The article answers your question. "Stemple began digging through existing surveys and discovered that her hunch was correct. The experience of men and women is 'a lot closer than any of us would expect,' she says. For some kinds of victimization, men and women have roughly equal experiences. Stemple concluded that we need to 'completely rethink our assumptions about sexual victimization,' and especially our fallback model that men are always the perpetrators and women the victims."
Farther along, readers of the article find out, "The final outrage in Stemple and Meyer’s paper involves inmates, who aren’t counted in the general statistics at all. In the last few years, the BJS did two studies in adult prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities. The surveys were excellent because they afforded lots of privacy and asked questions using very specific, informal, and graphic language. ('Did another inmate use physical force to make you give or receive a blow job?') Those surveys turned up the opposite of what we generally think is true. Women were more likely to be abused by fellow female inmates, and men by guards, and many of those guards were female. For example, of juveniles reporting staff sexual misconduct, 89 percent were boys reporting abuse by a female staff member. In total, inmates reported an astronomical 900,000 incidents of sexual abuse."
The really frustrating thing is that this interviewing technique has been used to help female rape and sexual assault victims report their experiences since the 60s, and there are widespread concerns that not doing so leads to under-reporting, yet researchers in the field have been incredibly hostile to anyone who asks men the same kind of questions.
Maybe, but do they articulate what they mean by the "us," "our," and "we," in the below assertions?
The experience of men and women is 'a lot closer than any of us would expect,' she says.
Stemple concluded that we need to 'completely rethink our assumptions about sexual victimization,' and especially our fallback model that men are always the perpetrators and women the victims."
Those surveys turned up the opposite of what we generally think is true.
That even the points you call out are buried, neither of which answer the question I brought up, sets off my spidey-sense. "What does the author want to be true?"
Well, there's the new legal definition of rape, according to justice.gov, which reads... The new definition of rape is: “The 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.” [1]
The headline said sexual assault, not rape, so presumably they are aware of this definition and chose not to invoke it. But this definition precludes the possibility of men being raped by women who force themselves onto the men.
> But this definition precludes the possibility of men being raped by women who force themselves onto the men.
I'm not so sure about that. It says "penetration...without the consent of the victim" and it doesn't specify that the victim must be penetrated. It defines the act that must happen, and it specifies that it must happen without the consent of the victim. But it doesn't specify if the victim is penetrating or being penetrated.
It does take a careful reading to parse correctly though, so your point largely stands.
As written it reads as though the victim is the one being penetrated, but doesn't explicitly state it. I've always figured that whoever wrote it simply didn't realise that the victim might be the one doing the penetrating and so didn't even think about whether that should be included or excluded in the definition.
No, it doesn't — this legislation was specifically designed to include male-on-male rape:
A person (A) commits an offence if he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis
There's no clause which limits applicability to females.
It's true that there is no offence in the UK of female-on-male rape. That's because the definition of rape in the UK is deliberately quite narrow, and specifically applies only to forcible penetration with a penis. Other sexual assault is defined by e.g. "assault by penetration".
The fact that it took 85 years to make that update to the definition speaks volumes about how much thought, as a people, we've given to male victims. Kind of disgusting really.
In the U.S, jokes are often made about male sexual assaults (look at the movies, for example). Sexual assault is horrible, regardless of age/gender etc. So it's good to have open discussion about it and bring awareness.
That's a trigger word that means different things to different people. To me, it means "someone who advocates that women should have social and political equality with men." Under my definition, I'm a feminist, and I'd be a little surprised if you weren't. What does it mean for you?
That's the issue. "Feminist" and "feminism" alone are too vague to convey any meaningful ideological position. One must elaborate what type or school of feminism they adhere to, in order for a conclusion to be made. Even still, in some cases, it's not enough (e.g. TERFs).
Someone who believes something or another about women's rights, and is statistically more likely to dismiss or suppress any discussion of men's issues.
