacking women who claim they were raped in the ways in which we tend to think of rape. Sex obtained via coercion due to force or threat of force.
If she is NOT appropriately skeptical and is considering (as an example) a girl who was sober but had sex with a man who had two drinks a rapist THEN not only is she falling into the Koss trap of overdefining rape (as she did at least in Question 8 and arguably some of her earlier questions) but she’s demonizing women as RAPISTS for having sex with men who probably (due to the fact that males tend to have to initiate as we ALL know) came on to her in the first place.

In either case it doesn’t look good to ME and I’m on Typhonblues side. Forget Manboobz – his credibility is shot – and just think about a normal man or woman new to the “genders sphere” who runs into Typhonblue’s article on what is arguably the largest men’s website focused on Mens Rights in the world. I’ve defended (in my mind at least and sometimes on various sites such theantifeminist.com) some of what Paul and them have done in terms of banning and the appointing of their current mods and such as necessary due to public relations or because some of the people involved really were sexist against women and thus needed to be shown the door.

How then can I explain how I was treated over NOTHING or this post by Typhon which seems to be a Jezebel godsend?
Something else must be going on at AVFM other than just “PR” stuff, because from a PR point of view this piece stinks to high heaven.

Typhon:
Did you mention how rape will only be solved once we recognize that male rape victims aren’t coming forward because they know they’d have to answer for all the rapes they did themselves?

You didn’t? I think that answers your question.

Typhon:

“Perhaps rather than being victims of an indifferent system these silent female rape victims–who are part of a culture of cyclical sexual abuse–fail to come forward to the authorities about their abuse because it would mean admitting that they also are rapists? So the constant drumbeat of feminist agitprop about making these women “comfortable” never will, unless feminists invent a ray gun that neutralizes cognitive dissonance.)”

Not a mention of males in there.

“Now either these people are raping because they’re damaged (and I’m sure there are a number of innocents who are accidental victims of this culture of cyclical rape) or they are working under a notion of consent very different from feminists. Possibly both.”

These are possibilities, as well as the possibility that not as many rapes are going on as one would think based on all the agitprop and rhetoric conflating grabbing an ass with forcible sodomy. There’s also the possibility that I brought up in another post – that most rapes on campus (and possibly regular sexual assaults as well) are done by a minority of very socially powerful men and most women don’t report them due to fear of social ostracization, personal reasons due to the fact its hard to see someone you are attracted to as a rapist or maybe even a few who have had their ‘rape fantasies’ fulfilled. It could be any or all of these types of ideas combined as well as a few more things that neither of us have thought about.

“But the point is that dealing with such a culture is going to require a far less ham-fisted approach than blaming and shaming the men in it.”

We agree on that, but the point isn’t to shame women as well. Sexual shame is tremendously harmful and is one of the main factors in false accusations. The point would be to improve education as concerns sexual boundaries, reduce the shaming/blaming of men, and perhaps introduce policies to realistically deal with the drunken ‘hook up’ culture that pervades many campuses. Seriously, I wish they could MONITOR drinking /drugs on campus rather than merely turn a blind eye to it. Just another problem with criminalization of ‘underage'(college students for God’s sake) drinking.

Once again, you or A Voice for Men wants to get help with placing posters/writing policies whatever that deal with campus sex ed, rape of men by women and women by women, men by men, that’s fine. I’m on board. But If I start seeing posters telling women they can stop rape at least using the insulting language and themes that are commonly used for ‘anti rape’ campaigns directed at men, you can count on losing any such help.

Clarence: You mean I noticed that you focused on women and basically accused rape victims of also being rapists?

Sorry, Typhon, that’s what you did.

Yes, that is what you did. I was pretty shocked by it.

You are basically arguing that women rape victims no longer need to be listened to at all, since they are all criminals at base. Right? (That’s why you said they all need to “shut the fuck up”… since they all brought it on themselves.)

Therefore, this piece will be interpreted by anti-MRAs as your attempt to get all men off the hook for rape, since it is WOMEN who actually made it all happen. Right?
You therefore strengthen anti-MRAs, who are swapping this piece on various private forums/google groups so fast it would make your head spin. (I got it three times already.) They are using this post to ‘prove’ that the agenda of MRAs is to make the world safe for men to rape. Your words, TB. I mean, since no man is ever responsible since women make men rapists, it means your ultimate goal must be to vindicate even guilty men. Right?

This is what the threads are saying. Your words, TB.

AVFM is turning into the male equivalent of Radfem Hub. If that is your intention, keep it up. If not, you might want to reconsider the nasty, vicious rhetoric. It certainly does reinforce the whole “hate group” accusation.

Feminist Google group commenter singles out the same quote that Clarence does:

Perhaps rather than being victims of an indifferent system these silent female rape victims–who are part of a culture of cyclical sexual abuse–fail to come forward to the authorities about their abuse because it would mean admitting that they also are rapists?

Google group commenter adds:

we see here that the Men’s Rights goal is to stop all women from coming forward. if they complain they were raped – they are automatic rapists themselves! way to stop the bitches from saying anything at all! if they could just get this instituted as law, they could arrest all female rape victims on the spot. this is obviously what they are going for, to make rape (of women) legal again. it would free up many of their movement martyrs from prison.

This is what I’m talking about. This is how some circles are reading your post.

And I confess, I wondered about it myself.

Also rape of women was never legal.

And if MRAs were working to make the rape of women legal, that would put them right in line with politically powerful feminist groups who have already managed to either keep the rape of men legal or make it legal where it was illegal.

So… hm.

Mr. Jim Doyle,

“Purism is a luxury. And as it happens I don’t share others’ bad opinion of AVfM anyway. I would not compare it to InMalafide at all and I don’t think the comparison fits.”

We have very different moralities and, dare I say, irreconcilable world views…

I was not comparing it to Inmalafide, I was saying that my publishing at IMF was a mistake.

There is no cognitive dissonance for me to state I strongly dislike feminists and the MRM-neither have my back.

Going My Own Way means shutting the door on ideologies I think are flawed.

I remember the old phrase, “Love it or leave it, it’s my way or the highway.”

My biggest regrets were when I didn’t take the highway. I suppose there is some articulate quote about the road less travelled but I don’t have it.

“Opting out” is the most powerful option for low status guys like me. I also believe this to be the most ethical. Lack of obligation to those who would see me as a tool or wish me harm.

Let me leave with this:

“Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”

@ Daisy

“TB, marital rape was legal for millenia. Still is, in some parts of the world.”

It’s legal against men and women. In fact there are precedents set in which men have been sued (France and Oman) for failing to preform their “conjugal duties”. And it’s apparently illegal in Mexico for a man _not_ to put out during marriage. (Not putting out is on the Duluth wheel as abusive behaviour, btw.)

Not only is marital rape of men allowed, a man saying “no” to his wife risks being punished.

Yet another problem that affects men that feminists have taken over as woman-only.

“TB, as I said, if you are trying to be Radfem Hub for men, keep up the good work.”

Seriously? Me saying that sexual abuse is a cycle that women participate in and the reason why those silent FEMALE victims that feminists drone on and on and on about are silent is because they are also perpetuating abuse and they don’t want to acknowledge that(or maybe, like yourself, don’t see it _as_ abuse) is equivalent to advocating murdering 90% of men? (And 80% of women for good measure?) Or castrating men? Or even advocating that raping women be legal(WTF?)

People who think this is reasonable dialog need to shut up and listen.

TB: I’m also amazed at what these feminist circles find worthy to get outraged about.

Outraged? You misunderstand. They are not outraged, they are gleeful. They think you have proven yourself to be a misogynist worth ignoring, a member of the Black Helicopter faction.

They think you are arguing for men to have free reign to rape whomever they please, any time they please, since the women all brought it on themselves. (Right?) No blame for men is possible–isn’t that what you are arguing? Women are responsible for getting themselves raped. That is how they read your comments. And that is how I read it the first time, too.

Rape victims = rapists. Isn’t that what you said? (that is the title of one such thread, BTW)

This means men can never be blamed. Right?

They are GLEEFUL at what you wrote. They LIKE THAT YOU WROTE SOMETHING SO IMMORAL, and what it says about MRAs. They are passing it around at warp speed.

You can expect to be dogged about it from now on. If you are proud of it, well… I think that will make them that much more gleeful. (sigh)

@ Daisy

“They are passing it around at warp speed.”

Excellent. The fact you and they think it’s immoral doesn’t make it so.

@ Clarence

I get the impression you are responding to an article I didn’t actually write. Perhaps you should address your concerns to the author of that article.

“Outraged? You misunderstand. They are not outraged, they are gleeful. They think you have proven yourself to be a misogynist worth ignoring, a member of the Black Helicopter faction”

Gleeful? Good, very good. Let them get all gleeful and complacent and let them write Typhon off as someone to ignore. That is the best outcome that could be hoped for.

They are not who Typhon is talking to. They are who she is talking about. And the longer they ignore her, the more they mischaracterize her, the more they distort what she says, the more obvious they make themselves.

Sun Zi said:
“怒而撓 – If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him.”

This is not a conversation with those you find in feminist spaces. The conversation has moved on from them and they are out of it, and need to be pushed further out.

And here you go, Typhon.
Stick your head in the sand again.
You haven’t addressed most of my points, I’ve broken your post down into pieces.

You never learn, and you find it impossible to give an inch about anything ever.

I’m glad you like being used as an example of misogyny. I will allow that overall you’ve still done more good than harm but you just keep this up and eventually I think those scales will change.

Men? Why does it specifically clear men from getting blamed for rape?

Letting men off the hook for rape is not the problem in this society. The problem in this society is letting women off the hook for rape.

And this is how what goes a round comes around: when someone is in a position where his consent is taken for granted, where it is assumed like the sun coming up in the east, where his own consent is not his to control, then how is he going to even understand what consent and non-consent are?

Now make this a her. How is someone who has ben taught form birth that she has the Big What They All want, and who has been taught that a real man is always ready to go, how is she even going to think to ask? How is she ever going to be able to keep from raping?

Yes, seriously:
The amount of victimization of women to rape (not just sexual assault like a butt pat or sexual harassment but RAPE) on college campuses if you go by the “1 in 4″ statistic or even the 1 in 8 or 9 (for completed rapes) is far higher than anywhere else on Earth including war zones. At least if you go by these surveys and the inferences feminists rape ‘researchers’ often draw from them.
These same surveys -if taken at face value – indicate truly incredible non -reporting numbers (98 to in some cases its claimed 99 percent PLUS) despite feminist presence on campus, anonymous rape hotlines, Victims Advocates (if they go the ‘report to the regular justice system” route) and Rape Shield laws, campus rape resources and education, the stories and support of other women who have been raped on campus etc. Oh, and lets not forget that campus disciplinary tribunals (which can lead to expulsion, denial of a degree etc) now rely only on “preponderance of the evidence” and in MOST schools don’t even allow the accused to directly confront his (or her) accuser.
Of course male victims don’t have this much support but, far as I know, they can still use the anonymous helplines, and do get some support.

Where are all these victims?
What more can we do to make campuses safer for women or men?
Why aren’t more people skeptical of this bullshit?

Clarence, one explanation, and a very simple one, for these women who don’t report is that they just don’t think it’s rape – not when it’s happening to them, not when they are doing it to someone else. and further they may not accept the parsing of “it’s being done to me vs. I’m doing it to someone else.” They may insist on seeing it as mutual. What a concept – actual sexual equality in the sex act.

And about your well-founded concern on who this is going to be read and judged in some quarters, this is what we are dealing with when it comes to any kind of honest dialog, per Pierce Harlan at Community of the Falsely Accused:
http://www.cotwa.info/2013/04/the-public-discourse-about-sexual.html

These people are interested in one thing – maintaining their victim narrative, because it’s at the center of their gender identity. And nothing – no facts, no one else’s civil or human rights, nothing whatever – is going to be allowed to disturb their victim narrative.

Jim:
“…and further they may not accept the parsing of “it’s being done to me vs. I’m doing it to someone else.” They may insist on seeing it as mutual. What a concept – actual sexual equality in the sex act.”

I can’t make heads or tails of this. Perhaps you could explain better?

As for the point of yours that I do think I understand: I doubt that with all the mandatory rape education and the free publicity that anti-rape and women’s groups get on campus that most women on campus have no idea what rape is. For your idea to be correct there’d have to be TONS of “gray rapes”… but then who said it’s a PROBLEM if such ‘iffy’ situations aren’t reported in the first place? In THAT case (tons of gray rapes) it would be unfair to talk about ‘lack of reporting’ at all, since it , at minimum, wouldn’t even be a sure bet that a rape occurred in the first place.

I refuse to believe that most people who are not passed out or black out drunk don’t know when their consent was violated by force or threats of force.

Typhon:
Let’s see: I have tons of ideas (at least some of which even you would have to admit are equally if not more so plausible than yours) – even a few based on surveys(reasons women do not report) and research (rape fantasy) and you want to reduce this to one factor?

I’m willing to say that it’s possible that in a VERY FEW cases some woman somewhere gets raped and realizes that 1, or 5 or maybe even ten years earlier she did something similar to a teen male or another young man and feels guilty about that so that she feels she ‘got what she deserved’ or some such, and doesn’t report for that reason.

But if you are going to maintain this is any kind of common thing I’m afraid you are going to have to go on more than hunches, and provide proof. Because at this point all it looks like is “victim blaming”. Whatever abusive childhood (whether mom or dad neglected him, sexually abused him, physically abused him or whatever) my mom’s rapist MIGHT have had (and lets face it, maybe he was simply a sociopath) she had no hand whatsoever in it.

Typhon :
Perhaps if you could explain?
Unless that is that questioning your ideology about why women don’t report rape (because they are all rapists themselves) constitutes victim-blaming you?

Or maybe you are just an intellectual coward and a bully at heart.

LOL.
Ok, Typhon. But you’ll note I said, it “LOOKS LIKE” not that it was.

And you’ve yet to tie your ideology to my mom’s rape.
I rather hope you keep it to college campuses, personally.

@ Clarence

“And you’ve yet to tie your ideology to my mom’s rape.”

And you’ve yet to tie your ideology to my rape.

“see a two-year-old boy doing nothing in particular and think of rape, as has been seen in links in the comments here recently.”

What? Can you explain or provide a link?

Clarence,
“I refuse to believe that most people who are not passed out or black out drunk don’t know when their consent was violated by force or threats of force.”

It took James Landrith nearly 20 years to realize that a woman straddling him when he came to and continuing to rape him with threats of turning him in as gay if he didn’t go along, and threatening HIM with a rape acusation, was violating his consent. Tewnty years.

So maybe what you believe or refuse to believe is an unreliable standard for what other people will or will not realaize about things that ahppen to them.

“I can’t make heads or tails of this. Perhaps you could explain better?

As for the point of yours that I do think I understand: I doubt that with all the mandatory rape education and the free publicity that anti-rape and women’s groups get on campus that most women on campus have no idea what rape is. For your idea to be correct there’d have to be TONS of “gray rapes”… but then who said it’s a PROBLEM if such ‘iffy’ situations aren’t reported in the first place? In THAT case (tons of gray rapes) it would be unfair to talk about ‘lack of reporting’ at all, since it , at minimum, wouldn’t even be a sure bet that a rape occurred in the first place.’

You got it.

Gingko:
To be fair what happened to JL happened over 20 years ago and he was not on a college campus (far as I know he hadn’t even been in college) when it happened to him.

Read Typhon’s post again. Is she talking about society as a whole or is she talking about college sexual culture? She seems to be claiming her observations are mostly (if not entirely) about campus culture.

No, I don’t believe males and females on campus today are so uneducated on rape that they can’t wrap their minds around simple consent and drugged sex.

Patrick, not one fucking word about how her daughter’s hormones will rage and she will force hehrself on some young kid thinking he must wanat it because she is just so goddammed hawt and what a bastard he will be if he doesn’t think so.

@ Daisy

I’m really going to take the opinion of a confessed rapist seriously.

Typhon, I’m sure you must be frustrated by the way what you wrote is being misinterpreted, but that was uncalled for, and, frankly, obscene. That’s such a serious accusation that it led to a shitstorm when you made it against hypothetical people. Don’t use it against real people. I suggest you delete that comment and apologise.

Gingko:
While you might see that post at The Belle Jar as mostly being problematic because of the implicit assumption that no girls ever force themselves on boys, I see the problem being more fundamental by far: what is the sub-context of that whole blog post?
I’d say it’s not hate, but a closely related emotion: Fear.

Fear, fear, fear, fear.
Every human interaction boiled down to rape or potential rape. Males being aware they often have to buy TIME with a female (they don’t buy HER you stupid bitch, she’s as free to ditch him the next day as ever) is conflated with sexual ownership. Men counting coup (which, lets be honest probably a majority of all straight *don’t know about gay men, Ginko*men have done at least a few times in their lives) about how much sex they have or describing their (often exaggerated) sexual exploits is listed as just one step away from Steubenville.

So yes, she’s a disgusting sexist bigot, who probably would deny females could sexually assault or rape males – it’s all about Privilege dontcha know. But she’s also a fear monger.
This sort of agitprop IS the sole and only ‘official’ type of sex talk when it comes to anything political or social.that deals with sex these days. Fear and conflict between men and women, conflict and fear and everyone hypervigilant about the slightest chance of objectification or abuse. Meanwhile they talk about sex education, yet the only sex education most young people (esp boys and men) ever receive is what NOT to do, not what to do. There’s no hard and fast rules anyway. To a certain extent we’ve made sexual assaults (and I swear some want to make rape the same way) in the Eye of the Beholder.
People can’t function in this kind of an environment. Enthusiastic consent would be a good societal meme to strive for (though it shouldn’t be some legal requirement at least for RAPE convictions), but its so wrapped up in feminist Rape Culture (the type that demonizes men and denies female sexual misbehavior) and Legal Dominance Feminism that it’s hardly being pushed on the wider society in any kind of ‘friendly’ form.

IF the ‘sexual revolution’ of the 1960’s to early 1970’s might have been said (arguably)to have went too far -then the antisexual counter revolution of the past 30 could be said to have went even farther over to the other side. All it’s done is made authoritarians and jailers happy. I fail to see how such rhetoric helps young people (men and women) develop healthy sexualities.

Daisy:

Calling all rape victims rapists (which IS what TB wrote; I just reread it to be sure) is just too much for me.

Where did Typhonblue say this? Could you give a quote?

Typhonblue:

Perhaps rather than being victims of an indifferent system these silent female rape victims–who are part of a culture of cyclical sexual abuse–fail to come forward to the authorities about their abuse because it would mean admitting that they also are rapists?

While I understand that this sentence is a question, but you are still proposing an explanation, so it is not surprising that people who disagree with this proposition might be offended.
I don’t really understand this sentence, so here are some questions:
1.Could you quantify “these silent rape victims”? You certainly don’t mean all and it is rather obvious that there are some for which the answer to your question will be yes.
2.What does being “part of a culture of cyclical sexual abuse” mean?
3.What do you mean by “rape” and by “sexual abuse” in this sentence?

@ Patrick

Sometimes you can’t get through to people without holding up a mirror.

She has been persistently misrepresenting what I wrote in the worst way possible. Saying that I’m saying all rape victims are rapists. That is an accusation without merit or basis.

So I did the same back. Actually not the same at all because she has confessed to “rape” by coercion in this very thread.

According to the same classification system that those feminist researchers are using to call these college age women rape victims, Daisy _is a rapist_.

Typhon:
Well, I’m willing to take your word that you don’t mean that ‘all rape victims are rapists’ though I do wish I knew where you drew the line.
But as you can see many other people are misunderstanding your post.
Why not tighten it up some to make it more clear?
I’ve said you should do that more than once in this thread.
Now as usual you are free to ignore my advice, my concern, my disagreement.
However, you are on an Activist site when we are talking A Voice for Men.
And while Belle Jar Bitch and her ilk won’t give you the time of day if an angel from On High came down to tell her your opinions on this had the blessing of God, aren’t you trying to appeal to people who might know little or nothing about this subject?

A good faith question.
I see two main problems with this piece being received by anyone other than the Amen Club of the Mens Rights Movement(which is what that place is rapidly turning into).
A. You seem to have too much sympathy for rapists. Bad sex? C’mon. It’s one thing to be sympathetic to a rapist who was abused him/herself. Or certainly an accidental rapist, though I doubt there’s many of those. Statuatory rapists are sometimes very sympathetic people. But … Bad sex? Seeming to say that the only reason men rape is that they’ve been raped ?
B. The last paragraph everyone loves to hate.

I don’t think you are receiving positive attention for this post due to those two issues. But hey, it’s your life.

Thank you for your question Dr. Ramore.
I wasn’t aware of any studies done on male victims in Norway. Now you have spurred me on to dig a bit more to see what there is and I found that there has been a few studies done among youths, for instance:

Mossige S, Huang L. The prevalence of sexual offences and abuse within a Norwegian youth population Nor J Epidemiol 2010; 20(1):53-62 (in Norwegian with a short english abstract. It uses numbers from two large national youth surveys done in 2004 and 2007.

I haven’t read it in detail yet, but I haven’t found any clear description of the definition of rape which they use. They operate with some categories called “unwanted intercourse” (one for oral, one for anal and one for vaginal) which is separate from rape. I presume this is due to rape requiring physical force or threat of physical force in Norwegian law (unless the victim is incapable of giving consent, for instance by being unconscious). Amnesty and others have been lobbying for removing the requirement of physical force (or threat of physical force) from the legal definition of rape – making it only dependent on absense of consent.

They found the following:
About 1 in 10 rape victims are male (4.3% vs 0.4%)
About 1 in 10 victims of attempted rape are male (7.1% vs 0.7%).

Unwanted sexual experiences:
Someone has exposed themselves to you
Someone has touched in a sexual manner
You have touched yourself in sexual manner in front of others
You have touched someone else in a sexual manner
You had to masturbate while someone watched
You’ve had intercourse (vaginal)
You’ve had oral sex
You’ve had anal sex
You’ve had another form of sex
You have experienced one or more experiencesfrom the list

I’ll list the results from the more serious experiences:
1 of 3 who report unwanted vaginal intercourse are male (12% vs 6.5%)
7.7% of girls vs 5.8% of boys reported unwanted oral sex
2.5% of girls vs 1.5% of boys reported unwanted anal sex

35.6% of girls and 22.5% of boys report that they’ve experienced one or more items on the list of unwanted sexual experiences.

They survey asked about the perpetrator in the first and in the last experience. Girls report 99% male perpetrators and 1% female perpetrators – the same for both the first and last. Boys report 50-60% female perpetrator and 50-40% male perpetrators.

The largest category for perpetrator for both girls and boys are “friend, boyfriend/girlfriend or acquaintance”.

What form was the first unwanted sexual experience – voluntarily or under duress/force.
The question was; how well does the following statements describe what happened
Type: Girls vs Boys who answered that the statement described the experienced well.
Too young to understand: 25.8% vs 15.3%
Participated voluntarily, but regretted afterwards: 11.8% vs 8.9%
Was tricked/conned: 27% vs 13.9%
Was persuaded: 20.3% vs 10.5%
Mild pressure: 26.9% vs 10.3%
Strong pressure: 23% vs 7.4%
Physical force (constrained/pinned down, threats of violence or violence): 31.1% vs 9.6%

@ Tamen

How does this:

=About 1 in 10 rape victims are male (4.3% vs 0.4%)
=About 1 in 10 victims of attempted rape are male (7.1% vs 0.7%).

Jive with this:

=1 of 3 who report unwanted vaginal intercourse are male (12% vs 6.5%)
=7.7% of girls vs 5.8% of boys reported unwanted oral sex
=2.5% of girls vs 1.5% of boys reported unwanted anal sex

@ Patrick

“A frivolous accusation”

Do you or do you not believe that harassing someone into having sex is rape?

If you don’t, you do realize that the people Daisy is defending do believe that harassing someone into having sex is rape?

This whole situation is proving my point. Daisy does not view herself as a rapist or a rape victim. Thus she has never “come forward” to the authorities in regards to having been raped.

Now that’s either because:

1. She doesn’t want to be seen as a rapist.
2. She doesn’t want to be seen as a rape victim.
3. She doesn’t think this classification system for rape is applicable to her life at all.

Feminists are leveraging the silence of women like Daisy–and other women such as female co-eds in a college campus of cyclical sexual abuse–to remove men’s due process rights because they’ve got people convinced that these women aren’t coming forward because “the system is against them.”

When, in fact, these “rape victims” are rapists themselves under the feminist classification!

So in order for them to come forward, they would have to admit to being rapists. Which they won’t do.

As for why I called Daisy a rapist. According to the viewpoint she’s defending–the viewpoint that she says is calling my statement immoral–she is a rapist.

I applied the same viewpoint that she is applying to me. If I’m immoral according to the viewpoint she is defending… _than she is a rapist._

I knew I’d be sorry I wrote that. The song “Policy of Truth” by Depeche Mode is now playing on my laptop.

Me too, Patrick. Amen brother.

Again, adios all. And I bid you good night, good night, good night… (Grateful Dead used to end the shows with that song)

That is a great find Tamen. It looks like a very useful study. I`m going to look into it properly. Have you considered writing a “kronikk” about rates of male rape victims or any of the other stuff you discuss on this site? There is just so little being written about mens issues in the MSM in Norway but judging from what I can read in comment sections and online forums people are ready for it.

Here are some Norwegian links you might find useful:

http://www.aftenbladet.no/nyheter/okonomi/jobb/Navnet-pavirker-karakterene-3105671.html#.UXb20L9KO-U

http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/2012/11/14/i-sverige-selger-flere-unge-menn-enn-kvinner-sex

http://www.dagsavisen.no/samfunn/menn-som-forsorger-kvinner/

http://www.dagsavisen.no/nyemeninger/alle_meninger/cat1003/subcat1018/thread270394/#post_270394

http://www.aftenposten.no/jobb/Kvinner-vil-trives-i-jobben_-menn-tar-storre-risiko-7117358.html#.UVWRFVET7q0

http://dyade.no/acem_sites/dyade_no/tidsskrift/dyade_2008_04_klager_krav_og_krenkelser/anklage_samfunnet

To everyone who has just declared their intention to flounce(and Clarence. Who I’m seriously hoping is also flouncing.)

Don’t feel you have to return on my account. In fact I do hope these respective flounces last longer than, you know, an hour.

Try for a day, a week, a month. Perhaps the rest of my life.

You wouldn’t want to look weak and inconsistent by returning too soon, now would you?

Wow, Typhonblue.
I’m not flouncing. You’ll have to ban me.
Go right ahead, chickenshit.

Jacob was also a victim. But there’s a huge difference between Jacob and you.
You’ve apparently become a fragile bully unable to handle the results of her own mistakes.
Amazing. I’ve had alot of respect for you for years and you just lost it with your behavior in this thread.

So go ahead, chickenshit.

You wouldn’t want to look weak and inconsistent by returning too soon, now would you?

Yes, please ban me too. I want the feather in my cap. I have been accused of “cozying up to MRAs”–so this banning will rehab my reputation nicely.

And just think: Feministing, Pandagon, Genderratic … such a nice symmetry.

@ Clarence

I’m not going to ban you. You will have to leave of your own accord.

@ Daisy

Why am I not surprised you’re back! And wow, pulling out the stops are we?

“Being called a rapist is beyond the pale.”

So you don’t agree with the world view that’s had you labeling me “immoral” for almost the entirity of this thread?

Because, guess what, harassing someone into sex is rape according to the feminists you hang with.

“FEMINISM MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO CALL YOUR MOTHER A RAPIST.”

When did I say it was my mother who raped me?

The _female acquaintance_ who raped me didn’t actually rape me under Mary Koss’s or the CDC’s definition of rape. Insofar feminists are looking to expand the definition of rape, they do so while trying to hide the fact that this expanded definition reveals victims of female rapists. So, no, feminists are not working to get what happened to me recognized as rape.

Far from it.

Now I have endured both of you telling me what you think of me.

Let me tell you what I think of you.

I think you’re both trolls who argue in bad faith. I think you both deliberately distort what your opponents say and manufacture outrages.

You, Daisy, think I owe something to you and feminism. I don’t.

You, Clarence, seem to have some sort of fixation in which you attempt to manufacture a “relationship” with me through contrived conflict. Then, like any bully or abuser, you offer a “reconciliation.”

I’m afraid neither of you are arguing in good faith so… good day to you.

I’d wonder how literally dozens if not hundreds of threads on this blog alone where I don’t even address you once, the fact there’s probably been periods of two or three months where I haven’t even addresed you here or anywhere or some threads where I make one or two complimentary comments fits into your little victim narrative Typhon, but whatever.

Clarence, good point. I am just very, very tired of Gingko constantly defending TB.

Also, I thought we needed to come down on Valerie as hard as on any other feminist who talks about getting rid of the men, like they are weeds or fleas or something. I thought people were deliberately going easy on her, which just made her get more and more outrageous.

Therefore *I* ended up as the bad guy, and I am the one she holds accountable for her departure from here.

Clarence: I honestly, personally, can care less whether you stay or go,

Oh poo. 🙁 I have grown to really appreciate your sense of fairness.

I read the exchange on AVFM (regarding the terrorism), and you did good. I found that whole post… rather amazing.

BTW, could you answer my question:

WHO would I report my rapes to, in 1976? Exactly who?

Are you saying my drunken passed-out episode *wouldn’t* be laughed out of the police station in 1976?

Because yes, it would have been.

The fact that you don’t know this, is striking.

Hey everybody. I’m a long time reader, but rare poster.

Lately, I’ve been looking 4 more blogs 2 posit my opinion since being banned at tgmp for taking pro male stances.

As far as TyphonBlue’s quote that is causing a ruckus, there is a tried & true technique I learned to see if something is misogynist or misandrist that I leanred way back on Glenn Sacks blog.

Reverse the genders. That’s what this blog did regarding the article about the female rapist who imprisoned her lover for 2 days in Germany.

So, let’s reverse the genders & see how it reads?

“While we’re on the subject of male-perpetuated sexual abuse, most surveys that ask college age men about the sexual abuse they perpetrate find a shocking levels of male-perpetrated sexual abuse. Other surveys find that women who perpetuate sexual abuse are also sexually abused, suggesting a cycle of sexual abuse on college campuses. Perhaps rather than being victims of an indifferent system these silent male rape victims–who are part of a culture of cyclical sexual abuse–fail to come forward to the authorities about their abuse because it would mean admitting that they also are rapists? ”

Is it just me, or does it seem that by twisting the genders, the “outrageous” declaration becomes a dry read? I believe the only reason TB’s statement seemed outrageous is because the idea that women rarely have agency & men always do is so prevalent.

Also, Clarence I don’t think what most people would respond is necessarily a good argument. We all know that misandry is much more pervasive & insidious than misogyny (mostly because women’s groups have been identifying what is & isn’t misogyny for 40 years).

If you’re going to use the populace as evidence of misogyny, my response would be: Is this the same populace that barely blinks an eye at Sharon Osbourne mocking a male victims of sexual mutilation to an audience of millions while a female panel & audience titters uproarisly?

Equilibrium Shift:

“Typhon is correct, at least partially, in the sense that many of the women who are victims on campus are also perpetrators. Obviously not all, and it is no tit-for-tat situation, but I have seen enough perpetuation of “campus rape culture” on both (all) sides of the fence to know that the people who are most likely to be victimized are also the most likely to be heavily invested in the sexual aggression that goes around campus.* Thus, her point that some portion (obviously we can’t say how much) of the “silent victims” don’t feel victimized because: 1) They have done or would do the same thing without guilt 2) This is considered SOP or 3) they weren’t hurt by what happened (or all three to varying degrees).”

Well, I don’t know about anyone else, but I’ve never denied it’s a possibility.
That’s not the point though. The language, as written is problematic because it implies that most rape victims on campus (hell, it seems to be saying “all”) rape. Now by some radfem analysis – if applied fairly to both sexes – this is true. But Typhon doesn’t SAY anything in the post to indicate that she is using radfem analysis so the reader , I suppose , must magically infer it.

Indeed, I think that’s why Daisy asked her if she was a rapist herself by her own definitions, and look at her reaction to THAT. And even if the above explanation was the true one about Typhon’s intentions for her essay, WHERE is she busy explaining her intentions?
Not A Voice For Men where she is getting unqualified ass-kissing (at least the last time I looked) and where this piece will eventually be sent out from to confuse feminists and non-feminists in the larger society everywhere.
Nope. She comes here to this much more obscure blog and I guess tries to explain her intent for awhile until she gives way to anger, fear, and snark. Of course at this point I’m not even sure what her real intent for this part of her essay was.

Unfortunately, even though it’s not something I like to think, intent doesn’t matter when it comes to public relations and few people will end up here to see Typhon’s attempted clarifications about things.

“… I’m sure she’d appreciate Typhon basically accusing her of raping her rapist or something.”

It’s nice you cut off the prior part with my “if” clause.
Because that’s the point of my whole complaint: Typhon’s whole thing looks like she claimed every rape victim WHO DOESN’T REPORT THEIR RAPE is ONLY doing so because they are rapists themselves.

The caps are to emphasize this so that your first grade level reading comprehension is taken into account.

“Here, Clarence misses the entire premise, because TB was talking about a population of women who don’t go to the police and who don’t believe they were raped. Clarence nevertheless sees that as an immense affront to his family’s experience. For absolutely no good reason. He then further screws the pooch by making it out as though TB were saying that there is literally a one for one tit for tat of every rape victim raping their rapist. His entire position, all the walls of text which aren’t even worth reading, are based on such tragic logic fails.”

So far in this thread at least 4 people have in parts, or in whole seen exactly what I saw. Either we are all stupid, we are all evil , or Typhonblue’s ability to write what is called a “persuasive” essay is not the best.
Several times in this thread I’ve mentioned that there are maybe one or two parts that could and should be re-written or even dropped. It shouldn’t be a big deal for me to point out that the essay BEGS to be misunderstood (assuming once again that Typhon’s “intent” is good) because it is POORLY WRITTEN.

As far as “personal” stuff, I remember the one big thread I got in an argument with you concerning the Aurora Theater shooting. You’ve still got a bug in your ass about that, as well as your stupid retarded accusations that me and Daisy (disproven by subsequent events and threads including the fact I never got involved when Daisy tried to prove you were messing with her blog and weren’t who you claimed to be) were in some sort of tag team on poor old DUNGone.

Your only other comment in this thread was a personal attack on me after I put out some very personal information that I’ve never shared elsewhere.

Stay classy, Dungone.

Sorry, Ginkgo I missed your comment.

Feel free to delete my comment if you want.

[ED–I’m loathe to delete your comment as it was substantive and presented an interesting Addendum. I am considering moving it instead.]

@Schala

What you refer to is described by John Ralston Saul as the quality of mind known as “Common Sense”. It’s been bastardised and degraded as a quality in the Age of False Individualism in which we are stuck, but it can best be defined as societal knowledge balanced by other qualities of mind (ethics, imagination, intuition, memory, reason). The difference between empathy and common sense is the difference between emotion and thought – Common Sense, a knowledge of _the other_, allows a person to map new pathways of emotion – we can cultivate compassion without any intuition (utilitarian gut feeling) or “woman’s ways of knowing” required.

Come to think of it, aren’t their any people put off by “women;s ways of knowing” as a concept? It seems to claim simultaneously that women are separate from “the other” ie. they cannot be known by anyone, and at the same time thought is both above and beneath them. The mind boggles at this indictment of the human female – an indictment n0-one deserves.

While I enjoyed reading through the article and some of the contents, I stopped reading when it became a 4 way gripe fest. If I wanted to hear people playing “but you said……!” I’d go back to Tumblr and it’s abusive excuse for feminism. So thanks to those of you who actually contributed something useful to the conversation.

Fascinating and disturbing analysis. Regarding the mother’s rape of her son, however, I don’t understand that story’s relevance to the article. For one thing, it’s penetrative rape and would thus be considered rape by the CDC study. For another, the mother was not charged with something called “rape” because there is no such charge in Arizona.

Possible charges in that state would be:
13-1404 Sexual abuse – does not apply to children under 15 except for offenses involving only the female breast
13-1405 Sexual conduct with a minor – sexual intercourse with anyone under 18 with mandatory sentencing when perpetrator is a parent
13-1406 Sexual assault – this would be the traditional rape charge, applicable in this case but sentencing would be carried out in accordance with 13-1405
13-1410 Molestation of a child – sexual contact with a child under 15, also applicable here
13-1417 Continuous sexual abuse of a child – likely not feasible in this case as charge requires at least 3 acts over a period of at least 3 months (oddly child is defined as under 14 here)
13-1423 Violent Sexual Assault – doesn’t not apply as prior felony sexual offense conviction is required.

The harshest possible sentencing in this case results from what was charged- sexual conduct with a minor (“conduct” not “misconduct”). This is the most aggressive single charge in part due to the harsher sentencing imposed on parents. It’s also a Class 2 felony, which is the same class as the most severe forms of sexual assault. As for the child abuse charge, that’s a Class 2 felony (13-3623) as well in this case as it was intentional and the victim was under 15.

The only more severe felonies are murder (Class 1 felonies), and, as is true in most states, there is no legal construct called “rape” in Arizona. That said, they could have charged sexual assault as well as molestation in addition to sexual conduct with a minor. They may not have done this due to the nature of the jury instructions for the charges or because juries may be less inclined to convict a mother on those charges. It’s also of course possible (I’d even say likely) that the news coverage wasn’t accurate about the charges. At least one source implied these two were not the only charges.

I tried to pull up the court records to confirm the charges, but all I found was a timeline of court events. The trial is scheduled for this April. It looks like they may be going for a life sentence, thus the delay. Without knowing more details about the evidence (or more Arizona law), it’s impossible to say whether the woman is being undercharged. What is clear, however, is that she is facing very serious felony charges in this matter; it’s in no way being swept under the rug or ignored. What disturbs me more is that the news coverage of this incident was absolutely abysmal; no mainstream coverage at all. Perhaps that will change with the trial.

Check out Arizona Criminal Code Chapter 14 to confirm: http://www.azleg.gov/arizonarevisedstatutes.asp?Title=13
Also the case details will end up here, if you’d care to follow the case: http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/caselookup.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1