15

Got into a debate with a bro online who was actually citing numbers and seemed like he had looked into things to at least some degree. This has literally never happened before even though I have left probably hundreds of feminist comments on social media in the past year. I get called names but no one ever pushes back with information.

Now, this whole thing is a straw man, as is a lot of what he said—he argued past many of my points. I never said men assault women exclusively. But I am interested in keeping an open mind and fighting for true justice, and this led me to some sources I’ve never seen before.

What do you gyns think of these papers? There are definitely some flaws, but the third one is the one I’m most curious about. I can’t find a way to access the full papers referenced in that Atlantic article and I’m concerned because it’s by a male author and men have lied directly to my face about things like, for example, child custody stats.

The part about prison assault by guards seemed especially wild to me.

If any of you have more sources or thoughts on this, please let me know.

Please note that I understand that assault against men by women or even by other men will never be as severe as their assault on us even if the numbers are different than I thought. These studies acknowledge that women are more likely to sustain more severe injuries when assaulted, and men don’t experience pregnancy.

Articles in question:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4062022/

https://webs.wofford.edu/williamsnm/phil%20315/male%20sexual%20victimization.pdf

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/the-understudied-female-sexual-predator/503492/

Got into a debate with a bro online who was actually citing numbers and seemed like he had looked into things to at least some degree. This has literally never happened before even though I have left probably hundreds of feminist comments on social media in the past year. I get called names but no one ever pushes back with information. Now, this whole thing is a straw man, as is a lot of what he said—he argued past many of my points. I never said men assault women exclusively. But I am interested in keeping an open mind and fighting for true justice, and this led me to some sources I’ve never seen before. What do you gyns think of these papers? There are definitely some flaws, but the third one is the one I’m most curious about. I can’t find a way to access the full papers referenced in that Atlantic article and I’m concerned because it’s by a male author and men have lied directly to my face about things like, for example, child custody stats. The part about prison assault by guards seemed especially wild to me. If any of you have more sources or thoughts on this, please let me know. Please note that I understand that assault against men by women or even by other men will never be as severe as their assault on us even if the numbers are different than I thought. These studies acknowledge that women are more likely to sustain more severe injuries when assaulted, and men don’t experience pregnancy. Articles in question: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4062022/ https://webs.wofford.edu/williamsnm/phil%20315/male%20sexual%20victimization.pdf https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/the-understudied-female-sexual-predator/503492/

23 comments

They’ll never stop trying to argue that women are as bad as men.

The thing is, I wish that were true. If only we could cause as much physical harm and fear to them as they do to us. Then they wouldn’t be running amuck like they do now. Maybe they would also be afraid of walking around late at night, or of getting drunk in public. But they’re not. So that should tell you something.

[–] friedparata 7 points Edited

i HATE it when men tell us "men get scared walking alone at night too". my brother goes out alone WALKING in the middle of the night alone. my bf goes out with his friends and comes home alone by foot/public transport in the middle of the night. I wouldn't DARE do that. even the thought alone is scary as hell.

what exactly are these men scared of? their own shadows? grown men don't get pulled into corners, kidnapped, trafficked, or killed nearly as much as women and children do.

The first article, despite its aim to generalize, has figures only for detained persons. Since there are many, many more jailed men than women, the fact that the numbers of women and men claiming they have been sexually abused means the women are being abused at a much higher rate than the men. In fact, below Figure 1, you see the footnote: "Among the 5 federal agency surveys we reviewed, only NISVS collected lifetime prevalence, limiting our ability to compare lifetime data across surveys. It found lifetime prevalence for men as follows: made to penetrate = 4.8%, rape = 1.4%, sexual coercion = 6.0%, and unwanted sexual contact = 11.7%. For women: rape = 18.3%, sexual coercion = 13.0%, and unwanted sexual contact = 27.2%." Big difference.

The article also relies on the idea that there is equivalence between a woman being raped and a man being forced to give or receive a blow job. You'd have to decide how you felt about that assertion of equivalence.

I'll take a look at the other two, also, and edit this response as I do.

Edit: Second article. The article openly admits that "According to the NCVS, 9 percent of victims of rape and sexual assault are male (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics [BJS] 2003). While these numbers certainly make clear that the majority of rape and sexual assault cases are crimes perpetrated against women, the data also point to a sizable minority of male victims who have been largely ignored by researchers and theorists. Thus, the present study seeks to contribute to a better understanding of the unwanted sexual experiences of men in the United States." Everything that follows in the article builds off that platform that 91%of rape victims are female. So, for example, when later they posit that "while 99 percent of women are sexually victimized by men, only 54 percent of men are victimized by other men, with the remaining 46 percent of men victimized by women (χ2 = 341.274, df = 1, p < .001). The fact that men are victimized so often by women certainly contradicts cultural stereotypes about women as passive, both physically and sexually, as well as the assumption that men are exclusively the aggressors of sexual violence." While all of that is true, is it STILL true that 91% of rape victims are women and 99% of women rape victims have been raped by MEN. Furthermore, female rape of men seems to refer to "coercing them to have involuntary erections." However, most of the incidents analyzed in the article are male rape of males.

Edit: Third article. I've downloaded the 2017 article that the Atlantic is referring to, and it's basically saying the same thing as the first and second articles. For example, " In 2011, for example, 19.3% of women reported having been raped in their lifetime. 1.7% of men reported being raped, under the CDC's narrow definition of rape, which is limited to penetration of the victim, and 6.7% of men reported being “made to penetrate” someone (also a form of nonconsensual sex) in their lifetime (Breiding et al., 2014)." So again they are suggesting that "made to penetrate" is akin to rape and should be treated that way, and that about 45% of men claiming they were "made to penetrate" were made to do so by women. And again, what they are calling "made to penetrate" with reference to a female perpetrator is when a man receives a blow job he didn't ask for--almost always when he is intoxicated, to explain how it's possible he didn't just say "I don't want a blow job" and push her away from him.

So yeah, the person giving you these articles is not giving you the whole story.

I honestly don't know how they got such low rates for lifetime rape and unwanted sexual contact for women. It really makes me wonder how they're defining rape probably use of force or threat. They're probably not counting a lot of other incidents, I know from past studies that I read into rape was typically designed designated as use of force, threat of use of force or use of intoxicants. A lot of them didn't include coercion, manipulation, implied threat, being asleep when he raped you, or even if he just puts his dick in you and you shut down. And yet those same incidents are being counted for men. They're skewing the numbers. Some of these studies in the past relied on just asking the woman if she has been raped without describing what that means and those results are far lower.

I also say this because every woman past about 30 has been raped that I've spoken to. It usually takes them time to understand what was done to them.

And I don't even getting into how different this is. The woman might get pregnant, she might be forced to have a child she doesn't want and be tied to this man for the rest of her life, she might have her vagina or rectum torn open, she might end up with permanent incontinence, a ruptured cervix that prevents pregnancy, or even die. Not to mention the daily trauma of having to continue to live in a world where she's continually surrounded by the threat of being raped again. Absolutely none of these things is going to happen to a man.

You are a queen. Thank you so much for this. I literally thought I was going crazy. I wish I were better at stats.

Any MRA do that once to try and convince me that women were the most brutal and pitiless child abusers, by posting a link to the study on the national statistics of CPS cases. He tried to claim that since most of the majority of cases investigated were against mothers or homes with mothers that women were violent child abusers. You read the study and the first thing is says is that 99% of cases are for neglect. So basically CPS mostly deals with poor people. Drill down to the statistics about violent abuse and it turns out the majority of perpetrators are fathers or unrelated males.

They just figure they can post a link to an article and quote a few percentages and that will make their argument more convincing. There is an MRA agenda to convince society that women are as violent and unruly as men and it's pure misinformation. It's an organized form of the abuser mindset to try and make the victim complicit in the crime perpetrated by the abuser.

Yeah they aren’t prosecuting fathers for neglect because most of the fathers have just fucked off, and even the ones who stayed in the home aren’t regarded as responsible for neglecting their children.

If there's a man in the home with neglected kids he absolutely is responsible for the neglect as much as the woman is, maybe more if he's also abusive or controlling because most abusers negatively impact household earning potential and target mother child interactions specifically.

When a child ends up dead and there's a mother and a father in the home, mom gets her mugshot posted up along with Dad even though, again, if he's abusive and controlling there's a 99% chance he was victimizing both the woman and the child.

We structure our society around downplaying the negative impacts that violent men have on the domestic sphere in order to maintain the fantasy that nuclear family structures are both desirable and obtainable. We also refuse to see the m/o and gendered nature of domestic abuse, which MRA's feed into by spreading false statistics about the prevalence and nature of female on male abuse.

Yes, there was a recent case posted here where the mother of a murdered child, an abuse victim herself, was given a LONGER sentence than the man who did the murdering and abuse.

I read the articles and it specifically states that the majority of these women act without a male co-conspirator, which was even more shocking to me. I couldn’t find too many issues with the methodology either. I was totally expecting what you described which is why this is so interesting

I was totally expecting what you described which is why this is so interesting

Again, I think that the real story is in the failure to examine the context of male sexual aggression that most women grow up in. I am sure some women do internalize that and act out sexually aggressively towards men in intimate contexts. In any case, the use of statistics is a little befuddling here because the way most scientific articles will break out the percentages. Let's look at the second article as an example.

If an article states that 1.7% of the total male population reports being raped, and that 45% of those rapes are perpetrated by a female, you'll see that 45% number and think that's a lot. But if you state that in the same scale as the original statistic, you could say 1.7% of the total male population reports being raped and only .9% of the total male population reports being raped by a female.

It's also statistically disingenuous to report categorically different sex acts in the same percentage. So if all female perpetrated rapes are categorized as 'being made to penetrate' and male pretreated rapes are 'forced penetration'

If I said19.3% of women reported being forcibly penetrated by men in their lifetime, 0% of men reported being forcibly penetrated by women in their lifetime, and 1.1% of men reported being forcibly penetrated by men in their lifetime, and .9% of men reported being made to penetrate women in their lifetime, you see how that tells a way different story than the way the original article reports it's statistics.

Human bias drives scientific research as much as anything. If you come across a paper with a topic that seemingly flips the script on male gendered violence, and the statistics say that something like male victimization is actually rare but the writers don't ever explicitly state that fact and make a point to use misleading data models, you can assume the reason the research was done was because someone had an axe to grind. Them some MRA can make a quote of the article and say '45% of male rape victims are raped by a woman'! That's 45% of women! All the women!

Not what the numbers say, which is that nearly 1/5th of all women in the US are being systematically sexually assaulted by men, and less then 1% of men ever experience sexual assault by a woman, of and by the way, most of those sexual assaults are a completely different type of category that might be considered to be less severe than what woman experience.

when i told my bf that men get raped too, he laughed at the statement. he said, "what, he can't just... push her off?? i mean he's a man."

I thought he was being mean at the time, but he's got a point tbh. grown, able bodied males (aka most men) can absolutely defend themselves very easily against a female attacker. they are so much stronger than women. one punch from a man could knock a woman out.

so unless the guy is drunk, passed out etc, it's really not even possible.

being sexually harrassed/assaulted in any way is horrible, but what women go through can't even be compared to men. anatomically speaking, women suffer a lot worse from rape than men do. forced penetration causes bleeding, pain in the abdomen, etc, and that's not even accounting for how much physical harm the victim suffers by being so violently restrained. can a woman even restrain a man at all? well I'm sure boxing champion women on steroids can knock down a skinny, weak old man who hasn't exercised a day in his life, but we're talking about averages.

men of course suffer from ptsd from being raped, even by women. but this statistic is just disingenuous, and ignores the fact that the majority of male rapes qre caused by other men, and that the vast majority of rapes are done to women.

I've got a question though, does it account for the ages of the victims when it happened? because there is a world of difference between a little boy being assaulted by an adult woman, and and adult man being assaulted by another adult woman. these statistics should differentiate between children and adults of both sexes. children of course get sexually assaulted more, they're also unable to defend themselves and don't even have the maturity to understand what's going on.

I think there is one simple thought exercise that exemplifies the difference in sexual violence between men and women.

Have you ever heard of a case where a group of women abducted, drugged, beat, and trafficked boys and men. Then, sold these boys and men to groups of other women so those women could rape them?

No? The idea even sounds absurd. That is because of a fundamental difference in the level of sexual violence of men and women.

Has anyone ever seen the exact wording of that “made to penetrate” question?

I’m seriously wondering if my partner would end up answering yes to that because he’s had penetrative sex under the influence of substances in the past year.

Consensual, obviously, and something like the precise opposite of traumatic, but if they’ve asked the question in a sufficiently stupid way it might still show up in their statistics.

I remember trying to find an answer to that question a couple of years ago when I was reading a US-based survey which asked that question about being made to penetrate. The question itself didn't explain it any more than that, so the answer are in a sense meaningless as the respondent can interpret 'made to' any way he wishes, including in ways which no neutral observer would accept as force, say "she acted seductively" or "she served me alcohol" etc. Unlikely to happen with physical force in any but rare cases.

If there was no more detail than “made to penetrate,” that could conceivably include any situation where the penis was made to penetrate (eg with the help of hands) even if the man himself didn’t feel coerced in the slightest.

I hope there must have been something to make it clear they didn’t mean that!

I thought that there would be something more, but I never found anything. The next step would have been to contact the people who did the study. My success in getting answers on questions from researchers has been variable, even when I give my credentials and explain what I want the stuff for, so at the time I didn't have the spare time to spend on such an unlikely endeavor.

Oh, I have a enough studies, journals, and books to fill a library! I keep them under “common sense”.