Search the Community

A woman walked down the street and was compli- oops I mean harassed several hundreds of times. Here's the article- if you can stomach it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic... Or if you prefer feminist drivel spaced out with actual intelligent commentary (the Scottish accents just a bonus...) support 6oodfella, give 'im a like! I think he makes a great point. (well a number of great points, but this one in particular.) I just think it's unbelieveable that all these feminists get on tumblr and bitch about how compliments are harassment and sitting on a bus is sexist then mozy their way over to some BS site like "thought catalog" (yes it's a thing, no, you shouldn't go there.) to complain about how men never make the first move, men are afraid to get married, men aren't as confident as they used to be... we no SHIT! ugh. This world is so sick.

America still faces serious problems with the rape and sexual abuse of women and children. Unknown to most people, however, is the extent to which rape and sexual abuse is a serious problem for men too. In 2010 the CDC found that the number men raped by women that year was the same as the number of women raped by men. Historically, women raping men by envelopment has been considered impossible, or highly unlikely. However, the CDC’s 2010 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey revealed this to be a serious problem by studying forced to penetrate separately from forced to be penetrated. The idea that women can’t rape men, or that this doesn’t happen often enough for it to be considered a serious problem, is still extremely pervasive. It is thus extremely important that when defining rape for scientific or legal purposes that the definitions are clear and unambiguous. Definitions of rape should make it manifest that forcing a man to penetrate does happen (quite often as the CDC found) and is a form of rape. The problem with the Department of Justice definition of rape Q: In 2012, the Department of Justice announced a change to the definition of Rape for the Uniform Crime Reporting Program’s (UCR) Summary Reporting System (Summary). How does the new definition differ from the old one? A: The old definition was “The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” Many agencies interpreted this definition as excluding a long list of sex offenses that are criminal in most jurisdictions, such as offenses involving oral or anal penetration, penetration with objects, and rapes of males. The new Summary definition of Rape is: “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” Q: When will the new definition of Rape become effective? A: The new definition of Rape went into effect on January 1, 2013. Frequently Asked Questions about the Change in the UCR Definition of Rape (May 20, 2013). To start with this means all statistics on male rape victims using the Department of Justice’s definition of rape before 2013 are suspect and should be disregarded, or at least used with extreme caution. According to Alison Tieman in her video "Mens’ Rights vs Feminist Rape Culture explained using Puzzle Pieces", ”when women and men are asked if they were raped, the number of male victims is low. But, when women and men are asked if they were physically forced to have sex, the number of male victims skyrockets.” Sources for these findings can be found in the description to her video. The new definition effective from January 1, 2013 is flawed for three main reasons: (1) The first problem with the Department of Justice’s definition is tautological. The phrase “without the consent of the victim” is a tautology. A victim is a person who is harmed. In the case of rape, a victim is harmed due to lack of consent. To say, “without the consent of the victim” is the same as saying “without the consent of the person who was harmed by a lack of consent.” This is a minor point, but I included it to point out that merely mentioning a victim in the definition does not make clear who the victim is. (2) The second problem is that the definition contains two distinct clauses: one that clearly stipulates the perpetrator, and one that does not: The first clause defines rape as “penetration without consent,” and the second clause defines rape as “oral penetration by another person without consent.” The first clause does not expressly stipulate who the perpetrator is, where as the second clause does – it is the person doing the penetrating. Placing these two clauses together and only making clear in one of these clauses, the latter, who the perpetrator is, is highly problematic. This is particularly concerning considering the idea of rape involving a male victim being “made to penetrate” is often not even thought possible, i.e. “if he’s erect he must want it.” This will be argued further in point number (3). To reiterate, the definition of rape as “oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim” makes it clear who the perpetrator is by using the word “by” and not “with”. Rape is committed by the person with the sex organ (the perpetrator), and against the person being penetrated (the victim). If rape was intended to also include being made to orally penetrate, this definition would read “oral penetration by, or with, a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” I believe this is intentional, as I don’t think a woman forcibly performing oral sex on a man was intended to be included under the definition of rape, as I imagine the FBI would refer to this sort of crime as a different form of sexual assault. However, if the FBI did intend to include a woman forcibly performing oral sex on a man under the definition of rape, then they need to reword their definition to read: (3) The third problem is in combining two distinct definitions of rape into one sentence. The two definitions are as follows: Rape - penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by, or with, a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. As argued above, the first clause of the Department of Justice’s definition of rape does not make clear who the perpetrator is, the second clause does. Combining these two definitions makes it read as though the perpetrator is always the penetrator in both cases, and I’ll explain why. 1. Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, without the consent of the victim. 2. Oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. Rape The fact that the first definition does not specify the perpetrator, it can thus be interpreted either way—as the penetrator or the person being penetrated. However, this does not take into account the cultural bias of people reading this definition, which assumes men cannot be forced to have sex with a woman. The second definition expressly states that the penetrator is always the perpetrator, meaning only men can commit this form of rape, as they are the only people with penetrative sex organs (thus reinforcing the cultural perception that women can’t rape men). Combining these two definitions into one sentence makes it read as though men are always the rapist. The perpetrator in the entire sentence is interpreted as the penetrator, and therefore “made to penetrate” cannot be considered rape. To avoid the problems argued in points (2) and (3) the Department of Justice’s definition of rape should read: Why does all this matter? Rape - penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by, or with, a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim being penetrated or made to penetrate. What harm do these semantic issues cause? The answer is plenty, as evidenced by the CDC’s The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey revealing rape of men (or as they define it “made to penetrate”) by women being a serious problem. Previous studies with conventional definitions of rape failed to discover this problem. I image the CDC realized how problematic historical definitions of rape were (including those of the Department of Justice), and how use of these definitions could substantially bias their results. Either that or they were intentionally excluding made to penetrate as an act of rape (Edit: it would seem the CDC were intentionally arguing that being made to penetrate does not constitute rape). Either way, the fact is that “made-to-penetrate” is still rape by the common understanding of the term: As well as medical definitions: rape [reyp] noun 1. the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. 2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. rape. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape (accessed: August 08, 2014). Regardless of intention, making “made to penetrate” separate from “rape” in the CDC study resulted in crime statistics that were much less biased by the widely held belief that women cannot rape men by forcing men to penetrate, because men are automatically consenting by virtue of their erection. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey’s new definitions unveiled the number of rapes of men by women as being much higher than previously thought: rape (rāp) n. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse. v. raped , rap·ing , rapes To commit rape on. "rape." The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin Company. 08 Aug. 2014. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape>. View enlarged image. View: The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 2010 EDIT (addendum): The CDC did good, despite ill intentions. The CDC’s press release failed to mention the newly discovered problem of made to penetrate. Additionally, the report itself selectively highlighted the high number of female rape victims, while failing to make a fair comparison. The box below reads like the rape of men is almost a non-issue, especially when compared to the rape of women. Note that the 1 in 71 statistic does not count made to penetrate as rape, therefore highlighting this comparison downplays the degree to which men experience genuine rape - not rape as defined by some bureaucrat with a radical feminist agenda. Also note that this study obviously didn’t include prisoners because, you know, prisoners aren’t people. Had they included prisoners they would have found the number of male rape victims would have been greater than female, even using the CDC’s erroneous definition. One more important detail is the difference between the 12 month and lifetime estimates of men being made to penetrate. The pervasive idea that men cannot be made to penetrate (because their erection proves they consented) might cause men to downplay, and eventually reject, that they were genuinely victimized. As time passes, their memory fades, and the people they talk to will often minimize, make fun of, or dismiss their experience. The more time passes the more men become convinced that what happened to them was not a crime. This is not just a problem unique to the United States either. Here is a post on an even worse definition of rape in the UK.