TIL about prison rape pulled from a dubious source hits #1, many butts are hurt in a big way... (self.SubredditDrama)
SubredditDrama
331 ups - 0 downs = 331 votes
Just click controversial, because this thread seems to be just getting warmed up. Here's just a few examples of popcorn so far...
The source seems quite dubious to some...
Some gems from "our issues" page from this source...
Yes but they are raped by other men...
Because the women in prison have already been raped by their abusive partners....
Know what else isn't counted? How many people are killed by police....
Rape is a somewhat un-quantifiable figure...
Statistics can be massaged to get to the intended message of the speaker...
This is going to be an amazing thread for the next 30 minutes before the mods delete it....
And on.... and on.... and on...
I'm sure I missed some, and I'm equally sure there is more still to come. But this is approaching critical mass quickly.
Nothing like some good al prison rape drama on Thanksgiving, eh?
177 comments submitted at 16:23:26 on Nov 27, 2014 by mikerhoa
This is horrible, not only because it cites a ridiculously awful source to make an inaccurate point, but because it hurts the credibility of people actually trying to raise awareness of male rape victims.
There are a large number men with rape and sexual assault experiences, considerably more than people think, but not like this, and when posts like this come along it:
A. Frames the debate as some sort of weird competition.
and
B. Makes people suspicious of the credible work done to get the real information out there.
A couple months ago, I actually tried creating an infographic that would raise awareness on this subject. I did the homework, found credible sources critical of the CDC's separate "made to penetrate" categorization, ran the math, answered questions, and dedicated weeks to trying to raise awareness.
You want to see a recent paper from the Director of Graduate Studies for UCLA School of Law? Got one
Not much for directly reading an academic paper from legal professionals?
How an article based in part on that paper on a popular editorial site like Slate? Boom.
Along this route, there was even a rather solid piece that made its way to Jezebel
Male rape is a problem. And a big one. And if you want to let people know about it, there sadly aren't as many resources as there should be, but there are real resources.
Then this crap manages to make it to the front page. This is why it was so hard to get people to pay attention. This is why I kept running into so much second guessing and suspicion when I looked for appropriate places to post the infographic.
I'm terrified the next ripple through the blogosphere will be to make all people raising awareness of male rape look this ridiculous. I'm terrified all the work I did was for nothing.
Augh.
Sorry, SRD, I have to go shout into a pillow or something. Happy Thanksgiving.
The problem with that is that you can't really compare the numbers in 'made to penetrate' to the other categories - if you look at this, for example, they talk a little bit how it's really hard to compare the numbers and circumstances of these violations. A part of the problem is that men seem to interpret the questions more broadly (perhaps because there isn't as clear a narrative for male victimisation?), and another is that the circumstances surrounding male victimisation are often different, and involve a pressure to perform 'as a man', for instance:
>A number of studies have appeared that attempted gender neutrality in victimization screening by modifying pronouns but no other text (e.g., StruckmanJohnson, 1988). Further examination of data generated by these modified items revealed that men's responses primarily referenced incidents in which they penetrated a woman but felt they did so due to perceived coercion including self-imposed, from the woman, or from peers (Struckman-Johnson, 1988; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1994; StruckmanJohnson, Struckman-Johnson, & Anderson, 2003).
> We acknowledge the inappropriateness of female verbal coercion and the legitimacy of male perceptions that they have had unwanted sex. Although men may sometimes sexually penetrate women when ambivalent about their own desires, these acts fail to meet legal definitions of rape that are based on penetration of the body of the victim. Furthermore, the data indicate that men's experiences of pressured sex are qualitatively different from women's experiences of rape. Specifically, the acts experienced by men lacked the level of force and psychologically distressing impact that women reported (Struckman-Johnson, 1988; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1994).
In that context, the victims in the "made to penetrate" group are not comparable to the victims in the "rape" group (of either gender) from a statistical standpoint, as they include a large number of people that we cannot reasonably call rape victims; it is simply misleading to call them rape victims. Although some in the group definitely have been raped both in a legal, moral and psychological sense, there are also many who haven't, and we don't really know how many. The male rape victims are hidden, but it's not because of the CDC's definitions, it's because it's a very complicated and unfortunately understudied area. I think the CDC report did the best it could in trying to include them.
>these acts fail to meet legal definitions of rape that are based on penetration of the body of the victim
"It's not rape because it's not rape".
>Specifically, the acts experienced by men lacked the level of force and psychologically distressing impact that women reported
So you're saying that when you presuppose and tell men that they weren't raped they report their experiences differently? Wow how surprising.
1: they are saying that they need to consider legal definitions when talking about rape.
2: not actually how such studies are done.
Why do they need to do that if the study is on how genders are affected by rape? You are attempting to reinforce your point that you can't compare "made to penetrate" with other categories with a study that uses an (outdated) legal definition of rape to presuppose that being made to penetrate is different.
Your data on how genders experience rape is obviously going to be tainted if you start off by assuming that the assault of one gender is lesser, as in not rape. Which is probably why these sources are two decades old.
1: They are arguing for the separation of 'rape' and 'made to separate' into different categories with reference to legal practice. Such considerations are commonplace for these studies, and you can find similar considerations when people were trying to find get a handle on a useful definition of 'female' rape. These academics have to walk a very careful path, because if they define too broadly or too narrowly, the backlash is considerable, and more importantly, their findings become harder to use in real life: If your study doesn't reflect commonplace definitions of 'rape', for instance, then it simply won't be used, and will have a much harder time in the public debate.
2: "if you start off by assuming that the assault of one gender is lesser," is exactly what these studies don't do, they simply ask as neutrally as they can.
The legal definition is completely irrelevant to the study. Especially considering it's outdated anyway. If you try to determine the difference experiences men and women face when sexually assaulted, but operate under the assumption that one form of assault is inherently lesser and incapable of being rape, then your study is useless because you are putting those experiences on different levels by default. Which, again, is probably why the studies cited are two decades old.
>If you try to determine the difference experiences men and women face when sexually assaulted, but operate under the assumption that one form of assault is inherently lesser and incapable of being rape
Good thing that is not something that is relevant to this discussion, then. Because no one is doing that.
>based on penetration of the body of the victim
Literally exactly what the study says. They are operating under the belief that men cannot be raped by women. That is obviously going to influence experiences collected by men who were forced to penetrate, but inherently not raped according to their belief, and women who were.
The fact that their belief comes from a legal definition is irrelevant. It's something they clearly subscribe to in the study. The different experiences are not being examined neutrally. The fact that that legal definition is outdated only serves to make the study more useless.
... You do realize that what I quoted is not a study, but a report on other studies?
More Comments - Click Here