上位 200 件のコメント表示する 500

[–]kerovonGrad Student | Biomedical Engineering | Regenerative Medicine[M] [スコア非表示] stickied comment (30子コメント)

Hi everyone! You may notice a higher rate of removed comments than usual. It can be frustrating to encounter a thread full of removals or to have your own contributions removed. Please take a moment to read our commenting rules in the sidebar or follow this link.

Specifically, please note our rules about anecdotes and the requirement that comments be about the science of the study. We recognize that sexual assault is a very important and serious issue and that people have understandably strong feelings about this topic. But this is not the sub for debating political, social, and moral issues. Nor is it the right place to share personal experiences and anecdotes. There are other subs better suited for those kinds of engagements and we politely ask that you take them there.

Finally, if you or someone you know is a survivor of sexual assault or rape, there is help out there.

United States

The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network

The 1 in 6 Project Online SupportLine for men.

The National Domestic Violence Hotline

  • 1-800-799-SAFE (7233)

MaleSurvivor

Canada

Public Health Agency of Canada

United Kingdom

Rape Crisis England & Wales

The Survivors Trust: Supporting survivors of rape and sexual abuse. The Survivors Trust has over 130 member agencies which provide support for women, men and children who are survivors of rape, sexual violence or childhood sexual abuse, and provide a simple search function on their site to find specialists in your area.

Survivors UK support and resources for men

Other Countries

The HotPeach Pages provides a directory of hotlines and support groups for sexual violence in 110 different languages.

[–]shirukenGrad Student | Biomedical Engineering | Neurophotonics 3078ポイント3079ポイント  (376子コメント)

A focus on female perpetration might be skeptically viewed as an attempt to upend a women's rights agenda focused on male-perpetrated sexual victimization. But attention to female perpetration need not negate concern about other forms of abuse. Moreover, a close look a sexual victimization perpetrated by women is consistent with feminist imperatives to undertake intersectional analyses, to take into account power relations, and to question gender-based stereotypes.


This study analyzed four large surveys conducted by the CDC and the Bureau of Justice Statistics to estimate the prevalence of female sexual perpetration. Here is a summary of their findings:

From the CDC's National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey:

  • Note: The CDC's definition of rape is limited to penetration of the victim, which means being "made to penetrate" does not constitute rape.

  • Men and women had similar prevalence of non-consensual sex during the previous 12 months (1.6M women and 1.7M men)

  • 19.3% of women and 1.7% of men report being raped during their lifetime

    • 6.7% of men reported being "made to penetrate" during their lifetime
  • The vast majority of male (93.3%) and female (98.1%) victims of rape experienced abuse from male perpetrators

  • When looking specifically at non-rape sexual victimization:

    • 92.5% of female victims report only male perpetrators
    • 68.6% of male victims report either female or both male and female perpetrators
  • Heterosexual male victims were much more likely to report abuse by a female perpetrator (71.4%) than gay (21.4%) or bisexual men (34.2%)

  • Lesbian victims were more likely to report abuse by a female perpetrator (14.8%) than bisexual (12.5%) or hetereosexual women (5.3%)

  • Figure 1

From the BJS's National Crime Victimization Survey:

  • Female perpetrators (acting alone) were reported in 28% of rape/sexual assaults involving male victims and 4.1% of incidents involving female victims
    • Incidents involving at least one female were reported in 34.7% of incidents involving male victims and 4.2% of incidents involving female victims
  • During incidents involving a female perpetrator, 57.6% of male victims and 41.4% of female victims report being attacked by the perpetrator
  • Figure 2

From the BJS's National Former Prisoner Survey and National Survey of Youth in Custody:

  • Incarcerated women are more likely to be abused by other women inmates than by male staff
    • 4.4% of former women prisoners reported staff sexual victimization
    • 13.7% reported sexual victimization by other inmates
  • Men/boys are disproportionately incarcerated and therefore overrepresented among victims (Therefore women are disproportionately represented among all staff abusers)
    • Among all adult prisoners reporting staff sexual victimization, 80% report only female perpetrators
    • Among all juveniles reporting staff sexual victimization, 83.9% report only female perpetrators
  • Gay and bisexual men and women were 2-3x more likely to report staff sexual victimization than heterosexuals
  • Women were more likely to experience sexual victimization perpetrated by female inmates (13.7%) than men by male inmates (4.2%)
  • Figure 3 and Figure 4

From the conclusion of the paper:

In light of this new federal agency data demonstrating that female sexual perpetration is more widespread than previously known, we have sought to enumerate the gender stereotypes fueling its neglect. We call for feminist approaches – expansively interpreted – to challenge these stereotypes, making room to consider women who are abusive, power seeking, and sexually aggressive, while taking into account the troubled background many such women possess.

Unless we uproot the simplistic stereotypes that limit understandings about sexual victimization, we will not address it accurately, nor will we respond to victims empathically. Those victimized by women are doubly harmed when we fail to treat their abuse as worthy of concern.

Further, we recommend that law enforcement officials, care professionals interacting with perpetrators and victims, and policymakers apply a new awareness of the frequency and impact of female perpetration in practice, so as to address sexual victimization comprehensively. This includes taking account of issues specific to lesbian and bisexual women, youth, people of color, and incarcerated persons.


L. Stemple, A. Flores, I. H. Meyer, Sexual victimization perpetrated by women: Federal data reveal surprising prevalence. Aggression and Violent Behavior (2016).

Abstract: This article examines female sexual perpetration in the U.S. To do so, we analyzed data from four large-scale federal agency surveys conducted independently by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2008 through 2013. We found these data to contradict the common belief that female sexual perpetration is rare. We therefore reviewed the broader literature to identify patterns and provide context, including among high-risk populations such as college students and inmates. We recommend that professionals responding to this problem avoid gender stereotypes that downplay the frequency and impact of female sexual perpetration so as to comprehensively address sexual victimization in all forms.

[–]BenderB-Rodriguez 983ポイント984ポイント  (8子コメント)

thank you for your comment and your effort. this very much helped me, and individual without a scientific background (I do IT work), understand the study and it's context.

[–]shirukenGrad Student | Biomedical Engineering | Neurophotonics 332ポイント333ポイント  (3子コメント)

No problem. I should point out that my summary only encompasses the analysis they did of the CDC and BJS surveys. Their discussion section delves deeply into the literature surrounding many of these findings.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 129ポイント130ポイント  (8子コメント)

It's important to remember that "other sexual violence" includes what would otherwise be considered rape, i.e. being forced to penetrate. The study also found that among those men who were forced to penetrate someone, 80% of them were forced to penetrate women. Further, when including forced to penetrate as rape, you get closer to parity in victimization.

[–]shirukenGrad Student | Biomedical Engineering | Neurophotonics 67ポイント68ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's important to remember that "other sexual violence" includes what would otherwise be considered rape, i.e. being forced to penetrate.

Correct, the study went to great efforts to explain this. While the CDC's definition of rape only includes unwanted penetration of the victim, it does tally "being made to penetrate" so the relevant data is readily available.

[–]Tamen_ 133ポイント134ポイント  (43子コメント)

The number for the last 12 months in the two CDC studies (NISVS 2010 and NISVS 2011) were even more startling than the lifetime numbers:

2010:

  • 1.1% of women were raped in the last 12 months
  • 1.1% of men were made to penetrate in the last 12 months

2011:

  • 1.6% of women were raped in the last 12 months
  • 1.7% of men were made to penetrate in the last 12 months

[–]PropagandaTrashPanda 94ポイント95ポイント  (7子コメント)

Make note that the aggregated statistic reported as "rape" for women includes forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, and penetration while drunk or high, while the "made to penetrate" statistic for men only a single category. AFAIK, no data is collected on attempted "made-to-penetrate" or "made-to-penetrate" while drunk or high.

edit: As noted in the replies below, apparently "made to penetrate" includes attempted and drunk/high subcategories. No one seems to have found the breakdown into the subcategories, though.

[–]Tamen_ 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Your AFAIK is wrong. The MTP category is defined in pretty much the same way as rape and as such does include attempts and incidents while drunk or high and unable to consent. The only difference between the two definitions is whether the victim is penetrated or being made to penetrate.

[–]stuka444 35ポイント36ポイント  (28子コメント)

a .5/.6% increase is rather drastic, what changed

[–]Dhalphir 129ポイント130ポイント  (18子コメント)

probably increased reporting. it's unlikely anything else would produce such a sharp increase in a short period of time.

[–]stuka444 19ポイント20ポイント  (17子コメント)

But was there anything to promote increased reporting during that time if that is the case?

[–]brutinator 36ポイント37ポイント  (0子コメント)

Most likely a change in the perception of reporting rape for both genders, a reducing of the negative stigma attached to it. I'm sure that admitting to being raped for some is a deeply shameful and humiliating act to come forth with (not that reporting itself IS shameful, but that it feels shameful), but nowadays people are far more supportive to those who speak up than used to and more likely to give praise to those who do as well, I'm hypothesizing.

[–]CandersonNYC 41ポイント42ポイント  (3子コメント)

When I've done presentations over the past 3 years all over the country I highlight this issue (the invisibility of "made to penetrate" (MTP) stats due to CDC not including it as a type of rape in their reporting). I've never had anyone in an audience (which usually comprised MH professionals, social workers, law enforcement and/or military personnel) rise to challenge me that MTP is not as significant an offense or abuse as rape.

Also, to CDC's credit they have reached out to advocates and listened to a lot of criticism over the way MTP stats have been disseminated. I've been on calls with the lead researchers and suggested that it would extremely helpful to move MTP into the rape category.

It should be pointed out that the NISVS researchers were some of the first major researchers to truly include stats for male victimization. The MTP stat was a way to try and begin making male victimization more visible.

EDIT - holy carp autocorrect totally fried that comment before, my apologies I've fixed it.

[–]eisbaerBorealis 181ポイント182ポイント  (103子コメント)

The vast majority of male (93.3%) and female (98.1%) victims of rape experienced abuse from male perpetrators

Based on the earlier definition of rape, what are the alternatives? Females with strap-ons?

[–]guy_guyerson 184ポイント185ポイント  (1子コメント)

Possibly. It may include penetration with digits, tools, etc.

[–]shirukenGrad Student | Biomedical Engineering | Neurophotonics 79ポイント80ポイント  (37子コメント)

Here are the exact definitions used in the NISVS.

If you exclude rape, then 92.5% of female victims of sexual violence other than rape reported only male perpetrators. A majority of male victims reported only female perpetrators when being made to penetrate (79.2%), sexual coercion (83.6%), and unwanted sexual contact (53.1%). For non-contact unwanted sexual experiences, approximately half of male victims (49.0%) reported only male perpetrators and more than one-third (37.7%) reported only female perpetrators

[–]polysyllabist2 71ポイント72ポイント  (35子コメント)

The perpetrator gender break down is new for me.

Does this mean that of the 1,270,000 women the CDC estimated to have been raped in 2012...

  • 1,245,000 women were raped by men (98.1%)

And of the 1,267,000 men who the CDC estimated to have been "made to penetrate" in 2012...

  • 1,003,464 men were raped by women (79.2%)

So 45% of heterosexual rape was conducted by women against men?? Wow.

[–]Halodule 19ポイント20ポイント  (7子コメント)

I don't understand where you're getting these stats. There were 1.7 million male victims of non-consensual sex, but that includes gay, bisexual and heterosexual males.

[–]Grave_Salad 55ポイント56ポイント  (34子コメント)

Or fingers/hands. Penetration doesn't have to be penile or penile like (hence why lesbian women report it too). The reason they use penetration as a criteria is to separate it from sexual assault.

[–]Timber3 88ポイント89ポイント  (23子コメント)

Rape is sexual assault though.... leaving out the main male organ makes it seem like they don't want to acknowledge that being forced to penetrate someone is rape...

edited spelling

[–]gridirongeek 32ポイント33ポイント  (1子コメント)

All rape is legally also sexual assault. Not all sexual assault is rape, it's a much broader set of behaviors.

[–]Linoa06 37ポイント38ポイント  (8子コメント)

Legally, rape is a "subset" of sexual assault, or an "aggravated" form of sexual assault. The split (probably) exists to distinguish between ie forcibly groping somebody and forcibly having sex with them.

Keep in mind other countries have other definitions, in some countries it all counts as "rape", in others they have more gradation, and several countries even include gender in the criterion for whether it counts as rape or sexual assault. It has nothing to do with "not acknowledging" that something is rape or any ideological belief whatsoever.

http://i.imgur.com/AOn7inh.png (reposted from someone further up) for instance here are different definitions of different kinds of sexual assault the NISVS uses to measure instances of sexual assault. This is important legally to determine someone's guilt and what they're being accused of, and here to distinguish between related but different kinds of incidents. People can have their opinions of how narrow a definition is though.

This is quite off-topic from the scientific study, but not really actually, it's quite important to understand the definitions used in studies, especially in this age of false news and studies taken out of context. A narrow definition presented as an umbrella term for a wider phenomenon can lead to misleading conclusions and the like for instance.

[–]Timber3 3ポイント4ポイント  (7子コメント)

I get that... rape = sexual assault but sexual assault =/= rape.

but being forced to penetrate another against your own will is still rape.. what am missing with the CDC study/definitions?

edited spelling

[–]01020304050607080901 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

If I'm not mistaken, the CDC only classifies being raped as being penetrated, using a narrow definition. So, if you are not forcibly penetrated against your will, you can't actually be raped.

It's oughts vs. is-es, if that makes sense?

[–]Scarlettefox 29ポイント30ポイント  (9子コメント)

Lesbian women can be raped by men... not saying that women never get raped by other women but "hence" is probably poor word choice

[–]shirukenGrad Student | Biomedical Engineering | Neurophotonics 32ポイント33ポイント  (7子コメント)

According to the NISVS, the vast majority of lesbian/bisexual female victims are attacked by only male perpetrators (>85%). <15% of them are attacked by either female or male+female perpetrators.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 14ポイント15ポイント  (21子コメント)

Being forced to penetrate is under other sexual violence. So sexual contact without consent where you are the one penetrating

[–]shirukenGrad Student | Biomedical Engineering | Neurophotonics 26ポイント27ポイント  (19子コメント)

Being forced to penetrate is under its own category in the NISVS. So while it's not explicitly part of the rape definition, it is still reliably being tracked.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 11ポイント12ポイント  (1子コメント)

But would fail to be included among rape victimizations despite by all other counts counting as rape.

[–]shirukenGrad Student | Biomedical Engineering | Neurophotonics 19ポイント20ポイント  (0子コメント)

Correct. This study explicitly includes being made to penetrate in its analysis for that reason and calls out the narrow definition by the CDC.

[–]ChildenLiveForever 128ポイント129ポイント  (133子コメント)

I know it's somewhere in those links, but could you add the definition of rape in those studies?

20% is a crazy high number but when you think about things like marital rape and other similar accepted rape decades ago, it isn't that hard to accept sadly.

[–]shirukenGrad Student | Biomedical Engineering | Neurophotonics 205ポイント206ポイント  (57子コメント)

Here are the definitions used by the CDC in the NISVS. Rape constitutes unwanted penetration of the victim, which means being made to penetrate the perpetrator does not count as rape. The OP's study calls this an "overly narrow" definition of rape. The reported rate of male rape is 1.7% over lifetime. Expanding the scope has 6.3% of males being "made to penetrate" over lifetime. This is still significantly lower than the 19.3% of women that report a rape during their lifetime.

In contrast, the BJS combines rape + sexual assault so it avoids confusion in distinguishing the two. Here are the definitions they utilized in the NCVS.

[–]DumpyLips 67ポイント68ポイント  (2子コメント)

Does this include prison rape and possible discrepancies associated with under reporting?

[–]shirukenGrad Student | Biomedical Engineering | Neurophotonics 62ポイント63ポイント  (1子コメント)

Does this include prison rape

As I understand, the CDC NISVS does not survey incarcerated persons. Two of the BJS surveys included in OP's article exclusively looked at incarcerated or formerly incarcerated individuals.

possible discrepancies associated with under reporting

Under-reporting is always an issue both in terms of reporting incidents to the authorities and in drawing conclusions from these broader population surveys. There is an entire section of the OP's study dedicated to this problem.

[–]CrispinGloversLarynx 67ポイント68ポイント  (18子コメント)

Rape statistics in general are already woefully inadequate for the methods by which they are reported. The NCVS in particular is poorly suited for crimes with stigmas, like rape, and doubly so for male rape. When you rely on self reporting to get numbers, the numbers are meaningless. Can that "6.3% vs 19.3% be explained as a difference in actual occurrences, or the extent to which society applies stigma to reporting based on gender. As far as criminology goes, might as well pull numbers out of a hat compared to cold calling men and asking them if they've been penetrated.

[–]polysyllabist2 34ポイント35ポイント  (4子コメント)

The lifetime stat is irrelevant for policy making. Women who were alive in the 50's and 60's were far more susceptible to victimization so incurred much higher rates. What is important is the 2012 stat, since that reports what the rate of incidence is now.

In 2012, the CDC estimated that

  • 1,270,000 women were raped

  • 1,267,000 men were "made to penetrate"

Those with a particular bias like to ignore the 2012 stat and push the lifetime stat to the front because it shows a disparity in victimization towards woman, but it's a historic one. Not one that ought to be used to base future policy on.

[–]shirukenGrad Student | Biomedical Engineering | Neurophotonics 44ポイント45ポイント  (12子コメント)

Rape statistics in general are already woefully inadequate for the methods by which they are reported. The NCVS in particular is poorly suited for crimes with stigmas, like rape, and doubly so for male rape. When you rely on self reporting to get numbers, the numbers are meaningless.

Do you have any evidence to back up these claims? And if you're denouncing the validity of that statistic then you denounce the entirety of this publication because it is exclusively based upon studies that relied upon self-reporting.

Can that "6.3% vs 19.3% be explained as a difference in actual occurrences, or the extent to which society applies stigma to reporting based on gender.

I'm glad you recognize that there is immense stigma surrounding the reporting of sexual violence. The NCVS includes estimates on the number of unreported rapes and sexual assaults each year. Fortunately these percentages appear to have been declining alongside serious violent crimes and simple assaults. It is very difficult to study the willingness to report sexual violence and I have not seen any studies looking at the differences between men and women.

As far as criminology goes, might as well pull numbers out of a hat compared to cold calling men and asking them if they've been penetrated.

Number based upon large population surveys are better than no numbers at all.

[–]Zhentar 38ポイント39ポイント  (46子コメント)

The CDC defines it as such:

is defined as any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threats to physically harm and includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent

[–]PoopInMyBottom 44ポイント45ポイント  (35子コメント)

and includes times when the victim was drunk

How drunk? Blackout drunk, or just drunk? Most people who get drunk have had sloppy drunk sex with their partners.

What was the specific question they asked?

[–]UsernameGoesHere122 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

The US military has punished people over one or two drinks.

[–]awesomobeardo 11ポイント12ポイント  (18子コメント)

The key there is "unable to consent". Now, you'd have to go into how they define consent. On mobile and at uni so cant do rn

[–]PoopInMyBottom 27ポイント28ポイント  (16子コメント)

It sounds like they are claiming that if you are drunk, you are ipso facto unable to consent. That's why I want to see the question. How drunk is "drunk"?

[–]PropagandaTrashPanda 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's a fairly persistent criticism that laundry list questions are misinterpreted via short circuit evaluation by respondents: Have you had sex while drunk? Have you had sex while on drugs? Have you had sex while passed out and unable to consent? If the answer is "yes" to any of those questions, they respond "yes" to the laundry list question on the survey.

[–]BitcoinBoo 103ポイント104ポイント  (17子コメント)

but some how they didnt count a female forcing a male to penetrate as rape... that seems strange to me and a full double standard.

[–]grendel-khan 18ポイント19ポイント  (10子コメント)

It is, but to compare results across time and different studies, you can't change your definitions (or at least, it complicates matters when you do). Hence the new made-up category.

[–]LordCephious 14ポイント15ポイント  (4子コメント)

Thank you for bringing light to this. Perhaps in an extended research you might also explore the prevalence of domestic and child abuse cases that are also women.

[–]shirukenGrad Student | Biomedical Engineering | Neurophotonics 12ポイント13ポイント  (1子コメント)

The discussion sections of the paper go into some detail about child and domestic abuse.

[–]grumpythunder 488ポイント489ポイント  (35子コメント)

Thank goodness the data is coming out. Working as a psychotherapist with men for 20 years, this data better fits my clinical experience.

Sexual victimization of men is vastly under reported.

[–]CandersonNYC 68ポイント69ポイント  (1子コメント)

Thank you for your work. If your not familiar with www.malesurvivor.org please take a look at the resources and info we have available there.

[–]grumpythunder 37ポイント38ポイント  (0子コメント)

Am familiar. Thanks for all your work. I've referred a number of my clients to your site. It helps them know it's 'not just me'.

[–]78isthewhat 187ポイント188ポイント  (7子コメント)

"women state prisoners were more than three times as likely to experience sexual victimization perpetrated by women inmates (13.7 percent) than were men to be victimized by other male inmates (4.2 percent) "

wow.

[–]Carvemynameinstone 125ポイント126ポイント  (0子コメント)

Should also take into consideration that women get much lower sentences, making them less likely to go into prison, so it skews the population towards the more aggressive people.

It's still horrific though.

[–]Ironchef123 46ポイント47ポイント  (2子コメント)

We have to take into account men are less likely to report cases as well.

[–]Boysenberry 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Especially cases of victimization by men, and especially men still incarcerated--there is a definite fear of reporting while still inside, as men may believe that they will be seen as easy prey if it's known that another man was already able to rape them.

[–]vaguerant64 266ポイント267ポイント  (44子コメント)

Is forced oral sex by a female perpetrator on a male or female victim not considered rape? What about the reverse (male perpetrator)? If not, why is the definition of rape so narrow?

[–]ShepardfucksEVERYONE 216ポイント217ポイント  (32子コメント)

I could be wrong but I'm fairly certain its molesting until penetration.

[–]vaguerant64 95ポイント96ポイント  (23子コメント)

I believe you're correct, and my question was more rhetorical than anything. The point is, why isn't the forced (by force or threat of physical force) in order to achieve genital/oral copulation not legally considered rape?

It's effects can be every bit as devastating. There is penetration, albeit oral. If you've never experienced what I'm talking about, just think about it for a moment. I think this is something that should be addressed, linguistically, and legally.

[–]Soktee 30ポイント31ポイント  (2子コメント)

Many countries have vastly different laws so it's difficult for me to generalize how severe each crime is considered, but it's good to remember that often scientific and legal jargon have somewhat different meaning than how general public takes it. (Think of all the misunderstanding because scientists and general public use the word "theory" differently.)

Once more, it depends on the country, but just because it's not called rape doesn't mean the punishment is not just as severe and that it's not taken as seriously.

Rape is just defined as one type of sexual assult that requires penetration.

tl;dr "X is not rape" does not neccessarily mean "X is a less severe sexual crime than rape"

[–]enidblack 71ポイント72ポイント  (18子コメント)

In short, its due to Historical definitions of what constitutes sex, and thus what constitutes sexual assault.

[–]DarkMoon99 27ポイント28ポイント  (15子コメント)

What is the historical definition of sex -- penis penetrating the vagina?

[–]GentlemenDreamer 59ポイント60ポイント  (11子コメント)

Yup. That's it. Still that in England, meaning men cannot be raped by the definition of the law.

[–]enidblack 9ポイント10ポイント  (3子コメント)

by a women specifically? Like can they be sodomised by a man and is that crime? Or does the rape law strictly define the penis penetrating a vagina in English law? Just curious

[–]GentlemenDreamer 25ポイント26ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yeah it specifically says penis penetration, meaning women cannot be rapists. This is the relevant wiki page about it, being penetrated by an object is a different charge, but yeah, pretty archaic.

[–]enidblack 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

ah interesting and yeah defo archaic! But yeah dudes can still get raped by law, just not by women.

[–]cjswitz 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

It has been several years since I had law classes (in Illinois) but I think oral counted as penetration because it just said any oriface. I am not sure if this would apply the same to both sexes though

[–]a_warm_room 77ポイント78ポイント  (3子コメント)

In the introductory comment you caution against debating social views (among other things); but this study contradicts so many learned beliefs that it's difficult to address in the absence of analogous example and subjective experience. I wonder if it's possible for a social human to be completely objective about social human behavior. It's an interesting topic. Thanks for posting.

[–]CandersonNYC 39ポイント40ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you are a male survivor and looking for a safe place to find information and support please visit www.malesurvivor.org

You can also pm me anytime. I'm a survivor (not of female perp, though my mother was not by any stretch a nurturing person).

Please know it you are not alone and it is abolsutely possible to heal and reclaim a happy, healthy, and rich life even in the aftermath of sexual abuse.

[–]justkevin 68ポイント69ポイント  (11子コメント)

Two years ago, Lara Stemple, Director of UCLA’s Health and Human Rights Law Project, came upon a statistic that surprised her: In incidents of sexual violence reported to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 38 percent of victims were men––a figure much higher than in prior surveys.

This statistic surprised me so I decided to take a look at the data. Using the NCVS Victimization Analysis Tool I queried Rape/Sexual assault by sex for 2010-2015. (Select "Custom Tables" -> "Personal Victimization")

Sure enough, in 2012 there were 131,259 male victims of sexual assault out of a total of 346,830. Or 37.8%, just as reported.

But that's not just higher than prior surveys, it's an extreme outlier:

  • In 2010 there were 15,020 male victims (6%)
  • In 2011 there were 34,804 male victims (14%)
  • In 2013 there were 34,057 (11%)
  • In 2014 there were 28,032 (10%)
  • In 2015 there were 62,916 (15%)

The tool notes for several years: "Interpret data with caution, based on 10 or fewer sample cases or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50%."

From the methodology page:

BJS selects a sample from the entire population to use for the NCVS. BJS could have chosen from a large number of other possible samples of equal size that could have been obtained by using the same sample design and selection procedures. The estimates derived from any one of these samples would differ from one another due to sampling variability, or sampling error. Sampling error is often quantified with the standard error as described below.

It appears these numbers are estimates for the general population based on extrapolation from a small (possibly very small) sample, in which case the 38% statistic may be extremely misleading.

Anyone with a better understanding should feel free to weigh in or correct me.

[–]Daemonicus 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

Were there any changes to law/policy in 2011-2013 that would explain a sudden spike, and then drop off?

[–]freudthehyoid 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

Was there a change to the definition of what they were measuring?

[–]CandersonNYC 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

In 2010 the FBI changed the definition of rape used for reporting purposes from a gendered one (crime against a female) to non-gendered far more inclusive one that was rooted in penetration of any kind of any orifice of any victim. That has likely shifted the data somewhat.

However it is very important to remember that BJS stats drastically underrepresented the true prevalence of sexual violence because it is so difficult for victims to come forward and even when they do, charges are not often filed and successful prosecutions (especially with male victims) is very rare.

NISVS is generally considered better because it relies on self-reporting, not criminal justice stats.

[–]78isthewhat 29ポイント30ポイント  (1子コメント)

The jump from 15% to 38% could be explained in part by increased cultural awareness and reduced hesitancy of men to come forward.

[–]betamos 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

The jump is from 2011 to 2012, then it goes back to normal levels. According to the comment.

[–]Moleculor 13ポイント14ポイント  (5子コメント)

It appears these numbers are estimates for the general population based on extrapolation from a small (possibly very small) sample, in which case the 38% statistic may be extremely misleading.

Could that not also mean that the other estimates are potentially incorrect as well?

[–]anonymous-coward 379ポイント380ポイント  (327子コメント)

This is worth noting:

“a 2014 study of 284 men and boys in college and high school found that 43 percent reported being sexually coerced, with the majority of coercive incidents resulting in unwanted sexual intercourse. Of them, 95 percent reported only female perpetrators. The authors defined sexual coercion broadly, including verbal pressure such as nagging and begging, which, the authors acknowledge, increases prevalence dramatically.”

Whether or not 'nagging and begging' qualify as predation is for the individual reader to decide. I'd be inclined to disagree.

The other main realm discussed was sex with the incarcerated, where the number of male victims was increased by the far higher male incarceration rate:

Among adults who reported sexual contact with prison staff, including some contact that prisoners call “willing” but that is often coercive and always illegal, 80 percent reported only female perpetrators. Among juveniles, the same figure is 89.3 percent. Queer men and women were two to three times more likely to report abuse.

So, again, this is an expansive definition of assault, "willing" but "often coercive".

[–]fsmpastafarianPhD | Clinical Psychology 283ポイント284ポイント  (37子コメント)

The researchers actually discuss why nagging and begging is included in the definition:

The authors defined sexual coercion broadly, including verbal pressure such as nagging and begging, which, the authors acknowledge, increases prevalence dramatically (French, Tilghman, & Malebranche, 2014). But, the study also found that the resulting sexual activity was a more significant predictor of psychological distress and behavioral sequelae than the type of coercion tactic employed. Specifically, participants whose coercive experience resulted in intercourse showed greater subsequent sexual risk-taking and alcohol abuse, regardless of whether the incident involved force or only verbal coercion (French et al., 2014).

Those where were nagged or begged had worse outcomes afterward, similarly to those who are sexually assaulted in other ways. That's the reason it was included in the definition of assault.

[–]DreadPirateRobusto 106ポイント107ポイント  (19子コメント)

Probably due to the mental residue of having submitted to the pressure vs. fighting it.

If someone uses force against you, your self image is possibly less affected than if you relented. Having been forced, you can feel more like a victim. Where having submitted you may feel a greater degree of guilt. This also could set a pattern of difficulty resisting future pressures.

[–]jerkassturkey 120ポイント121ポイント  (13子コメント)

A male turning down sex has different psychological implications than a female due to gender norms. For a man to say he doesn't want sex could lead to the traumatic experience of not feeling like a man, ironically giving into unwanted sex will also create negative consequences as outlined. It's sexual psychological assault rather than sexual physical assault. If the end psychology is similar, they should be treated as similar.

[–]laxrulz777 270ポイント271ポイント  (90子コメント)

I think part of the problem with a lot of these studies and discussions is the limitations of language. We group an awful lot of things into a few categories:

Stereotypical violent rape in a dark alley
Guy having sex with a drunk girl
Two drunk people have "consensual" sex
Male high school teacher using his power to coerce a student
Male college professor using his power to coerce a student
Male teacher hooking up with a student who isn't his student
20 year old having sex with a 16 year old
30 year old step father and an 11 year old step daughter

All of these are categorized as "rape/assault" by some or all people and yet they go into a very few categories. Despite getting VERY different reactions from people.

I'd love to have a way to label each of these, separate them from each other and then discuss what penalties, if any, are appropriate for each.

[–]TearShitDown 143ポイント144ポイント  (15子コメント)

Any and every conversation I have tried to have with peers in person regarding this matter has led to the suggestion that I am trying to downplay the significance of the respective crimes. That is a point worth considering.

[–]silverionmox 88ポイント89ポイント  (11子コメント)

It's probably the most fruitful to make the analogy with murder and manslaughter - same result, but different crimes and punishment because the intentions were different. (The comparison with murder should satisfy their need to reaffirm rape as a grave crime, or at least take enough steam out of their push to derail the conversation.)

[–]TearShitDown 74ポイント75ポイント  (9子コメント)

That is often where I go with that and it yields good results. However I more often focus on the degrees of murder. Murder in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree exist and have important consequences on sentencing. If you planned out a murder, and did it, its in the 1st, if you planned to hurt someone, and went too far, its 2nd.

Similar with rape. If you are engaged in a sexual encounter and ignore a withdrawal of consent, you have raped somebody. However, the fact that the two people were actively engaged in sex and the rapist was affected by the emotion and influence of the situation is different than someone who plans out a rape on an unknowing victim.

But unfortunately even that discussion can be shut down with a basic "rape is rape" statement that takes away from certain nuance, because any humanization of a sexual predator is met with a really extreme negative reaction.

[–]cribbba 28ポイント29ポイント  (18子コメント)

That is, actually, very much how US law looks at it. Assault, sexual or otherwise, is defined as male perpetrator and female victim, just as you propose. Real domestic violence rates are almost identical in both directions, but kids are often left with violent or sexually abusive women as a result.

[–]N8CCRG 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is it the focus about predation or about victimization? Either way, it seems like it would be better off to consider a spectrum of behavior rather than just a benchmark. I would certainly consider 'nagging and begging' different from 'threaten with violence' or something, but I wouldn't call either behavior desirable.

Sidenote, 'nagging or begging' could come with other pressures as well, like the prison examples.

[–]TechnoSam_Belpois 58ポイント59ポイント  (40子コメント)

I wouldn't immediately write off nagging or begging. Absolutely that is not has bad as using force or threats, but I have heard many women complain about the nagging as well. So both genders seem to be effected by this, even if it's not as serious.

I would say that these cases are more social than legal though. But many activists (on either side of this) will claim the begging/nagging is just as bad and should be prosecuted as such. I think that's going a little too far.

[–]ass_fungus 15ポイント16ポイント  (7子コメント)

A potential consideration: are there potential social implications of not giving in to nagging or begging that might give greater coercive effect than one would expect?

[–]a_warm_room 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

One motive to give in to coercion would be the need to please/ fear of saying no for both conscious and subconscious reasons. This is likely fairly common, at least I'd think so based on what little I've read about the dynamics of social interaction.

[–]yellowthing 37ポイント38ポイント  (20子コメント)

There is that stereotype (painfully real) of a guy nagging at a woman to have sex. "Come ooon," "Why not?" "I'll make your night," etc. Sadly, due to the prevalent stereotypes and ideas pushed by the most well known activists, this is considered inherently worse when a man does it. Depending on what organisation you ask, it can be considered coercion to rape.

[–]Trenks 11ポイント12ポイント  (2子コメント)

Depending on what organisation you ask, it can be considered coercion to rape.

So now you can't even ask for things? Is asking a friend for $5 coercion to robbery? This seems a bit much. I think if you have a nagging partner and you hate it it's your job to leave just like if you have an annoying friend who never pays for shit and asks you for money you should defriend them. At a certain point you can't rely on the state to create laws for every personal interaction you have. A conversation with the person nagging should be first, then if it persists I'd think about leaving that person. A crime? Not for me.

[–]Hypothesis_Null 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

That argument seems to rely on women being less able to make decisions and be responsible for them than men.

How empowering.

[–]GhostBond 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

but I have heard many women complain about the nagging as well...But many activists (on either side of this) will claim the begging/nagging is just as bad and should be prosecuted as such. I think that's going a little too far.

Imagine that taking the inherent perspective that sex is dirty and wrong by default, we applied to anything else in a relationship.

  • Is nagging and begging to get one person to be your plus one go to a wedding also a crime?
  • Is nagging and begging that you're "spending to much time with your friends" and not enough time with them also a crime?
  • Is nagging and begging to meet his or her parents and you don't want to a crime?
  • If the girl I'm seeing starts leaving items of clothing and shower stuff at my house in a drawer without my explicit permission, has she violated me and committed a crime against me?

"I've heard women complain" shouldn't be a criteria for "is it illegal". You'd pretty much make everything in a relationship that's annoying a crime.

[–]epicwisdom 78ポイント79ポイント  (90子コメント)

You forgot to mention "always illegal." IANAL, but if I recall correctly, it's not possible to give (legal) consent if the people involved are inherently in an unequal power dynamic. I agree with that interpretation of predation in clear cut cases like prison staff and the incarcerated.

As for "nagging and begging," I'd say that more details would need to be given to identify some subset as actually coercive (as in, some people who were manipulated/abused, even if they didn't acknowledge it). The rest being merely unhealthy, rather than predatory, relationships.

[–]silverionmox 16ポイント17ポイント  (14子コメント)

IANAL, but if I recall correctly, it's not possible to give (legal) consent if the people involved are inherently in an unequal power dynamic.

Then everyone that ever hooked up/had a relationship with their boss at work can be added to the rape statistics. Clearly that definition is overly broad.

[–]anonymous-coward 33ポイント34ポイント  (39子コメント)

You forgot to mention "always illegal."

You're right that it is illegal. But do we call it 'predation'? It's a crime principally for the damaging social effects and potential for abuse, not because it is an assault per se.

As an example, prostitution is illegal as well, but is it predation or assault? Well, sometimes. But would you count every act of prostitution as a rape ... and of whom and by whom?

[–]dreddit_isrecruiting 30ポイント31ポイント  (24子コメント)

The difference is a prisoner is a captive being held against their will with their rights being revoked by a captor who is allowing them to have sex. In no way is that not predatory, no matter the captives willingness to have the relations.

[–]anonymous-coward 17ポイント18ポイント  (23子コメント)

Maybe. What if you asked the victim "were you predated on?" and they said no because the guard was reasonably attractive and it was the only action they were going to get for the next five years? ie, who gets to decide if it is predation? You? Me? The legislature? The victim?

[–]bookwench 30ポイント31ポイント  (3子コメント)

Just because humans have certain predictable emotional responses to specific situations does not mean that the responses are ethical.

Captives often feel a strong desire to form an emotional bond with their captors, which human nature tends to reciprocate. It makes the captive safer. It's a real emotion, not in any way fake or to be underestimated; we're built for community and empathy.

This does not in any sense mean that it is ethical or correct or non-predatory for a captor to engage in sex with a captive. Just because they're feeling it does not make it right.

[–]LaserGuidedPolarBear 20ポイント21ポイント  (10子コメント)

In scenarios like this, it is the legislature that decides. Sex between a guard and a prisoner is statutory rape, because the law states that a prisoner cannot give consent. This is the same argument used in cases where an underage person wants to engage in sexual activity with an adult. Despite the minor wanting the activity, they are legally incapable of consenting.

[–]anonymous-coward 13ポイント14ポイント  (8子コメント)

The legislature decides the law, but not the issue of 'predation'. There are acts that are not predatory, but are still illegal. There can be legal acts that are still predatory.

[–]TearShitDown 11ポイント12ポイント  (7子コメント)

It's predatory by nature of the interaction. A guard going to her work place and preying upon her captive audience. Just like with a highschool student and his teacher. The power structure and context of the sexual encounter create a reasonable attribution of the word predator to the person in the higher position of power.

[–]dreddit_isrecruiting 17ポイント18ポイント  (6子コメント)

Having sex with someone you are holding as a prisoner is always predatory by definition. The captives willingness to have sex at that point is irrelevant since they are already literally being held against their will. It's the exact same thing as people who are kidnapped and fall for their captor.

[–]anonymous-coward 20ポイント21ポイント  (5子コメント)

That's an ideological claim, not a factual one.

You used the term "by definition" but you never provided the definition of "predatory". Even if you did, the journey from definition to classification as predation is one of personal interpretation.

In the much-reported Sweat-Matt prison break, a pair of prisoners had affairs with a late-middle-aged married woman who helped them escape. Did she exploit them, using imprisoned men for her satisfaction? Or did they exploit her, an unattractive woman desperate for attention, to get out of prison? Did she predate on their prisoner status, or did they predate on her loneliness and desperation?

[–]Urabutbl 15ポイント16ポイント  (10子コメント)

Actually, it's a crime because of the unequal power balance, which makes the powerful player, per definition, predatory in any sexual relationship - regardless of whether the victim wants to be preyed upon. The power imbalance will often give the predator an unfair advantage, whereby victim is more likely to want them.

[–]SentienceFragment 18ポイント19ポイント  (3子コメント)

A power imbalance is predatory by definition?

So boss-employee or rich-poor relationships? Another one I see a lot is: one of them speaks the native language fluently and the other does not. This is a huge power imbalance in a relationship.

In any relationship, there is almost always some kind of power imbalance in one way or another. So all of these relationships are predatory?

[–]reallybigleg 21ポイント22ポイント  (2子コメント)

It seems a bit of a shame to include such a broad definition of coercion. Nagging and begging - depending on the confines of the relationship - does seem fairly normal, even if a bit irritating, and it's difficult to conceive of someone genuinely thinking they have no choice but to have sex because someone nagged them. I'm guessing the study also included people in a relationship. I have definitely "given way" in a relationship because they fancied it when I felt "meh" on the matter. But then that's consensual sex that I don't feel like, rather than non-consensual sex. I'm unclear on whether when they said "unwanted" they meant non-consensual or "unwanted", as it is possible to consent to sex you don't want...

Perhaps defining coercion less broadly, so as to be blackmail or threats that made one feel they had absolutely no option but to have sex with the person would be more illuminating when it comes to predatory behaviour?

Then, I guess it depends on your definition of predatory. I suppose I think of that concept as having a sense of 'threat' about it - i.e. in which the sexual object is seen as 'prey'.

[–]epicwisdom 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

There are emotionally abusive relationships, but it is not necessarily a crime to be emotionally abusive. I agree that probably a majority of those who reported "nagging and begging" were not really coerced, but I meant we should distinguish these things. It's not always completely black and white, but I think we can all agree that "nagging and begging" is too vague.

[–]bartink 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

They appear to have measured damage by begging/nagging but didn't reveal what it is.

[–]RiPont 21ポイント22ポイント  (7子コメント)

Whether or not 'nagging and begging' qualify as predation is for the individual reader to decide. I'd be inclined to disagree.

If a man "nags and begs", continuously, a woman who has already indicated negative interest, that will very readily be judged as sexual harassment. If she eventually relented, that would be classified as coercion.

Especially if there were any power imbalance or emotional/social blackmail such as "have sex with me, or I'll tell everyone we did and you had a small penis".

It's not whether "nagging and begging" qualifies as coercion, it's what kind of nagging and begging.

Adding on that this paper is specifically talking about gender stereotypes, a man being the victim of relentless pursuit receives far less social support to continue refusing.

[–]DreadPirateRobusto 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

Whether or not 'nagging and begging' qualify as predation

It was defining verbal pressure and coercion. This is exactly what the whole "no means no" refers to. Ignoring "no" has long been considered a form of assault M vs F.

expansive definition of assault

Having power over someone and using it as leverage for sexual purposes is sexual misconduct/assault. Boss over subordinate. Guard over prisoner. Coach over player. One that is not often mentioned is withholding access to children as leverage to keep a man in a relationship he wanted to leave.

[–]PunchTornado 18ポイント19ポイント  (2子コメント)

“willing” but that is often coercive and always illegal

[–]SplitReality 15ポイント16ポイント  (1子コメント)

With such a broad definition of coercion, combined with the fact that the study only captured incidents where sexual activity took place, the results could be skewed by the differences in the perceived cost of sexual activity between the genders. With this taken into account, the study's results are consistent with gender stereotypes. Men simply might be more receptive to "nagging and begging" because they don't attached the same weight to sex. They would then be over counted in the study relative to the women who were also subjected to the same nagging and begging but refused sex.

[–]PrEPnewb 156ポイント157ポイント  (82子コメント)

As someone who has no knowledge of the "community" around scientific research, I have a question:

A focus on female perpetration might be skeptically viewed as an attempt to upend a women's rights agenda focused on male-perpetrated sexual victimization. But attention to female perpetration need not negate concern about other forms of abuse.

Why does the very undertaking of this research have to be justified like this? Is it a (presumably unofficial) requirement to placate the feelings of the "women's rights agenda" to do research, or just a priority? I would think that research would be judged on the merits of its findings, not what effect it might have on victimization narratives. If that's not the case, then what does that say about the "women's rights agenda's" stifling impact on research?

[–]bHcpDd6gal6d 99ポイント100ポイント  (4子コメント)

It reads like something specifically targeting a hostile reviewer.

[–]Cellophane_Flower 23ポイント24ポイント  (15子コメント)

I know that in psychological research there are some studies that just won't be done for the risk of ethical ramifications. I can't think of a good example, but if the knowledge risks doing more harm to society than it could possibly benefit, then you have to ask "should we even be studying this?"

Like if the knowledge could be used for the purposes to harm a population, then maybe just leave that one untouched.

Also, when writing a scientific research paper, you do need to include a section about why your study matters, why it's important, and why people should care. That's how I see that sentence. In case anyone questions the relevance or the ethical implications, the answer is in the paper.

[–]fsmpastafarianPhD | Clinical Psychology 88ポイント89ポイント  (15子コメント)

In general, when scientists research marginalized groups, if that research paints that marginalized group in a not-so-great light, they tend to try to (or at least the scrupulous ones do) explain the reasoning or importance of the research in careful terms. Because certain groups have often historically been misrepresented, underrepresented, and otherwise excluded from research in general, many researchers feel it's important to specify that their research is not an attempt to further that tradition. It's also a way of signaling to fellow researchers whose expertise is in, say, female victims of sexual assault, that "we're on the same team," in a way. This is undoubtedly a touchy area, so spending time to explain in this way is prudent.

[–]freudthehyoid 22ポイント23ポイント  (4子コメント)

As someone involved in writing academic articles, this sounds like an attempt to get out ahead of the media (mainstream, social, etc) in putting any kind of spin on this. This is meant to add to a body of knowledge and expand ideas, not be turned into someone's reason to deny that rape happens against women or that men's rights movements have validity. It's just data and data that warrants a new approach to dealing with sexual assault and more research.

[–]PrEPnewb 13ポイント14ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm not criticizing the study author(s) for making the statement, I'm lamenting the fact that such a statement is necessary in the first place. The fact that the author's disclaimer has an explanation doesn't make me any happier.

[–]Impressario 15ポイント16ポイント  (4子コメント)

There are many buttons to push out there.

How about if the study was to see if there are genetic differences for intelligence across ethnic groups? Do you see the value, legitimate or perceived, in a justifying foreword to try to stem massive public backlash? Perhaps it shouldn't be this way - that indeed all undertakings be judged only by their methodology and results. But there is implication in the choice of undertaking, and fear for results. Truth or distortion, results counter to a narrative can harm it in multiple ways. These narratives and movements are precious to members, whose quality of lives are on the line. Long-wrought wars in the social contract.

Thus, movements do self-abuse through perpetuation and stubbornness, but I find them flaws easy to sympathize with. And so these forewords reinforcing empathy and allegiance to the groups the scientific community are studying is the least that should be done.

[–]Impressario 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

(A reply to my previous comment has since been deleted, the following is my reply to it.)

But what should be, is not. So why?

Research does not exist in a vacuum; the areas of study chosen contain implication. If the authors do not comment on their intent and aim with socially-involved studies, then readers are left to wonder the purpose of the questions as well as results. Scientific community is not granted invulnerability from judgement in study in this way, simply due to the claimed nobility of the pure pursuit of knowledge. It is never pure.

Empathy and justification from the scientific community can do more for its self-preservation, and the legit ethical consideration of victim narratives. You have more of a problem with movements' attempts to stifle research counter to their narratives, and in that we agree. Though, please attempt to more clearly delineate between that, and justification from the authors - the latter being and doing more than merely trying to protect against their research being stifled.

[–]jbarnes222 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

You are probably on the right track. People get very emotional about these things. Even as someone who works in a lab on completely unrelated research in a more objective/rational area free from emotional baggage that something like this has, my professor has frequently complained about reviewers being irrational or emotional in their reviews. Not even the highest eschelons of academia are immune to these issues.

[–]fsmpastafarianPhD | Clinical Psychology 145ポイント146ポイント  (132子コメント)

This is bound to be a contentious topic, so I think it's important to keep some perspective on this. The article linked provides a decent summary of the paper's findings, so I'd recommend people read that if they're interested in more information about the paper than is included in the headline.

The paper itself is quite lengthy, as the researchers are careful to provide the much necessary context to understand their research within. One of the things they note is that the idea that women cannot be sexual predators is borne out of sexism and misogyny in general, from the notion that women are submissive, meek, and weak. The issue explored in this research (sexual predators being underestimated to grave cost of their victims) is a perfect example of the harms to both men and women that sexism, and more specifically misogyny, can cause. Specifically, the researchers state:

Stereotypes about women, which reflect gender and heterosexist biases, include the notion that women are nurturing, submissive helpmates to men. The idea that women can be sexually manipulative, dominant, and even violent runs counter to these stereotypes (Byers, 1996 and Pflugradt and Allen, 2012).

Another thing to note is that this research does not in any way run counter to feminism, feminist perspectives, or feminist causes. The researchers also note this, stating in their conclusion:

In light of this new federal agency data demonstrating that female sexual perpetration is more widespread than previously known, we have sought to enumerate the gender stereotypes fueling its neglect. We call for feminist approaches – expansively interpreted – to challenge these stereotypes, making room to consider women who are abusive, power seeking, and sexually aggressive, while taking into account the troubled background many such women possess.

Unless we uproot the simplistic stereotypes that limit understandings about sexual victimization, we will not address it accurately, nor will we respond to victims empathically. Those victimized by women are doubly harmed when we fail to treat their abuse as worthy of concern.

This research is crucial in expanding our understanding of sex crimes and victims, making it even more important that this not spark a "gender war" debate. We're all on the same team here.


EDIT: Here are the citations listed above about how gender stereotypes about women fuel people's underestimation of them as sexual predators, in case anyone is interested in more information on that:

E.S. Byers (1996). How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? Review of a program of research. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 8 (1–2) (1996), pp. 6–26

D.M. Pflugradt, B.P. Allen (2012). A grounded theory analysis of sexual sadism in females. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 18 (2012), pp. 325–337

[–]missmymom 42ポイント43ポイント  (28子コメント)

I'm a little interested in your perspective and the way you are attempting to view this article, do you mind sharing a little more?

The first statement;

"One of the things they note is that the idea that women cannot be sexual predators is borne out of sexism and misogyny in general, from the notion that women are submissive, meek, and weak."

Can't this be also painted in misandry by saying that men are the aggressive and unable to control their urges, while women are able to? We could also paint this in the light of a combination of both perhaps?

They seem to say it's a symptom of stereotypes, not trying to paint the cause.

Next you seem to say that it doesn't run counter to any feminist approach, and yet in the research they want the feminist approach to actually challenge this, because they are not currently doing so.. That seems to be challenging the current feminist approach and view point.

[–]fsmpastafarianPhD | Clinical Psychology 39ポイント40ポイント  (17子コメント)

Well, the focus of the research is on why we have specifically underestimated women's penchant to sexually assault, so stereotypes about them are more relevant than stereotypes about men, in that discussion specifically. That isn't to say misandry isn't an important contributor to the issue, just that men being unable to control their urges is not directly relevant to why women are not often seen as capable of assault.

Next you seem to say that it doesn't run counter to any feminist approach, and yet in the research they want the feminist approach to actually challenge this, because they are not currently doing so.. That seems to be challenging the current feminist approach and view point.

It's important to note that the researchers actually state that people in general, including feminists, are not adequately addressing this issue because there isn't enough research and awareness, not because feminists don't see it as important or because it runs counter to feminist causes.

[–]youwontguessthisname 22ポイント23ポイント  (5子コメント)

I think this is raising eyebrows because calling it misogyny makes it sound as if men are the reason men are being sexually assaulted. Women are raped=misogyny. Men are raped=misogyny. It can come off as blaming the victim.

I think that it would have been best to leave misogyny/misandry out of it entirely, and focus on numbers. The number of female perpetrators/male victims in this case.

[–]SaucyWiggles 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

just that men being unable to control their urges is not directly relevant to why women are not often seen as capable of assault.

It's frequently stated that men who are forced to penetrate or submitted to abuse and had sex with the abuser wanted it anyway. Thus, they weren't raped.

[–]mayormikehaggar 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Quick question: If I'm coerced or guilted into having sex is that considered female on male rape?

[–]CandersonNYC 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

It can be. It depends on circumstances, what the level of physical interaction is, and how the law defines rape in your jurisdiction. There are still some states where only victimization of a female can be charged as rape.