jump to content
my subreddits
more »
Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds.|
[-]
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
subreddit:subreddit
find submissions in "subreddit"
author:username
find submissions by "username"
site:example.com
find submissions from "example.com"
url:text
search for "text" in url
selftext:text
search for "text" in self post contents
self:yes (or self:no)
include (or exclude) self posts
nsfw:yes (or nsfw:no)
include (or exclude) results marked as NSFW
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
this post was submitted on
38 points (75% upvoted)
shortlink:
reset password

MensLib

subscribeunsubscribe10,988 readers
~8 users here now

/r/MensLib: For the Development and Well-Being of Men.

Welcome! /r/MensLib is a community to explore and address men's issues in a positive and solutions-focused way. Through discussing the male gender role, providing mutual support, raising awareness on men's issues, and promoting efforts that address them, we hope to build a healthier, kinder, and more inclusive masculinity. We recognize that men's issues often intersect with race, sexual orientation and identity, disability, socioeconomic status, and other axes of identity, and encourage open discussion of these considerations.

Our Mission

The /r/MensLib mission is threefold.
  • To address issues and inequities facing men through discussion, information-sharing, recruitment, and advocacy.
  • To provide a space for men wanting to push back against a regressive anti-feminist movement that attempts to lock men and women into toxic gender roles, promote unhealthy behavior, and paint natural allies as enemies.
  • To examine and dissect traditional ideas of masculinity to promote the development of men as better and healthier individuals, participants in their relationships, and leaders in their communities.

Resources for Men Guide



How does feminism help men? Check out this list of feminist resources tackling men's issues

Ground Rules

/r/MensLib is a space for constructive discussion of men's issues. Moderators reserve complete discretion to maintain a positive atmosphere, including removing comments and submissions, and banning offenders.

Commenting Rules

  • Be civil.
  • Be the men’s issues conversation you want to see in the world. Constructive criticism of our community is fine, but if you’re mainly interested in criticizing our approach, feminism, or other people's efforts to solve gender issues, and only somewhat interested in modeling a better discussion, we’re not interested.
  • Friendly debates are welcome, so long as you stick to talking about ideas and not the user. Comments attacking a user, directly or indirectly, are not welcome and will be removed.
  • Slurs and hatespeech are prohibited, including but not limited to racial and religious bigotry, sexism, ableism, homo/transphobia, etc...
  • Do not call other submitters' personal stories into question.
  • Do not invalidate other users' experiences because of their identities, gender or otherwise.
  • This is a pro-feminist community. Members are not required to identify as feminist, but if you disagree with this foundational approach you are welcome not to participate.
  • If you found yourself in a thread because of an external link do not vote or comment. If the moderators suspect this to be the case you may be banned for 1-∞ days.
  • Don't be uncivil.

Posting Rules

  • When making a link post, please prompt the discussion by posting a top-level comment with your perspective or questions.
  • Image links must be submitted as a self-post.
  • Do not editorialize headlines. A good rule of thumb is to use the original or Reddit-suggested headline.
  • Links to reddit must be approved by the moderators beforehand.
  • No "outrage porn"-type articles. Additionally, if you have a negative story or experience to share or want to get something off your chest please ask the moderators first or post it as a comment in our "Free Talk Friday" thread.
  • Meta-discussion should be kept in the weekly Free Talk Friday post unless pre-approved by the mod team.

Moratoria

  • We do not discuss "financial abortion" in the context of consensual sex. More on this policy here.

Subs of interest
Social Issues
/r/Femslib
/r/Feminism
/r/Feminisms
/r/socialjustice101
/r/SocJus
/r/Blackfellas
Support Subreddits
/r/SuicideWatch
/r/MaleSupportNetwork
/r/Rape
/r/RapeCounseling
/r/SurvivorsofAbuse
/r/PunchingMorpheus
/r/ExRedPill
Fun
/r/MensGlib
/r/TrollYChromosome
created by [M]Jozarina community for
37
38
39
submitted by [M]Ciceros_Assassin
Hi, ML. The Brock Turner story has been huge in the news lately, and not only do I think there are some important issues to unpack, I'm also curious about everyone else's take on the whole thing. I won't spend any time detailing what we know (finding a news article that just gives the basic facts instead of the most recent development seems to be impossible anyway), but the Wikipedia entry on him and the case gives a pretty good overview for anyone who somehow hasn't seen this yet.
I'm going to put down some of my thoughts (please know that this is me speaking as an individual and not on behalf of the ML team), and I'm very interested in what you all have to say about those, or the case in general.
First, I'm totally disgusted by this, and I'm guessing that pretty much all of you are as well. The assault itself, the lack of any indication of genuine contrition from Turner, the frankly shocking and revolting statement by Turner's father, the laughable sentence and the ludicrous reasons for it... There's nothing about the immediate circumstances from which I can take anything positive. The whole thing just makes me feel gross.
Second, I have some thoughts on the concept of consent education, and its relationship with this case.
The reason I bring this up is because what Turner did has prompted a bit of a resurgence of articles about the importance of teaching boys what consent looks like, to help prevent things like this. Now, I haven't ever hidden that I consider (what I think of as) the hard discussions, the ones that make us reflect on men, masculinity, or (even harder) our own personal behavior, incredibly important to any community that is honestly focused on men's issues and the growth and development of men, individually and as a group. I think consent education is crucial, I think that probably the way different people are socialized means that sometimes it will be more effective to drill down on certain segments of the population (and sometimes this is going to mean boys, or men). I think that the confrontation with our own expectations about society, the way we've developed as people in it, and our role in it, are crucial to our movement.
All that said, I think this is a crappy story to use to make that point, for two related reasons.
One: how do you design a consent education curriculum that has to be accessible to the people you're really trying to reach, the ones who might be at risk of struggling with the grey areas or the fuzzy edges of courtship and appropriate behavior and doing something harmful, that also includes a slide on "Off Limits: Don't Physically Assault and Photograph an Unconscious Complete Stranger Behind a Dumpster Like a Person Made of Garbage Would Do"? I saw an article along the lines of "Men See Themselves In Brock Turner," which I fundamentally believe is bullshit; I think most men read the circumstances of this case with the same revulsion I did. Which leads me to -
Two: assuming that most men don't identify with Turner, how effective is such a program likely to be? Aren't a bunch of men going to say, "now, wait a minute, you're telling me this this walking refuse golem is somehow representative of my own experience of the world? Is there any reason I shouldn't be much more offended by the comparison than I am open to good arguments in favor of what consent looks like?" That's a rhetorical question, by the way, because all you have to do is look at the article comments or Twitter replies to that argument to see what I'm describing in action. I think it's obvious that the essential message is being lost because this case in particular is so glaringly beyond the pale - not to mention, the loss of that message is harmful in its own right.
Third, I came across an article (and please don't knee-jerk about the title, because I'm going to explain it), "Why Brock Turner is not actually a rapist", which raises some interesting points about how we define rape in society and law. Basically, the California prosecutors dropped the charges against Turner that included rape, because under California law, rape is still defined as the penetration with a penis, of someone else, without the other person's consent. Turner never got to the point of penetrating the victim with his penis (Edit: this is apparently still a contested point) - just a bunch of other really gross shit, including penetration (but not with a penis!) - so they couldn't make the case, and the penalties for what they could charge him with are much lower than the ones for rape, as defined. So, legally speaking, "Brock Tuner is not actually a rapist."
The issues with that are obvious, I think. First, what Turner did was, again, really fucking wrong and gross, and even the potential sentence doesn't fit the facts of the case, to say nothing of my own sense of justice. It's awful to me that from the outset he was in for a lesser sentence based on bad statutory text. Second, so, apparently? California still defines rape as a crime that only men can commit. I know I don't even need to go into why that's a major problem.
Finally, one question that comes up in a bunch of these articles is, "how do we as a society want men to behave in this kind of situation," and I think the answer is something like, "we want them to behave like the men who pulled Turner off of his victim, chased him down, called the cops, and made damn sure that he was present to be answerable to the authorities when they arrived." Two men, the Swedish grad students, stopped the crime while it was in progress, and two others helped them keep Turner at the scene. Eighty percent of the men involved in this not only knew what consent looked like, but put themselves at considerable physical, social, and legal risk to make sure that such an egregious violation of that standard didn't happen without consequence. This isn't advocacy for vigilante justice, nor to say that physical confrontation is necessarily always the best course of action, but I do think that the courage and moral strength of the men who intervened here deserves more recognition.
That's my piece. There are some important issues for our men's advocacy community here. I'm looking forward to your thoughts.
all 67 comments
sorted by:
best (suggested)
[–][10+]Kareem_Jordan 23 points24 points25 points  (0 children)
The reason I bring this up is because what Turner did has prompted a bit of a resurgence of articles about the importance of teaching boys what consent looks like, to help prevent things like this.
I can understand if we were talking about a guy in a dorm room taking a woman's nervousness as "playing hard to get", but I can't imagine Brock Turner didn't know what he was doing was wrong, thus the running.
I do think that the courage and moral strength of the men who intervened here deserves more recognition.
I do as well, but because I understand that if Brock Turner looked more like Brock Lesner, then it would be understandable (even if unfortunate) if men were afraid of confronting him. I always find it weird that we look down on the Damsel in Distress trope in fiction, yet think lesser of men who are afraid to put themselves between a woman and danger.
[–][4]athennna 50 points51 points52 points  (8 children)
If you're looking for an interesting take on how to address consent, especially without vilifying all men, and in a way that is pretty straightforward and appropriate for older kids to start learning about, this video is pretty great.
It uses the analogy of making someone a cup of tea. They can change their mind! If they say they want tea, but then pass out and become unconscious, you do not have the right to pour tea down their throat and make them drink it. If they said they wanted tea on Saturday, that does not mean you can make them tea today, etc.
[–][5]kylecat22 13 points14 points15 points  (0 children)
I loved this video the first time I saw it. They showed it during my freshmen year of college and I think it clicked for a lot of people.
[–][2]philopatric 13 points14 points15 points  (4 children)
I also like the tea analogy because it is gender-neutral and can help expand the discussions of consent and sex to include lgbtq relationships as well as women repsecting men's consent too.
[–][M]Jozarin 3 points4 points5 points  (3 children)
Yeah, but it still doesn't fix everything. Like, what about the English (men, in this analogy). How does impaired consent work? You would give tea to someone who's drunk, if you offered and they accepted.
[–][10+]absentbird 5 points6 points7 points  (2 children)
What is the limit for impairment? If someone is sober enough that you wouldn't be worried handing them a cup of piping hot tea I would assume they are cognizant enough to make their own decisions about sex.
[–][M]Jozarin 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
I like to use "would they be able to say 'no', even if they wanted it" as a rule of thumb. It covers basically every scenario where consent is fuzzy.
[–][10+]absentbird -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
That seems to apply to tea.
[–][10+]Shanyi 21 points22 points23 points  (1 child)
Completely speculative, but I'm not convinced this was a case of Turner not understanding consent. The fact he dragged her behind a skip to assault/rape her, then ran off when confronted, suggests to me someone who knew what he was doing and that it was wrong. Even if alcohol had impacted his judgment, as his defence claims, that would simply imply his level of intoxication overrode his ability to understand consent, which, again given his actions (and the fact she was completely unconscious when discovered), seems unlikely. Consent classes, or better sex education for everyone, as it ought to be less pointlessly provocatively called, absolutely needs to happen, though I see such classes more to help people become more confident in communicating their desires and limits, understanding non-verbal/bodily signals, and generally enabling people to go into sex as a more knowledgeable, responsible partner, even when intoxicated. I suspect, or at least really hope, very few people think dragging an unconscious person to a hiding place and penetrating them could in any way be considered 'consent'.
The answer to the question "how do we as a society want men to behave in this kind of situation," is that they shouldn't be getting themselves in anything like that sort of situation to begin with. More on that further down. I would say that, in spite of it absolutely not being applicable to Turner's cynical deployment as a defence, there is a discussion to be had over whether the effects of drugs and/or alcohol in certain cases should in some situations be considered in terms of increasing the risk of miscommunication/incorrect recall - affecting, as it can, judgment, memory, and communication. Again, I definitely don't think that was the case for Turner, but as long as people are going to have sex while severely drunk/drugged, which they will, it's something which needs to be acknowledged and given clearly defined legal perameters so rapists like Turner cannot try and use it as a get out of jail free card, but some consideration is given to less certain cases where a defendant might have genuinely thought they had consent, or someone potentially remember events differently to how they transpired.
For absolute clarity, I'm not saying drunkneness ever should be seen as an excuse for rape, that it in any way validates acting without consent, or denies a victim the ability to withdraw or not give consent. I'm trying to say, in a hopefully not too clumsy way, that while it is unfortunately likely to remain a factor in many sexual encounters, there should be discussion and clarification of the issue so judges and juries have greater understanding of how to assess those kinds of situations, whether in identifying likely liars like Turner, or seeing when there might have been a genuine misunderstanding.
All cards on the table, when I was in my teens (can't remember how old exactly) a girl and I went out with a group of friends, got very drunk, she and I went back to her room, fingered each other very badly (no sex, though I did penetrate her with my fingers) before giving up and falling asleep. We were friendly as ever for our remaining time in education together, but didn't speak again of that night or our embarrassingly amateurish fumblings. Some years later, a friend told me that she'd told her friends I'd taken advantage of her. Now, no matter how young and horny I was, I take unmitigated responsibility for the fact I shouldn't have gone into a situation where we were both too drunk to proceed without risk. I have no reason to think she was lying, because she had nothing to gain from making it up - even to cover embarrassment among the friends who knew we'd turned in together, I can't imagine she would make up something like that. I was a participant in a sexual situation which left the other person feeling violated, and that is not OK.
The reason I bring it up is because, without for a moment attempting to deny my personal responsibility, everything we did, from kissing to manually stimulating each other, was reciprocal every step of the way (aka: there was enthusiasm) and I genuinely believed I had consent. People close to me are victims of rape, so even then, I was aware of what consent is and the consequences of proceeding without it. I remember most of the night clearly because alcohol never severely impacted my memory and it was the first time I'd been in a sexual situation with another person. Also, knowing you may have caused someone, even unwittingly, that kind of trauma isn't the sort of thing you do or should ever forget. Should a similar case come to court, I do however think there should be some sort of framework for how situations with such potential complications can be fairly judged for both parties. Does my strong belief I had consent matter if she woke up the next morning feeling violated? Unfortunately, I suspect that variants on these situations are probably not all that uncommon where intoxication is involved, so these discussions and debates need to be had for the good of everyone, especially if it helps weed out lying scumbags like Turner trying to escape their culpability.
(Apologies for yet another long post)
[–][1]cold08 13 points14 points15 points  (0 children)
I think we need to teach consent as "are you sure this will be a positive experience for you both, because unhealthy sex can seriously mess someone up even if they give you consent and it wasn't legally rape?" instead of "here are things your partner has to do in order for you to have sex with them." While necessary for our legal system, the problem with check lists and hard guidelines are that it makes it so you can barely not rape a person, and that's pretty messed up.
So instead we should educate kids on situations where unhealthy sex is more likely to occur, the emotional fallout of unhealthy sex for both parties and conversations and things you should try and find out from potential partners.
[–][4]athennna 23 points24 points25 points  (9 children)
Just to comment on the "rape" vs "assault" dichotomy, it's assumed from some things I've read that he did actually PiV rape her. The two witnesses saw him on top of her, humping her, and when he ran away his erect penis was out.
His lawyers seized the fact that she couldn't testify because she was unconscious, and there was no sperm found inside her so the prosecution couldn't actually prove that part and focused on the other charges.
So, it then comes down to whether he's "legally" a rapist, when in reality the guy is a huge fucking rapist.
[–][M]Ciceros_Assassin[S] 13 points14 points15 points  (5 children)
Jesus, that's even worse. If you can link me to a reputable source on that I'll be sure to edit my post to reflect that even that point is still contested.
[–][4]athennna 4 points5 points6 points  (4 children)
I can't find the article I first noticed it in, I'll check again tomorrow from my laptop history.
Here's one line that stood out to me from the victim's statement: "Your attorney is not your scapegoat, he represents you. Did your attorney say some incredulously infuriating, degrading things? Absolutely. He said you had an erection, because it was cold."
Here's the comments from the witnesses where they talk about him humping her and him not appearing intoxicated, and her being out cold.
Better source - him "thrusting" on top of her, unverified DNA on her underwear http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_29667078/witness-stanford-rape-defendant-had-victims-dna-fingers
[–][M]Ciceros_Assassin[S] 4 points5 points6 points  (3 children)
Yeah, Daily Mail doesn't count, but that other one raises some important questions on that point.
[–][10+]castille360 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
The daily mail is mostly just summarizing the Swedish guys' fox interview, not inventing anything.
[–][M]Ciceros_Assassin[S] 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
In that case, why not just link the Fox interview? DM has earned its reputation as a complete rag a hundred times over, and it's kind of silly to ask a reader to do their own research to figure out if any given article from them is worth the ink it took to print it.
[–][1]Pilopheces 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
From court filings including police and witness statements from that night:
  • No witness stated they could tell if his penis was out
  • The police noted a "cylindrical bulge" under his pants consistent with an erection
  • The police noticed his pants were disheveled
Unless there was no evidence brought to light I don't believe there is any evidence to back up a statement that his penis was "out".
[–][10+]Kiltmanenator 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
This isn't advocacy for vigilante justice
Sad that you even need to qualify with a statement like that. This was in no way vigilante justice. They used physical force to stop the commission of a crime, and they held the perpetrator until law enforcement arrived.
Here are things that would have been vigilante justice (basically they all happen outside the heat of the moment):
  1. Beating and raping him in prison (too many people gleefully encourage lawlessness as a response to lawlessness. "Revenge is a kind of wild justice")
  2. Finding him after the crime and beating him (eg: she remembered his identity and didn't want to go to the police so her friends get revenge).
  3. Finding him after he's released from prison and beating him.
  4. Using disproportionate force to detain and hold him until the cops show up. There's a difference here between a crime of passion (seeing red and wailing on this guy) and deciding to get some kicks to the face in on him before the cops show up and you can't.
[–][10+]termcap 13 points14 points15 points  (24 children)
I think consent education is crucial, I think that probably the way different people are socialized means that sometimes it will be more effective to drill down on certain segments of the population (and sometimes this is going to mean boys, or men)
How do you think we should decide which parts of the population we should target for consent education? And which kinds of demographics should be up for consideration (race, sexual orientation, age)?
Given that consent education is likely to take place in environments that are normally mixed gender (for example schools), what do you propose teachers do with the girls when they pull the boys out of class for consent education? Would it not be simpler to just teach both genders at the same time rather than just half the class? Do you not think this is a real missed opportunity to foster a mixed-gender discussion about consent?
We already have a very gendered view of sexual violence, which routinely ignores male victims (for example, in the UK they have been counted as female victims for the official statistics). What safeguards can be added to ensure that pulling the boys out of class to teach them about consent doesn't contribute to this view.
[–][M]raziphel 20 points21 points22 points  (3 children)
How do you think we should decide which parts of the population we should target for consent education? And which kinds of demographics should be up for consideration (race, sexual orientation, age)?
The simple answer is "everyone." Girls need consent education too.
This is not only so both sexes understand what it means, how to give it, and what it isn't.
[–][10+]PantalonesPantalones 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
Absolutely. Everyone needs to understand how their consent may be violated and how not to violate someone else's.
[–][10+]Not_An_Ambulance 7 points8 points9 points  (1 child)
Thank god someone I said this. Was getting a bit upset at the talk of just men needing this class.
Look, I accept that men commit most reported rapes... But that does not mean we cannot stop women having an attitude that sexually assaulting a man is okay. Definitely seen that before.
[–][M]raziphel 8 points9 points10 points  (0 children)
Not just to stop women from assaulting men (which of course does need to happen), but so everyone can accurately identity and articulate what is rape, and who is at fault. There can be no more misunderstandings about this subject, no more victim-blaming, no more bullshit.
[–][M]Ciceros_Assassin[S] 6 points7 points8 points  (19 children)
I'm not an expert in the fields of sexual violence or curricula, but here are a few things we know: men commit sexual assault at a vastly higher rate than women do; men are socialized to be the pursuer in sexual relationships much more than women are; men are socialized to put more value on sexual conquest than women are.
Given these things, I don't see why it's outrageous to consider targeted consent education. And there's no reason it couldn't be done in conjunction with gender-neutral education and discussion as well, but given the differences in how boys and girls are socialized, and the disparity in offenders' gender, I think it's likely that a focused approach may be more effective, if only because a focused approach can speak frankly in the language that boys/men are already using.
[–][10+]theonewhowillbe 14 points15 points16 points  (8 children)
men commit sexual assault at a vastly higher rate than women do;
I have to wonder how much this statement is actually down to skewed reporting rates and questionable counting methods, honestly.
[–][2]philopatric 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
We may never truly know. Rape of both women and men are under reported.
[–][M]Ciceros_Assassin[S] 5 points6 points7 points  (6 children)
Well, there are like a hundred studies you can look at, and even the ones that acknowledge a likely reporting gap don't come anywhere close to suggesting gender parity in perpetrators. Anyway, this whole line of conversation is way off-topic from the point I was actually making.
[–][10+]SchalaZeal01 6 points7 points8 points  (5 children)
The CDC suggests a 40/60 ratio of perpetrators in their NISVS study. Not the oft-mentioned 2/98 ratio.
[–][M]Ciceros_Assassin[S] 8 points9 points10 points  (4 children)
Well, I'm looking at the report right now, and no, it doesn't.
For rape only:
For female rape victims, 98.1% reported only male perpetrators... The majority of male rape victims (93.3%) reported only male perpetrators.
And then for made to penetrate:
For three of the other forms of sexual violence, a majority of male victims reported only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (79.2%)...
Which makes sense, considering it's usually going to be a woman who makes a man penetrate her. But we have to put these numbers in the context of how many instances occurred between each gender.
Women: Total rape 18.3% (21.8M instances). 98.1% of 21.8M is ~21.3M (estimated number of rapes by men).
Men: Total made to penetrate 4.8% (5.5M instances). 79.2% of 5.5M is ~4.4M (estimated number of rapes by women).
4.4M/21.3M is ~20%. That's a one to five ratio. That's not even close to 40/60.
[–][1]Reganom 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
Although if you look at the 12 month statistics it is a slightly different situation.
For women estimated numbers were 1,270,000 for rape and for men estimated numbers were 1,267,000 for rape (made to penetrate). So at 80% of the made to penetrate being female you get approx 1M. Meaning 1.3M to 1M.
As to why there is a difference between the 12 month and lifetime statistics I can only speculate. It could be to do with increased awareness of the fact that men can be raped. I recall reading (although I can't remember where so I may be wrong) that men are likely to forget about traumatic experiences when asked. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/da.10103/abstract this may be the paper but I no longer have access to the journals. However from the abstract it mentions men experience more traumatic events which could mean older ones are replaced. However this is all guess work from my end.
edit: Keep finding grammar issues!
[–][10+]SlowFoodCannibal 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Thank you so much for injecting accuracy into this conversation! I really appreciate it.
[–][10+]termcap 1 point2 points3 points  (8 children)
So the proposal is to identify the demographics that offend most and then target consent education at them? Will this apply if there are racial patterns in offending? If e.g. men of a particular race are under-represented in offenders, will they get to opt out?
The only study I've seen that really looks at male and female offending was done by the CDC (I'm on mobile and don't have a link, I'll try to edit it in later). This found that equal numbers of men and women reported being raped in the preceding year, and 70ish% of male victims reported a female perpetrator. This seems like an awful lot of rapists to be excluding from consent education (particularly if it is as important as you claim).
[–][M]Ciceros_Assassin[S] 1 point2 points3 points  (7 children)
I'm not proposing anything; as a matter of fact, my entire point was that this case is a shitty one to try to have a discussion about consent education because it's so wildly out of line from what consent education could hope to correct.
Assuming you're referring to this study (found it in your history), I'm really curious where you're pulling those numbers from; far from what you're stating here, the prevalence of rape among men and women were 1.4% vs. 18.3% (pp. 18 and 19) over their lifetime (there's not even a 12-month number for men due to numbers too small to even analyze).
Now, with regard to your last "question," this is where I'd ordinarily talk about how focusing on specific subsets of an issue has its own value and doesn't necessarily diminish the importance of other subsets of the issue, but frankly, given that this topic (consent education for men) is the only thing you've ever commented on in ML (resulting in an argument both times), given that you're completely derailing the point I actually made with a bunch of attempted "gotchas", given that I'm not sure you're not misrepresenting actual data, and given that a brief look at your user history indicates that this is pretty much your M.O., I'm starting to think that this is less good-faith participation in this discussion and more agenda-pushing JAQ-ing off, and I'm not really inclined to indulge you further.
[–][1]camthan 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
Compare the past 12 month data you pointed out on pages 18 and 19 for:
Women (being penetrated) -1,270,000
Men (made to penetrate) -1,267,000
The rape numbers for men are small because rape is only counted as being penetrated for those specific numbers. If you compare the past 12 months for each, the numbers are very close. I believe that is what he was referring to.
[–][10+]SchalaZeal01 2 points3 points4 points  (3 children)
the prevalence of rape among men and women were 1.4% vs. 18.3% (pp. 18 and 19) over their lifetime (there's not even a 12-month number for men due to numbers too small to even analyze).
Because they only count penetrative (for the victim) rape. That's something they did following advice from Mary P Koss, who said "Men who have unwanted PIV sex should not be counted as rape victims". You have to look at made to penetrate to get the male rape victim count. In other sexual violence.
[–][M]Ciceros_Assassin[S] 5 points6 points7 points  (2 children)
Okay, two things:
First, do you have any evidence whatsoever that Mary Koss pulled the strings on that figure? Because they cite her exactly once in that study (this article, which is from 1987 and uses the old FBI definition that excludes men being raped), and even then only to say that it was the last attempt at a comprehensive study of the issue. I disagree with Koss's perspective that unwanted PIV sex with a man isn't rape, as do we all here, but could we please stop treating her like she's the Queen Puppetmaster of rape statistics? She's one researcher, and by no means the last word on the subject.
Second, um, did you look at made to penetrate in the CDC report? Because even if you add the numbers for "rape" and "made to penetrate," we're still talking 6.2% vs. 18.3%. The overall numbers for "rape" + "overall sexual violence" are still 23.6% vs. 62.9%.
[–][4]TehFuzzy 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
What first came to mind was an event from my kindergarten years. Two little boys had a bet on who could kiss me first. I remember being kissed by both of them--as a six year old, I was startled, confused and I also did not tell the teacher. I of course told my parents. I am not sure about their reaction but I know they probably thought it was adorable. Basically, both little boys cornered me and kissed me. One on the bus.
Fast forward to today (I was in kindergarten in 1991) and little boys in that same district are suspended for kissing little girls like that.
The answer lies somewhere in between. Pulling the kisser (whether it's a little boy or little girl) aside and asking if they think the kissee wanted the kiss, if they asked them if it was ok, etc. And pulling the kissee aside and seeing their thoughts on it, too and letting them know they can tell an adult about receiving unwanted kisses. This is absolutely something that can be addressed to a very young population given the right language.
I don't believe the little boys that kissed me grew up to be rapists but the entire scenario is fascinating from my perspective now as a 30 year old feminist woman. Are the seeds being planted for blurred consent at that young of an age?
EDIT: Changed lays to lies
[–][9]Classyassgirl 7 points8 points9 points  (16 children)
You are completely right. I don't have much to add, except that a scary amount of people still believe that if a person isn't physically fighting back, it isn't rape. The definition of rape is a nasty, horrible joke, especially in that men still are not legally able to be victims of rape. I. Hate. It. So much. I don't have anything else constructive to add. I'm just glad you we are talking about it.
[–][10+]Pariahdog119 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
My state is pretty progressive in that the rape law is gender neutral and includes all sexual conduct. He'd be guilty of rape in Ohio, and men can also legally be victims (although there's still the reporting problem, and official reluctance to pursue the case.)
[–][9]Classyassgirl 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
At least some places are trying.
[–][10+]SchalaZeal01 4 points5 points6 points  (12 children)
The UK and India also make it impossible for a woman to rape a man as they define raping as being done with a penis, by a man. I guess they might let the door open for anal/oral rape of men.
India even justified keeping it biased because of pressure from women's groups saying that if the law was gender neutral, men perps would counter-sue their victim, and that anyway, male rape victims of female perps don't exist.
[–][10+]Tisarwat 2 points3 points4 points  (3 children)
Just a quick note: trans women that have a penis are still legally able to rape. I don't say this to defend the UK government (since that's clearly not an attempt at any kind of gender consideration), but as a reminder than not all men have penises, and not all women have vaginas.
[–][10+]SchalaZeal01 2 points3 points4 points  (2 children)
Yet I read that if a statute of rape says only women can be raped, trans women won't be counted in the victims, because the state will be annoying enough to not recognize their sex. I think it's Malaysia or Singapore that came in the news with that not long ago.
Also lots of countries are very slow to recognize trans people as their sex, even when the change is legal. Littleton vs Prange and Corbett vs Corbett are glaring examples.
[–][1]starfall-invoker 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
This one? The trans man used a dildo to perform sexual acts. But because of our legal system he was counted as a woman. (Our laws are poorly equipped to deal with trans people in general)
Edit: "our" meaning Singapore's.
[–][10+]SchalaZeal01 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
The 2 cases I brought up, Littleton and Corbett, are about trans women having their marriage invalidated as they were about to inherit. The inheritance being contested by the husband's family, on grounds that the marriage wasn't valid in the first place, based on a 'marriage is a man and a woman' (in places not recognizing same-sex marriage at the time: Texas and the UK).
This even though they married post-surgery, after the legal sex was corrected. Both times the judge insisted that surgically made genitals change nothing to the god-ordained fact of sex assigned at birth. Even when the state recognizes the change, they don't give faith to the legal change, somehow.
[–][M]KaonPlus 2 points3 points4 points  (6 children)
The UK and India also make it impossible for a woman to rape a man as they define raping as being done with a penis, by a man. I guess they might let the door open for anal/oral rape of men
In name only in the UK. Forced contact is illegal to begin with through battery, and forced sexual contact can count as sexual assault, sexual touching or causing sexual activity without consent under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. .
[–][10+]SchalaZeal01 1 point2 points3 points  (4 children)
Do they hold the same penalties as rape?
[–][M]KaonPlus 1 point2 points3 points  (3 children)
If the action that took place is analogous, then yes.
[–][10+]azi-buki-vedi 2 points3 points4 points  (2 children)
I'm sorry but this is simply not true. Have a look at the Sentencing Council's Definitive Guidelines for sexual offences. Specifically the sections on "Rape" and "Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent."
Sentencing parity is recommended only in Category 1 offences, which involve extreme psychological and physical harm, degradation etc. But the much more common kind of rape, which fall into Categories 2 and 3 are all more lenient in forced to penetrate scenarios than otherwise, recommending 2-3 years shorter starting sentences.
Not to mention that under this scheme forced fellatio is treated as rape, rightly so. However, "forced to engage in sexual activity" has a separate subsection for non-penetrative offences, which is where forced cunnilingus would presumably go. These are even more lenient, with category 1 (extreme violence, abuse, degradation) offences starting at only 4 years and being in the 2-7 years custody range. Compare that to category 1 forced fellatio, which would fall in the 13-19 year category with a recommended starting point 15 years of custody.
EDIT: Analogous my ass. The law offers far from equal penalties for analogous crimes, and is a complete ass for it.
[–][M]KaonPlus[M] 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
Analogous my ass.
I appreciate your comment, but our first rule emphasises the need for civility and to that end this remark is neither appropriate nor acceptable. I was with you until that point - all a remark of that nature serves to do is inflame or escalate.
[–][10+]azi-buki-vedi 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Sorry about that. This last line was directed entirely at the state of the law, and is meant to express how I feel about it, not to attack you. But re-reading my comment, I can see how this came across as needlessly combative and inflammatory. I'll edit it.
[–][9]Classyassgirl 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Wow. That's disgusting....
[–][6]a4qbfb 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
The definition of rape is a nasty, horrible joke
The legal definition of rape varies greatly from one jurisdiction to another.
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy (updated). © 2016 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
π Rendered by PID 21192 on app-78 at 2016-06-26 14:31:07.140636+00:00 running cce93f4 country code: NL.
Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies.  Learn More
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%