A Voice for Me – Who Died and made Paul Elam the Rapefinder General?

This I got sent by a friend of mine in my other life.

You know. The one where I use my real name. And he agrees with Mr. Elam.

It’s always amusing to be told by my friends to read things here. Many don’t realise who I am. It’s kind of like being Batman.

But I digress. It’s shocking when someone you know agrees with Mr. Elam.

Look, ladies, I get it. I really do. You think you were raped. At least that is your claim. And even if we take for granted that you are telling the truth about some asshole that ignored your insistence that you did not want to have sex; who even ignored your repeated, tearful pleas to be left alone, and instead forced himself on you sexually, violating your personal boundaries and bodily integrity in order to penetrate you in one orifice or another, that is still a far cry from justifying the use of a word as strong as rape.

No you don’t Mr. Elam. If you did you would not host such luminaries as Girl That Writes and her “Afghanistani Women Have It Okay” article. Or Anil and his horrific apologist work post the Delhi Rape Victim’s Death.

No Mr. Elam, you simply do not get it. And you will never get it because it is profitable to not get it. Your legion of followers (while clearly more verbose than my readers) make it clear that they enjoy it when you let people belittle the struggles of others. I saw your posts on the Afghanistan isn’t so Bad and just had to produce a goddamn novel to point out how utterly vile it is.

I was told that this piece was a joke.

If it is then it is not a funny joke. It is not an awkward joke. It is a joke like screaming “nigger” at a black person in the audience. It is a “joke” in retrospect. It HAS to be a joke right? Otherwise Paul is just a horrid person. Right?

In fact, you may be so emotional about the matter that you are not going to be the most reliable informant of the facts. As an alleged victim, you are certainly not the most qualified arbiter of what constitutes rape to begin with. It is undoubtedly better that you just shut up about the matter – go somewhere where we don’t have to look at you or listen to you complain — and let someone more capable gather the facts and make a mature sensible decision about what happened.

Because everyone knows that when anything passes through a woman’s vagina they get completely irrational. Which is why they must have regular stimulation by the patented vibration massage device as patented by myself.

This looks like the sort of man who would patent a bonafide electrified slippified “massage aid”

As an alleged victim of feminism is Paul Elam in any fit state to determine what gender oppression is?

And who is more capable than the very victims of rape?

Like me, for instance.

Paul Elam is qualified to deal with rape victims in the same way that great white sharks are excellent surrogate mothers for orphaned seals.

Actually, I can’t think of anyone better qualified to make a rational determination of the facts; who can avoid the hysterics often associated with the claim of rape, or things that might be misinterpreted as rape, and who can make a sound, considered decision about what happened to you and what to call it. So please, give the rape crisis line and everyone else a break while I sort things out.

Yes. In it’s place you will have a slut shaming rape apologist who will not accept any rapes that occur if the woman is drunk or was wearing clothes judged to be too revealing or if she said yes and then changed her mind. Or one of the many myriad methods by which rape occurs outside the “idealised” stranger with a knife scenario.

You can just tell me what happened, then go off and cry, or go on Oprah, or do whatever it is women do when they think that someone has raped them. I will sort through all the details and then come back to you later, after I have had some time to make a considered and complete evaluation.

I have just realised that my blog is considered “porn” to some people.

I wrote about sexual abuse and rape in India. I tried to not sort through the details. Every story sent to me was published with minor changes to spelling and grammar or language. The stories were true.

Paul unfortunately would simply throw out instances of rape which he and his so called Men’s Rights Activist friends (let’s face it. There is nothing about “the rights of men here”) think is acceptable. It is acceptable to get a stuck up bitch drunk and take advantage of her. It is acceptable to have sex with a girl if she is totally wasted. It is acceptable to steal money from a man if he is dressed in a tuxedo. Why must we punish the poor man if Mr. Monopoly Man here changes his mind about his philanthropy?

I will be the one to decide if you were raped, or just someone who was temporarily inconvenienced.

Bear in mind his lovely organisation tried to downplay a girl getting “temporarily inconvenienced” on a bus and which resulted in her death. If only Paul Elam was doing something to stop that.

Oh wait. No. He was off blaming Indian Women.

I have to tell you, though, that I am not one to just go around calling every claim a rape on behalf of women just because they drum up a few tears, or have a few bruises to show off.

Or PTSD. Or other psychological disorders. Or rectal tears (not all rape is per vaginal. MRA should know. They bang on so much about male rape but don’t seem to want to do anything about it). Or vaginal tears (Let’s just say that Penis in Vagina isn’t necessarily fun if you are not aroused and tears can occur).

Yeah, bruises are nothing. Apart from a sign of assault. But you would know that.

How to take a case of rape?

Well you generally line the surface of the bed and make the victim stand on white paper as you slowly undress them. This is without the psychological aspect. We are being empirical here.

You analyse any hair that falls onto this paper. You also have to do tests for sperm. This indicates sex occurred. The sperm can be DNA profiled and matched as can hair that doesn’t belong to the victim. In addition? You have to look out for defensive wounds, bite marks, ligature marks, injuries, cuts and evidence of rough sex. Rough  sex effectively means that the vagina was insufficiently lubricated resulting in damage to the walls. On top of all this you have to do a tox screening.

None of these are  perfectly indicative of rape. It is a subjective statement. Presence of these conditions raise alarm bells. But they are also naturally occurring. Some people do have and enjoy rough sex. Some people do hit each other as part of sex. And during the first week of my holidays I had to swan around Manchester with a large bite on my neck. I blame Tiga’s love for Twilight… The nuance is important. A bruised to the buttocks may be more indicative of BDSM than a black eye. A love bite is different from that of a violent assault. Experience helps here.

The crocodile tears that Paul indicates are so common place do not come into this evidence collection. We may have a sympatheticc ear but do you really think women and indeed men enjoy  being naked around 3 strangers who swab her down with acid phosphotase and under the cold clinical light of forensics examine her. Sure we may dress it up in bedside manner but it’s like painting a smiley face on a hand grenade.

At no point does the protocol call for the tears of the raped. The evidence to prosecute stands on it’s own.

Like that girl at Steubenville; the one who partied a little too hearty and then just happened to be penetrated by some of the guys she was partying with. Opportunistic sex? Yeah. Rape? No, not rape. Not even close.

Ah yes. It’s not rape if you are the one doing it.. It’s not rape if you yell “surprise”?

I dread to think how Paul Elam would behave in a hospital. It’s opportunistic sex as too. I think it sums it up perfectly though.

If you don’t want to get raped, don’t be powerless and without agency.

That “girl” in Steubenville was a minor. And she was raped because she REFUSED to date a football player. Because the mere act of playing a American Handegg should allow you your pick of breeders. Oh wait!

The fact remains that she was shamed publically. That the two boys had sex with her against her will then posted the photos of the EVIDENCE online. And when people said “No, This is Not Good”, people like yourself defended rapists.

And remember dear reader. This is meant to be a joke. Paul Elam doesn’t support rape, but he sure jokes about it in a very disturbing and non-funny way.

All the outrage I read about the sympathy for the “perpetrators” was way off the mark. These guys needed alcohol and drug education, perhaps a good talking to, but not prison. Prison is for rapists, real rapists, not a couple of kids that got carried away at a party.

Ah yes. The carried away defence. It is amazing how many times I have been completely and utterly drunk and still have never been sufficiently carried away to rape someone. I must not be a real boy!

Tell me at what point of “being carried away” involves taking a girl who is unconscious and putting your rigid penis (because it’s awfully hard to insert anything soft into the anal canal.) into the anal canal without her permission and then texting photos about it to your mates considered the line between acceptable behaviour and being carried away.

These are minors so they aren’t going to “real prison”. And while you may be  worried about the rapists and how it will affect their future sports careers, the rest of us think that the mere act of throwing a ball should not dictate the way you are sentenced.

Now you may think that “sluts had it coming to them” and “carried away” should be legal defences but lucky for women across  the USA, the law is more progressive. I am astounded that Paul has not demanded 4 male witnesses to testify in order for rape to be prosecuted.

Then there was that woman, whatever her name was, in India that made worldwide headlines just a few months ago; the one that was murdered and allegedly raped on a bus in Delhi. The facts on that one don’t wash, either. Sure, she was beaten. There is evidence to support that, particularly in that she died from her injuries. Without a doubt, she was murdered.

She was sodomised with an iron bar resulting in a rupture of the sigmoid colon and peritonitis and massive septic shock. She died due to rape. She was raped to death. Oh I am sorry? Is this passes for MRA humour? And you idiots still support him? What a vile human being. There is absolutely nothing of value he brings to the MRA movement and the atheists who do support this absolutely vile man should stop.. You have lost all pretence that AVfM was anything but a hate site when you mock a woman who was effectively impaled to death.

She is called Nirbhaya or Damini. These are pseudonyms. But they have meaning to India. And you will not take that meaning and mock it. You live in paradise. At the apex of human civilisation surrounded by luxury that is unimaginable to the majority of the world. You don’t have to fight the fights that these people have to.

So you will not shit on their fight. You will not denigrate the names of those who died in pain and agony.

Nirbhaya means “fearless”. Damini means “Lightning”. Damini was used because her case was similar to a case in a movie. Where the behaviour of men “like Paul” killed her.

She was raped and murdered. The fact that AVfM has specifically involved itself in siding with the rape apologists of India and indeed Afghanistan is testament to how dangerous these men and their female cheerleaders are. That in order to maintain relevance they are willing to involve themselves in a culture which they know nothing about and discuss a situation which they are far removed from and push bullshit.

The irony is since Sodomy isn’t “rape”, Paul Elam has unfortunately ruled out the majority of male rape victims as being raped. Sorry guys, this is your “voice”.

But not raped, so let’s try not to get carried away with the righteous indignation, mmkay?

It’s not rape if there is a “bigger crime”.

The fact that she was allegedly penetrated sexually during the course of her attack does not prove anything. Contrary to modern social fantasy, rape is not about penetration. Not in the least. I know, we have some slanted legislation and a few haughty pundits that state otherwise, but we will get to more of that in a minute.

No. Nirbhaya just upped and died after her innards spontaneously ruptured.

She was not “allegedly penetrated sexually” you fuckwit, she was definitely penetrated with a DNA fucking match to the accused.

So here is my question. MRA kept defending him to me saying “he isn’t a rape apologist”.

You have in his own words claiming that it wasn’t rape. That she wasn’t penetrated.

Either you have to admit that he is a rape apologist and is utilising a horrific rape to flog his vile bullshit or he is joking about a horrific rape where a young woman died in agony.

I mentioned Oprah earlier. She’s another one of those “rape” victims that seem to crawl out of the woodwork when there is a camera around. Her contention is that she came from a really bad family and that on top of poverty and a lot of other problems, she was raped when she was nine years old.

Nirbhaya did not crawl out of the “woodwork” when the Camera was Around. Nirbhaya came out when her friends demanded justice and were broken up. So they went out and brought their friends. And their friends. And eventually University Students showed up. And rather than listen to them, they set the police on them.

This brought in the previous students. The ones who went on to have careers and the parents. This stopped being about “one girl” and started being about what was fundamentally wrong with Indian culture. The woodwork was already rotten and infested with these rape victims. The entire house was in fact. Indian simply painted over the holes and hoped no one would notice. But they did notice.

And it’s the same with other rapes. No one notices rape until you make a fuss and rape victims don’t like making a fuss. Why? Well…. look at Paul Elam, self appointed Rapefinder General.

Assuming she is alleging that she was sexually penetrated (and that she was even telling the truth to begin with), she gets crossed off the list of real victims, even if her story makes good fodder for building a TV empire. It’s still not rape. It is still not even close.

I am not aware of Oprah’s “story”.

I am pretty sure Oprah didn’t build a TV Empire by pretending to be raped. One finds that you require more than that to be successful particularly considering she is black. No. I am afraid Oprah forged an empire the way everyone else rises to the top. By being good where it counts, by being smart where it counts and by being ruthless when it was needed. She clawed her way to the top and then she sat there tap dancing on the fingers of others who also tried to get to the top. Just like every other “person who got really fucking rich”.

If she got raped then that’s neither here nor there.

As a matter of fact, it simply can’t be rape. None of these fanciful stories are legitimate rapes. I have looked at the facts and made a clear, totally supportable conclusion. The girl in Steubenville wasn’t raped.  The woman in India wasn’t raped and Oprah Winfrey sure as hell wasn’t raped.

But Paul! What about the Menz!

The Indian Rape Victim was unconscious… the entire story was not relayed by her as she activated her feminist colon rupturing powers to commit suicide to strike a blow for the feminazi… it was relayed to us by her boyfriend.

Oh right! I forgot. He couldn’t fight off multiple armed men making him a mangina. Silly me.

And the reason for it is as simple as it is irrefutably factual.

Only women can rape.

Only men can be victims. Rape is not even a crime of which men are capable. Well, sure, they are physically capable, in the abstract I suppose, but only if you define rape to a narrow and archaic view like forced penetration. When it comes to real rape, which is when men are forced to penetrate, it is only women who can do it.

90% of Rape victims are women, 10% are men. And in the 10% of rape victims who are male most are raped by men. The vast majority of rapists are “male”.

So no. Your vile argument is fucking moronic.

I understand — you have doubts. You have likely been ill informed and misled your whole life about what rape is and who it really affects.

Need I remind you that no so long ago anyone you know would have pointed to the horizon and told you just how obvious it was that the earth was flat? It is still right there for you to see, is it not? Look around you! Isn’t the earth flat?

Around a 150 year or so ago, people defended slavery by saying that “the Negro is happier under servitude” because he has no wants, no cares, no stress and if it wasn’t for the civility of slavery he would be naught but an animal.

Paul Elam is unfortunately this sort of person.

Fortunately, through the informative use of science and a bird’s eye view of the planet, we moved past myopic conclusions drawn from the tunnel vision of surface impressions and ignorance.

The world is not flat, or the center of the universe, and men cannot rape. It is a crime exclusively perpetrated by women.

And it’s clearly the enlightened Paul who will lead the way.


Is your blood boiling yet? Do you want to put a fist through sheet rock? Is my heartless and insensitive handling of the above “victims” making you see red? Do you want my head on a stick in the town square for the sheer depravity and sickness in what I am writing?

Well, let me tell you, I feel your outrage. I get where it comes from; which is to say that you are driven by decency and humanity to instinctively recoil from gratuitous and malicious indifference to the suffering of innocent victims.

It still is.

You see. I didn’t read the coverage of the Steubenville Rape until I came across the Judgy Bitch article and I know she is one of the AVfM brigade. Her slut shaming bullshit is par for course.

I did however experience first hand the joys of living in India during the rape of Nirbhaya.

And I would rather you simply vanished from the face of  the Earth. Mankind ill needs you. Your ethos harms men as much as it harms women and portrays us vapid, selfish, useless rape apologists.

In the wake of the India rape when Nirbhaya was still alive, AVfM ran articles downplaying the treatment of women in India. Downplaying the bride burning and the infanticide. No. I am afraid many people may have a short memory, but I remember Paul Elam as a man who supported the rapists.

A man who is repeatedly willing to throw Nirbhaya under the same rape bus that nearly ran her over to push his agenda.

You are, after all, a person of compassion, right? Well, don’t hold your breath waiting for the Mother Theresa award. You are probably not near as compassionate as you think.

Oh I am pretty sure if we ranked up to each other you would be on the losing end of the compassion award.

I will explain, but allow me to preface that by saying that if you finish reading this and you are still outraged at me instead of Mary Koss, then your compassion is about as real as a Crystal Gail Mangum rape claim, which is to say it is complete bullshit.

Except Crystal Gail is a relative rarity and her case fell apart quite rapidly under real scrutiny. The majority of rape accusations are not Crystal Gail.

I’ll do more than just proclaim that you are a compassionless hypocrite, I’ll prove it. The only question remaining will be whether or not you have the fucking moral integrity and courage to admit it. Decent human beings will.

Ignorant assholes with no right to be angry about anything won’t.

No. I am afraid we can empirically point out that you were in the cheer squad for a someone bashing women in Afghanistan. I am afraid that makes you both ignorant and highly compassionless irrespective of your proclamations.

First, a little recent history on the study of rape in this culture. Mary P. Koss is a widely-quoted and highly influential feminist writer on the subject. Indeed, so influential is the University of Arizona scholar that she has long been considered a “go to” authority on the subject of rape by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia. This is not of little gravity given the CDCs influence on government policy. With thanks to Tamen of Genderratic, here is a brief overview of her relationship with the CDC.

  • 1996:  Expert Panel Member, “Definitions of Sexual Assault,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
  • 2003 :  Selected to direct the Sexual Violence Applied Research Advisory Group, VAWNET.org, the national online resource on violence against women funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
  • 2003 :  Member, team of expert advisors, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on teen partner violence;
  • 2003 :  Panel of Experts, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control on scales to measure intimate partner violence, resulted in the publication of CDC Intimate Partner Violence compendium, 2005;
  • 2003-4: Consultant, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC Intimate Partner Violence compendium, 2005 IPV Compendium on assessment of sexual violence and inclusion as recommended standard assessments in the field of two Koss-authored assessments (Sexual Experiences Survey-victimization, and Sexual Experiences Survey-perpetration)

 That is quite an impressive track record, especially for someone who has been caught red-handed exaggerating the number of female rape victims to ridiculous proportions while simultaneously making similar efforts to erase the incidence of male rape victims, including children, from public view.

Except so have the MRA. The MRA have routinely shamed their own by emasculating male victims of rape or by excusing male rape of women rather than supporting the victims.

Mary P Koss has been doing the same thing with victims and perpetrators of rape as I did in the first few paragraphs of this article, with two key differences. One, she denies the victimization of male victims instead of females. And two, her work is not satire on a blog; it is research done in the public trust for an agency that sets government policy and plays a highly influential role in forming public opinion.

The problem for AVfM is that they aren’t in the business of Men’s Rights. They are in the business of stamping all over those uppity women and the easiest ones to stamp on are rape victims. Particularly ones really far away.

Have you heard anywhere that 1 in 4 women will be raped in their lifetime? You can thank Mary P. Koss for that statistical sound bite, and for the fact that it is totally and completely bogus.  She was so anxious to create that kind of ideological ear candy that she drove her own train off the tracks on research methods.

One of the joys of being good at biology and medicine is you also become good with statistics.

I also got a black belt in googling stuff up. The Anti-Mary Koss malarky is quite strong in the MRA for one reason.

It makes men out to be rapists. I actually got my 1 in 5 women will be raped or exposed to sexual harassment or violence in their lifetime from the Ministry of Justice, Office of National Statistics and Home Office of the UK.

The 1 in 4 to 5 figure stands. We are not discussing just the USA, the 1 in 5 figure seems to be the standard. Now this means that 4 in 5 women live safe and happy lives free from rape and sexual violence and threats. There is nothing wrong with increasing the number of these women.

There were numerous, rookie-league errors with the data gathered in Koss’ study, but for the sake of brevity we’ll just address the basics here. Koss threw in a ringer of a question in her survey of three thousand college women:

Between 2009/10 and 2011/12 there were an estimated 78,000 victims of rape per year in England and Wales – 69,000 females and 9,000 males.

Over the same period there were an average of 1,070 convictions per year for the offence, though offenders and victims may nor relate to the same cases, since a single case can take years to be concluded. The figure of 78,000 is an estimate and so is perhaps best stated alongside the upper and lower limits of its 95% confidence interval: 60,000 and 95,000 respectively.

Over the same three years an average of 15,670 rapes were recorded by the police each year. This is a recording rate somewhere between 16.5% and 26.1% using the upper and lower boundaries, but such figures should not be confused with a reporting rate, since not all reports are recorded as a crime.

As the MoJ report states, “Police record crime if the circumstances reported amount to a crime are defined in law and there is no credible evidence to the contrary.” The problem is credible evidence. The main problem with rape reporting is that the evidence is destroyed by the natural process of the woman’s body. In addition marital rape is extremely hard to prove. If the case is not solid the police cannot take it to court since “courts operate on reasonable doubt”. Unlike the claims of the MRA, it is not a witch hunt.

The survey data also shows that in 2011/12 one in five females aged between 16 and 59 had been the victim of a sexual offence or attempted ofeence since the age of 16 (20%). Among males the figure was 2.7%.

As for conviction rates? 60% of court proceedings in 2011 involving sexual offences resulted in a conviction, with sexual assault on a male achieving the highest rate (91%) and rape of a female the lowest (39.7%). The conviction rate for rape against a female was 39.7%, just below the 45.2% rate for rape against a male. The aggregate rate across all sexual offences was 60.3%. Roughly 55.9% of rape defendants were found guilty (compared to 61.6% of defendants in all sexual offence cases). 42.3% of rape defendants were found not guilty, while the remaining 1.8% of cases were discharged, terminated early or had an other outcome.

This kind of backs up Mary Koss’s statement really.

As for the data?

“Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?”

The most common date rape drug is not Rohypnol but Alcohol.

Given the frequency of college age women who party and end up having sex with someone and later regretting it, and given the social pressure still on men to provide alcohol and other party materials for women’s pleasure, Koss’ question was a set of brass knuckles hidden inside a boxing glove. It got her just the result she was looking for.

There is a difference between having sex with someone because your inhibitions are reduced and someone having sex with you because you are passed out.

Paul choses to portray this question as “Did you ever regret having sex with someone while drunk?” rather than “Did you have sex with a man who gave you  alcohol/drugs when you did not want to have sex”.

The KEY point here is the “Sexual Intercourse when you didn’t want to”.

Two follow-up statistics demonstrate the point well enough. One, 42% of these “rape victims” went on to later date and have additional sexual relations with their “rapists,” and, get this, only 25% of the women surveyed that Koss counted as victims agreed that they had been raped.

It is my experience that most women and men who are raped are in fact in relationships with their rapist.

Most rape victims have some sort of association with their rapist. It’s someone in their life. Statistically speaking a father is more likely to rape his daughter or wife than a random stranger. But we fear the unknown. So we portray rape as “that”. You are more likely to be raped by the nice man who once bought you flowers and who listened to your hopes and dreams and who you even had sex with willingly on many occasions than some random stranger.

What Mary Koss did was define “date rape” and point out that a crime is happening.

I know many Indian women accept men hitting them in certain conditions. Like when asked “Is it okay for a man to hit a woman” they responded with “Yes, in some situations. Like if she is being irrational”. Women responded with this. Why?

For the same reason that slaves would stop others from running away I suppose. Then it occurred to me that I consider something as abhorrent because I know why it’s bad. But what about those who don’t realise how bad it is.

Mary Koss and her work was part of the way women realised that you did not have to fuck someone because he bought you dinner and wine. That they didn’t have to give in because the man was nice. There is a difference between fucking someone and “giving in to pressure”.

At this point an honest scholar would just acknowledge their methodological errors, write off their study and start from scratch again in an attempt to obtain some valid conclusions — which explains why Koss went full steam ahead with the results.

I wonder if Paul Elam will acknowledge the methodological errors of utilising a horrific crime and the suffering of women in Afghanistan to pursue his own agenda. Silly me. Of course he will.

It did not take long for Koss to come up with a 1 in 4 number like that. In fact, if men were asked the same questions as qualifiers for being a rape victim, the same exact number, 1 in 4, would emerge from the research. With Koss’ methodology, twenty–five percent of the men you know, your fathers, brothers, uncles, husbands and sons are rape victims. One fourth of the males in this culture have been egregiously violated in the very worst of ways. I can just see Dr. Phil staging group hugs on TV. Well, if anyone gave a damn about those men.

Have you ever had sex with someone who plied you with alcohol when you did not want to have sex with them? As in. They bought you a drink or were around you when you had a few drinks and then wanted to sleep with you and you did not want to sleep with them?

Funny, at no point have I or any of my friends including the ones who were raped (and are male) ever get into a situation where we were plied by alcohol by a woman who could not take no for an answer. I have never had a woman grab my arse in a bar and then continue to do so after I told her I was not interested. I have never had a woman come up to me and grab me against my will. I have never had a woman ply me with drinks so I would fuck her. A quick whip around comes back with a negative from my friends.

If we cast the net wide enough there are sexually aggressive women out there and we may laugh about their actions but they are a rarity. There are women who get horny and want to get fucked. They exist. Women like sex just as much  as we do. Safe Sex is fun.

These 1 in 4 men getting raped simply don’t exist. It is a made up statistic. Male Date Rape is mainly male on male and within the Gay Community rather than women taking advantage of drunk men to the incidence that men are doing it to women (and indeed other men).

Do you think 1 in 4 men have been raped?

Are you outraged that I am treating the idea like a joke?

The statistics are clear on this. My statistics since we are assuming Koss is incorrect. Men are raped far less than women. In fact you are 7 times less likely to be raped as a man.

Not being satisfied with simply manufacturing victims that do not exist, Koss takes the next logical step for any ideologue who wants to show that only women can be victims of rape, and only men can be perpetrators. She produces a paper that erases the idea that men and boys can be victims in any way.

Except these are not victims who don’t exist but a crime that is going unreported.

At one point the number of women who came forward with rape in Pakistan was a handful. Less than a 100 per year. Do you think that it’s because women are not being raped in Pakistan or that the rape laws are so difficult and victim shaming is so common that it is impossible and not worth it to bring rapists to justice.

To change the law is not manufacturing victims but giving them a voice. Mary Koss was not manufacturing victims but making them realise abuse where it exists.

In her paper, “Sexual Victimization in College Men in Chile: Prevalence, Contexts and Risk Factors,” co-authored with Evelyn Lehrer, Ph. D., and Jocelyn Lehrer, Sc. D., once you pass by the obligatory acknowledgements, Koss and crew get to the meat of their intent:

It would also be desirable to conduct further quantitative inquiry using the revised SES (Koss et al. 2007), which contains items that have been crafted with behavior-specific wording to elicit information on a range of SV experiences. This will make it possible to base men’s rape prevalence estimates with more specificity on acts that involve sustaining forced penetration, leaving less leeway for men’s individual perceptions of what constitutes ‘forced sex.’”

The problem with anyone making bullshit claims is that they never expect you to read the damn papers.

It also means that they don’t think someone will go and check what the context of this is.

“Overall, our findings suggest that further qualitative research is needed to gain a better understanding of men’s perceptions of sexually coercive situations with male and female perpetrators; these efforts will help guide the development of sexual assault risk
reduction programs for men.

The idea is that Koss et. al wish to codify and specify what forced sex is so that it only involves penetrative sex EITHER being forced to penetrate or being penetrated. This includes anal, vaginal and oral sex. So if a man doesn’t want to have sex and you give him a blow job it is penetrative and therefore Forced.

The problem with this paper was that the severity of rape and sexual violence in Chilean men was being reported on perception. So many men downplayed much more serious forms of sexual violence due to the culture of machismo that made admission of rape unacceptable in men.

Lest we forget this entire paper points out that the main reason why men aren’t reporting rapes all that much is due to people like Elam. That rather than say “you are right, this is a paper by a feminist that is trying to codify and help men who are rape victims”

Why downplay the introduction?

Sexual victimization of men is a health and justice problem that has received little attention in countries around the world. This study examines prevalence, contexts and risk factors for such victimization in college men in Chile. We administered a closedended questionnaire to students enrolled in general education courses at a major public university in Santiago. This study utilizes the sample of men (N= 466). The most severe forms of victimization experienced since age 14 were forced sex through physical coercion, forced sex through verbal coercion or while intoxicated, attempted forced sex, and less severe incidents, for 0.2%, 10.1%, 1.4% and 8.7% of participants, respectively. Approximately 9.4% of participants reported childhood sexual abuse; such abuse was a significant predictor of subsequent sexual victimization (AOR 6.38, 95% CI 3.22- 12.65, P<0.01). Participants who reported sexual victimization since age 14 were significantly more likely than those who did not to also report physical dating violence victimization and forced condom non-use. The study findings indicate a need for further attention to these public health problems and have implications for the development of violence and HIV/STI prevention programs for youths in Chile and elsewhere.”

Oh. Right.

Because academic papers frown down upon the sort of writing that we do as bloggers? The way I write academically is entirely different to the way I write on a blog. It is not downplayed, it is clinical and statistical because academia requires clinical statistics to make points.

There is much more available from Koss that ensures her intentions are being taken accurately. With credit to Tamen from the Generratic blog, the following observation:

But let’s take a look at the revised SES Koss et al would like to use instead on the Chilean dataset:

Here is a quote from the 2007 paper by Koss et al: Revising the SES: A Collaborative Process to Improve Assessment of Sexual Aggression and Victimization

“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).

We worked diligently to develop item wording that captured men’s sense of pressure to have sex and draw their responses into an appropriate category of coercion instead of to rape items. The revised wording is discussed in more detail later in the article.

Cut to the chase. What Koss is saying, through the unblinking text of two very different studies, is that when women say they weren’t raped, they really were, and when men say they were raped, they really weren’t.

No they do not.

This is talking about pure heterosexual rape.

What Koss is saying is that the social pressure on the different genders is different and so the sort of reasons why and how rape occurs is different. A lot of the rape during a date scenario is by admission of the MRA due to the notion that a man MUST ply the lady wiith booze and so men struggle to differentiate between “this was nice, let’s fuck” and “ZZZZZZZZZZ” because no one’s told them the difference.

That the way both groups are raped may be different. Something the MRA LOVE to insist.

And because heterosexual rape is included, women rarely pull knives out on men and force them down for sex. A lot of the distress of rape is the force involved not to mention the shame of being raped. For men too there is shame but the violence of the act is not as common and when it is common the severity of it is far less.

MRA will never understand that because they still think that there are no different social pressures on different genders.

That, uh, “revised wording”? Men who are forced to penetrate under physical or any other kind of duress are not raped. That perception clearly has had an impact on matters at the CDC and other entities charged with the dissemination of information on rape and sexual assault.

We worked diligently to develop item wording that captured men’s sense of pressure to have sex and draw their responses into an appropriate category of coercion instead of to rape items. The revised wording is discussed in more detail later in the article.

In addition to reality, I am to suggest that Paul Elam understand basic comprehension. It does not say this. It says that the current terminology is mainly female centric and so item wording may not properly capture men’s sense of pressure to have sex.

So they may not consider some acts of sex to be coercive and therefore rape.

To explain this we must go back to medicine and the art of history taking. How you ask a question may net you two different answers. Are you eating well? Yes! What is Well? Who Defines it?

Are you eating regularly? Now this puts it more into context of breakfast, lunch, dinner (breakfast, second breakfast, elevensies, luncheon, afternoon tea, dinner and supper). Now we can see what the person eats and how regularly they eat. So what was once a throwaway answer now suddenly can  reveal a lot. (Carcinoma of Stomach, Peptic ulcers, TB, Diabetes…)

A lot of medicine is asking the right question in the right way. Your lay public cannot grasp why you ask your questions in a specific way and so a lot of medicine is learning that. To translate and guide a patient into revealing information that you think is important but that they do not.

In a recent media interview of TyphonBlue, she pointed out clearly how males who are raped get classified as “made to penetrate” (Read: NOT RAPED) in figures from the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NIPSVS) by the CDC, the same organization where Koss has had so much influence.

Okay. So campaign against it.

Don’t fucking reduce the rights of women who have none. Don’t bash date rape victims.

The CDC where Koss has so much influence? I am afraid the CDC is a massive organisation designed to statistically analyse a lot of healthcare issues. Koss is just influential in defining modern parts of rape rather than some massive designator of CDC policy.

So far I have not seen AVfM stand up and say “I understand rape is a horrific crime, but we feel that men who are made to penetrate should be treated as a category of rape rather than other sexual violence”.

In fact I WILL say that it should be treated as rape rather than other sexual violence. In fact in my link it is considered as rape.

However what we see from AVfM is a systematic attempt to destroy all attempts at fighting for women’s rights across the board rather than any statement of “Hey! We should have these things too! Look at these men!”. Instead we saw slut shaming and fears for the careers of rapists. We saw victim blaming in India and we saw AVfM downplay the severity of oppression that Afghani women are subject to.

AVfM is not for men’s rights. They hide behind men’s rights and indeed the rights of rape victims and instead denigrate real attempts to help male victims and rather than campaign for improved facilities for men they are more likely to campaign against women getting anything. Which is why the MRA dialogue on rape is not about the victims of rape but about the allegations made against “people who just carried away”.

Made to penetrate

Tamen goes on to articulate more in his review of the subject:

I agree. Made to penetrate should be rape. As should sexual coercion. For both genders. So far rape has only really been regarded as passive and while being made to penetrate or coercion may be as psychologically harmful than being classically raped it is classifed differently, I do not think rape should be treated both judicially and medically as a monolithic issue.

I am aware that this is the medical expansion of the issue and that “officially and judicially” the act of Made to Penetrate is treated as rape.

“[The] CDC apparently found it inappropriate to call it rape – or rather they think it’s a unique male victimization that is separate from rape. The Crime Survey of England and Wales (CSEW) does not even bother to include it in the survey even if it under Sexual Offenses Act of 2003 Section 4 is punishable with a sentence up to life (SOA 2003 doesn’t call it rape either). The latest CSEW did a split-sample experiment to test a new set of questions. The new questions had an option that male victims who had been made to penetrate could answer yes. The analysts classified those who answered yes to that question as NON-VICTIMS.”

Except I pointed out and have posted the “2013” Crime Survey of England and Wales which classifies all unwanted sex against will or without consent as rape. The CDC is not the bos of us all.

At this point it would probably good to remind you that this kind of hegemony over and shaping of descriptive language produces much more than just an imbalance in empathy between male and female victims of rape. As with most ideological objectives, it invariably leads to money and power.

Which is fine. You are welcome to come help  in the research. Except you don’t want to accept female victims of rape and have repeatedly faffed around with them and shamed them so no one wants to work with you. You burned your bridges through greed. You claimed to have represented my gender. You claimed to have represented the victims but what you were doing was using this opportunity to denigrate and damage it by acting out and voicing your hatred of women.

In this case, that money and power come at the expense of making male rape victims invisible and ensuring that empathy for them is actually prevented.

There is no money in rape prevention. There is no money in treating the victims of rape.

All there is, is heartbreak. Pain. And Suffering.

I could not keep doing it and I know I am more tolerant of those things than most. I cannot understand the people who do it day in and day out. All it does is make me mad. I could not stay objective.

No one is making male rape victims invisible but other men who denigrate them or who mock them. Or who pretend to be interested in them only to actually be more interested in reducing the facilities for women and poisoning the well of rape judiciary to make it easier for rapists to get out.

Do you think that helps men?

If you still think I am the problem, and not Koss, then you are part of the savagery and deprivation. Your only opinion on rape should be to shut up about it and go back to something that really matters to you, like watching TV.

In that case I am the savage. The savage who was more willing to fight for the rights of women and men. What was I called. Oh yes… Slacktivist. I saw the men and women of India fight back against people like you Mr. Elam. And I was proud at that moment to be related to them. To see a new generation of people willing to form barricades and fight for what was needed.

These women were angry at being victims for so long. These men were angry that women were victims. They were also angry that they were portrayed as mindless savages. To not have any control. To get “carried away”.

You on the other hand gave voice to the men who opposed these people.

If you think we are savagery and deprived? You supported the fucking Taliban. You have no fucking right to call me savage. If I am the savage then what are you? The trappings of civilisation do not make you civilised sir. You are the basest human being. I have met scum. I have seen it all. Murderers, Child Molestors, Rapists. I even had the pleasure of seeing the handy work of a serial killer when I used to work at the morgue learning my trade in anatomy and pathology. If I am the savage then you my friend are amongst the  worst humanity has to offer. Because you defend those who commit these crimes, not for the sake of justice like a lawyer but for the sake of your own agenda.

Addressing victims of rape is a federally and privately funded industry of significant proportions. It provides not only employment and organizational underwriting, it also serves as the academic raison d’être for ideologues like Mary P Koss. Entire careers are carved out of the institutional bedrock on theories, and often ideologies, as we see in the case of academic feminism.

Or you know.

Science and Medicine. I mean prospective and retrospective studies are the bread and butter of large scale social medicine.

As I said. If Paul Elam had even one iota of interest in the care of rape victims and indeed male rape victims he would not be trying to denigrate the work of those who deal with rape victims but instead be trying to expand it.

Koss has a vested ideological, professional and financial interest in the idea that men cannot be raped, and even in the idea that whatever they may experience at the hands of female rapists, it does not impact them with the same intensity, or need for assistance (cha-ching), as when the same thing happens to women.

Except Koss has helped get on board more ideas pertaining to male sexual abuse and rape than Mr. Elam has and indeed has done more for them.

Except if Koss and indeed people like myself are profiting from Rape then why on earth would we tell roughly 5% of all men that they weren’t raped instead of expanding services to them.

And yes, we do earn money dealing with tragedy. I understand Elam thinks we should all be amateurs and that we should only earn our daily bread through good honest work and nothing that ever benefits others but you know what’s the scariest words that I can think of?

Amateur Gynaecologist. The reason we are professionalised is because of specialisation. We are paid irrespective of patient load. I assume rape counsel and the associated “industry” are not paid per case but by salary for doing a job. And that if we really were being paid the way Elam claims we are then frankly we would be pushing the idea that men can be raped and that it really is as bad as it is for women because we would then make MORE money.

How on Earth are we making a profit out of this? Tell me. I am rather poor compared to the likes of Paul there. I would very much like in on this feminist conspiracy.

OR you know, Paul really should learn how to run a business.

The short and sorry version of Koss’ take on male rape by forced envelopment is that it does not happen, and even if it did, men aren’t bothered by it.

Except it’s not on any of the bits written by Koss and instead from a CDC report where she has no actual fucking say.

They have no pain that needs to be addressed, nor is the female rapist a problem we need to recognize.

For the same reason that relatively little medical screening is aimed at male breast cancer. The rationale being that the majority of victims of rape are female and the majority of perpetrators are male. Therefore the dialogue involves that paradigm of heterosexual male on female rape. The female rapist is a relative rarity when compared to her male counter part. In fact you are more likely to be raped as a man by another man than by a woman.

And that includes “made to penetrate”.

In fact, this is woven into the progression of language we see from Koss as it morphs though the body of her work. She goes from not wanting to label women raping men as rape, then not wanting to label it “forced sex,” and then changes it to “unwanted” sex and ultimately to “ambivalent” sex.

Except she has not. She has stated that men’s feelings about sex may be ambivalent but they will still have sex simply because they are expected to by social pressure. That because of the way men’s feelings are portrayed they HAVE to have sex or they aren’t a real man. I mean, what sort of a man wants to cuddle right?

Men cannot say no to sex unless they are being loyal to a woman without being regarded as sterile, unvirile or “into  musical theatre”.

And this is a big deal because  a lot of male social acceptance is based on being sexually active and good at it. So anything where men don’t feel like having sex is considered “bad”. So a man will have sex even if he has a headache or is in pain or is tired because if he does not he will not be regarded as a “real man”.

And that is why it may not be rape and indeed be harder to classify. Made to penetrate still requires a break down. And most importantly in this entire argument and quite fitting for the MRA movement. They forgot one thing.

Made to Penetrate Involves Women  In The Statistic Too. AKA Women who are Made To Penetrate.

Let’s see, even anecdotally, how that holds up. The following is another excerpt from the Genderratic Blog, and was originally posted to r/mensrights. Be advised, it is very graphic and may be disturbing for some.

First time I’ve told this story, other than to my doctor, therefore – throw away account. Also, I’m Swedish, so I’m sorry for all the grammar faults.

I was at a friend’s party and got a few beers. I believe I was the least drunk there. One gal started to talk to me and coming on to me. I had a girlfriend at the time and I wasn’t even attracted to her (big as a hippo), so I tried to ignore her.

A few hours later I was feeling very fuzzy in my head so I had to lie down for a bit. This struck me as odd, since the few beers were all I had to drink. Later on I understood that there were something else other than beers in one of the cans.

I woke up several hours later in my friend’s bed which were on another floor than the party was held. I was still feeling fuzzy in my head, so I didn’t really get what was going on. My hands and my feet were tied to the bed – each part in each corner. My dick hurt like crazy and I wanted to see what was going on down there. Someone was naked and riding my dick. It took me about five seconds until I understood that I was naked and was raped. It was the same girl who hit on me.

I screamed, but no one heard me. I tried to get away, but I couldn’t move, both because I was tied down and also because of her weight.

Fifteen horrible minutes later she decided she was done with me and let me loose. I collapsed and couldn’t move. She got dressed and went downstairs. I cried.

Apparently she couldn’t get my dick hard, so she had shuffed[sic] a Q-tip without the cotton up my urethra so it would keep straight. Four years later, it still hasn’t recovered.

In short? This man was raped after being roofied and in order to get an erection had a ear bud sans the cotton wool used to catheterise his penis.

I have “issues” with this story. And indeed the usage of it. Now here is the thing. If this is a true story it is a terrible one. The usage of date rape drugs? Plus the forcible penetration and permanent damage? BUT what is weird is the usage of a Q-Tip. It’s kind of risky as a procedure since Q-tips while not rigid are also quite likely to bend and collapse under pressure. It may explain the permenant damage.

Except this man would be considered as rape under Koss’s personal criteria but not the CDC criteria. HOWEVER and I must repeat this. This story is a rarity. An oddity. Compared to the number of men who are raped by other men and compared to the number of women who are raped?

No I am afraid this would be considered as rape even by the CDC criteria since this is a loss of bodily autonomy.

And this would be charged with a variety of criminal offences if… IF the victim called the police.

Actually, this victim may be qualified under Koss’ personal criteria as a rape victim, not because he was drugged and restrained and forced to penetrate his attacker, not because he was assaulted while unconscious but because she penetrated his urethra with an object in order to produce a simulated erection.

Actually it would constitute rape, assault with grievous harm and kidnapping.

It’s a pretty big set of crimes here mate. If anything Paul is “underselling” the crime in order to push the notion that “no one would take him seriously”.

The difference between this man being raped and just having “ambivalent” sex is a fucking Q-tip. And unless it was the Q-tip that made him shed tears, then his pain wasn’t real either.

No. I repeat. Ambivalent feelings about sex. As in “I want sex, do you?”. “Well I am not really bothered”. “Oh Go On”. “Fine Then!”

It’s not ambivalent sex. It is someone having sex  despite not being into it and not experimenting.

Now here is the most important point.

The CDC does not legally define rape. The CDC is a medical definition and the medical definition has always been the penetration of the person. The “made to penetrate” is a new field. Now the problem is the CDC has to correlate data from a variety of sources and indeed made to penetrate is an interesting statistic and should be kept separate. I however think it should be classified as rape rather than sexual assault since it fits the criteria of what a rape is in the loss of body autonomy.

The problem here is that the MRA like grading sexual crime by severity. So rape is the apex of sex crime, flashing is the base (or something like that). So to them not classifying made to penetrate means that cases such as the one above aren’t as serious in the eyes of the law.

Except they are. Made to Penetrate is Considered and Treated As Rape in the eyes of the law.

Let’s take Made to penetrate and put it into the rape category shall we.

Roughly 7 million men in the USA are raped in a life time if we include made to penetrate.

The lowest value (LOWEST mind you) for rape rates is 15% and that’s from 1995. The rate varies from 15 to 20%, we shall use the bare minimum for this.

There are 150 million women in the USA. 15% of that is 22.5 million. Between 22.5 to 30 million women are raped. You are between 3 to 4 times more likely to be raped as a woman than you are as a man EVEN if we include made to penetrate just for men.

AKA for every 1 man raped, there are 4 women raped.

Rape is defined as any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threats to physically harm and includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent. Rape is separated into three types, completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, and completed alcohol or drug facilitated penetration.
– -Among women, rape includes vaginal, oral, or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It also includes vaginal or anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object.
– -Among men, rape includes oral or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It also includes anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object.

Being made to penetrate someone else includes times when the victim was made to, or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetrate someone without the victim’s consent because the victim was physically forced (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threatened with physical harm, or when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.
– -Among women, this behavior reflects a female being made to orally, digitally or via object to penetrate another female’s vagina or anus.
– -Among men, being made to penetrate someone else could have occurred in multiple ways: being made to vaginally penetrate a female using one’s own penis; orally penetrating a female’s vagina or anus; anally penetrating a male or female; or being made to receive oral sex from a male or female. It also includes female perpetrators attempting to force male victims to penetrate them, though it did not happen.

Oh  FYI? The demographic most likely to be subject to rape are the trans. Around 50% if you must know.

Which is where Elam falls apart. Women who are made to penetrate are not included in rape statistics too. If we are to include that the number of women who are raped would increase too. Probably not as many as before but the 1 in 4 stat looks awfully clear.

We have another case that was brought to the pages of this website. Former marine James Landrith met a woman in a night club through a friend and ended up having drinks with her. According to him, after agreeing to give the woman, who was pregnant, a ride home he wound up in a hotel, having been drugged, and woke up to find the woman on top of him with his penis inside her.

During the course of raping him, she threatened him with a rape allegation if he resisted, and also told him that any attempt to throw her off could harm her unborn child.

The rape happened before the young marine was 20 years old, and his response to the experience was typical for many victims of sexual trauma.

He embarked on a path of sexual recklessness and lost his trust in women, generally speaking. After 20 years of a dysfunctional reaction to the traumatic stress, he finally sought help and got it from a psychotherapist.

No thanks to Mary Koss. And likely no thanks to many readers of this article.

Actually Mary Koss specifically pointed out that this sort of behaviour is quite harmful to men and not one piece of medical literature from the “establishment” seems to suggest not offering this man help. In fact the major stumbling block to this man receiving the help he needed seems to be the society rather than any of the people involved. A woman raped him, he didn’t get any help. Not because the help didn’t exist but because society prevented him from getting the help without losing what it means to be a “Real” man.

Mary Koss has nothing to do with this I am afraid. The case is still treated as rape by the police and judiciary. It’s just medically classified as made to penetrate.

And this attitude, so prevalent in modern culture, results in insensitivity that can only be described as mind boggling. From a report on the abuse of soldiers in Uganda. Eunice Owiny worked for Makerere University’s Refugee Law Project (RLP) to help displaced people from all over Africa work through their traumas. Here is a sample of what she discovered there:

“Men aren’t simply raped, they are forced to penetrate holes in banana trees that run with acidic sap, to sit with their genitals over a fire, to drag rocks tied to their penis, to give oral sex to queues of soldiers, to be penetrated with screwdrivers and sticks.”

Please don’t associate yourself with Eunice Owiny and the Refugee Law Project. Mr Elam is unaware of the group and it’s efforts to categorise and record war crimes of every single stripe in Africa. The RLP would balk at your support because they know there is little difference between Elam and the men who denigrate the rapes of women in Africa particularly during the civil war conflict of Uganda.

Owiny may want to consult with Koss, as according to her worldview those men likely weren’t raped, but the banana trees were.

Except Koss classes “made to penetrate” as just as bad as rape. So no.

It amazes me that people would quote literature that they simply have not read as a source.

The social mechanics of this imbalance in empathy and concern is simple. Misandry, the hatred of men and boys and the indifference to their pain, is a social norm. Koss uses the natural human tendency to be blind to the pain and suffering of men in order to shroud her agenda and her ethical failings in research.

How bizarre.

Can anyone name a piece of quackery dedicated to making men feel more pain than women? I can name one that is specifically aimed at women under the guise of TV Feminism. (Natural Birth! Got it in one!)

In fact medically speaking at no point are men denigrated for pain as much as women are.

And I must add that Koss wrote a fucking paper about a group of men who rarely had any fucking support. It was not MRA. It was a fucking feminist. Paul Elam is doing fuck nothing to help men who suffer the crime of rape. In fact all he is doing is screaming about the “bitches” in the hope that men who were raped by women will support him. That’s not helping.

She doesn’t even have to work at it. The average human being will read the first few paragraphs of this article and indulge themselves in reflexive hatred for whoever wrote it. They will sputter out words like “despicable” and “horrible” like they had Tourette’s.

Except I have read your work over the past 7 months. You are despicable and horrible. You gave voices to rape apologists in fucking Afghanistan. That’s pretty fucking textbook as far as horrible goes mate.

But move them down the column and their emotions change. The spontaneous outbursts calm down. They may even scratch their heads and mutter something weak about how we need to look more into this. They may even have a moment where they are forced to feel some compassion for male victims (though no outrage for how we treat them).

I am outraged you would utilise their suffering to flog your hatred of women and justify it. In fact I am pretty outraged that you would quote the CDC and not quote any off the reasons why made to penetrate is classified separately. I had to do it for you.

Because you know. Intellectual rigour and honesty are so prized by your movement. Ironically? Paul is guilty  of what he accuses us.

And then they will shrug that off and go right back to being angry with me for treating women victims with such egregious insensitivity.

Oh yes. Support of male rape victims totally allows you to say bullshit about my patients or denigrate the suffering of women in third world nations. I know for a fact that I am totally allowed to be racist simply because I help the poor.

It doesn’t work that way. You are still a terrible misogynist.

All because I wrote a few paragraphs of fucking satire, metaphorically putting shoes on women that we force men to walk in every day of their lives…for real.


I am sorry. Terry Pratchett is considered Satire. What you did was the abhorrent usage of women who had suffered a horrific crime in order to denigrate other women. The main reason for you denigrating Koss’s work is not that it classifies Made to Penetrate separately but that it creates the concept of date rape. Something a lot of MRA don’t like because how can we ever pull if they are not hammered.

Satire is the weaponisation of wit. Your work was entirely bereft of the driving force of satire.

I would wish you to walk in the shoes of women where I work but many of them have none for you to wear.

That is, as a rule, what we think of the pain of men.

I repeat this because people don’t realise it.

Paul Elam’s site has hosted people who’s response to the Indian rape was “Oh Yeah! Men have it bad too! We have to queue separately and there are different seats on buses for us and we have to pay nightclub entry”. Never mind the fact that these incentives exist because women keep getting groped in public. Women get free entry to nightclubs because nightclubs are DESPERATE. And that this meant women had it better than men. Never mind the fact that women are routinely killed, female infanticide and feoticide is common. As is dowry murder. That the chronic starvation of women in India is due to cultural practices and that in many parts of India women still do not get proper education or healthcare.

Paul’s site has also hosted people who defended the treatment of women in Afghanistan.

The pain of women means nothing to these people who would hurl the weakest and poorest of the world under a bus simply to prove that men have it worse across the globe and validate their existence.

Paul Elam thinks that the pain of men is a good way to drum up support in order to hate women on a larger scale.

Oh, and for those of you who think Mary Koss is wrong but I am still shameless and disgusting for saying what I did, I suggest a trip to the mirror because you are more disgusting than either of us.

Yes. Clearly you are worse than a rape apologist who silences the voices of some of the weakest, poorest and most oppressed women on the planet. Kudos for being a terrible person! The world needs more terrible savages like us.

I know what Koss is like. I can deal with her. She is an ideologue with an agenda and it is plastered all over everything she does. She doesn’t have empathy for men and she doesn’t pretend to.

Except remember this.

Paul isn’t doing anything to help these people. Koss has.

The very first article here is about getting better support to the men who were raped.

In that way I understand Black men who say they would rather deal with an open redneck than a closet racist. At least they know what they are getting.

People of Colour would rather not deal with any racists. And please, don’t drag race into this. The annals of MRA writing is filled with racist arguments about how “we are stealing your wimmin” and the pleasures of dating “Asians” who are just so grateful to you all…

No I am afraid the MRA movement is quite clear on it’s stance on “race”.

But for those prone to convulse with repugnance over some satire but who ultimately feel nothing over the suffering of men and boys, no matter how horrible or unfair, I really do hope you are angry.

Oh. I feel repugnance because you utilised the Delhi Rape for your witless version of whatever the hell passes for satire. India and it’s women and men ill need your voice. That you never cared about the Delhi Rape. You in fact invited people to shit all over her memory and massage the egos of the MRA into believing that India is a shithole for men. Why we have to sit away from women!

And I hope you choke on it.

You, not Mary Koss, are the reason this kind of writing is necessary in the first place.

As you  all know my typing is powered by the tears of MRA

As I said. The only reason why MRA hate Koss is not because she created the classification of Made to Penetrate. But because she created the concept of date rape and coercive sex.

As I said. If we included coercive sex and made to penetrate into the statistics it would be better. But the MRA are fooling no one if they think the incidence of Made to Penetrate is as high as the incidence of Rape on women. And that if we include coercion the total amount of rape for women would still be much higher and the current ideas on rape would still hold.

That women are still more likely to get raped. That men are still more likely to be the perpetrator of rape even on other men. That still hasn’t changed.

And it’s not Satire. It’s the denigration of rape victims for the agenda of hating women.


  1. says

    Howdy, i read your blog occasionally and i own a similar one and
    i was just wondering if you get a lot of spam feedback? If so how do you protect against it, any plugin or
    anything you can recommend? I get so much lately it’s driving me mad so any help is very much appreciated.

  2. smrnda says

    Wow, hats off for actually reading that whole thing and doing a take-down. An undercurrent I get from lots of MRA writings is that women are too emotional and that, dealing with issues that concern women, too subjectively biased to reach valid conclusions. The problem is that there’s no real reason to assume that men aren’t, the way that we’d assume white people would be biased towards believing that every minority person promoted must have advanced because of affirmative action. Given that many men commit acts that qualify as date rape, there’s a vested, personal interest in treating this as ‘not rape.’

  3. Gen, Uppity Ingrate. says

    I never thought I’d laugh at anything that combines the execrable Paul Elam and the topic of rape (because seriously, Paul Elam on rape = *raegscream*, but “Rapefinder General” made me lol. Good Omens is one of my favourite books ever, and you managed to bring that feeling to this subject. Well played, and good article.

  4. carnation says

    “Your ethos harms men as much as it harms women and portrays us vapid, selfish, useless rape apologists.”

    Avfm is an intellectual ghetto, same with Spearhead. Much as they’d like to, they are ineffectual. They don’t harm many women, but they do discredit men’s advocates.

  5. angharad says

    Eurgh! Ick! Ick! Ick!

    I think one reason Paul Elam fails at ‘satire’ is because saying ‘ha! you weren’t really raped’ is not a radical turn around of things we’ve heard all our lives (like say Gloria Steinem’s essay rewriting Freud’s discussion of hysteria and penis envy as womb envy). It is the things we hear all our lives.

  6. BGT says

    Sighs, good post as always Avi.

    I just wish the males of my nationality weren’t so depressing. The average redneck still isn’t THIS misogynistic. They can still be excused to a certain point because their education is designed by their culture and the relevant schools boards reinforce this, but my (non existent) god this is disgusting.

    He doesn’t even have the excuse of culture because his writing level suggests he had higher education. He just evidently refused to learn from any of it other than grammar.

    (insert appropriate expletive here) that makes me so (another expletive) angry.

    I try not to be an overbearing parent, but my little girl is only 10. Folks like this are the parents equivalent of the random serial killer, you can’t predict where they are but you are just so worried about them since a portion of our culture seems to encourage and protect them (F*&$ you Stuebenville OH)

  7. Ally Fogg says

    Good work Avi.

    Elam does here pretty much exactly the same as he did in his notorious piece where he made up research about women enjoying being raped, wrote a thousand words of the most repulsive shit and then concluded something like “Ha ha, only joking, but feminists make up statistics all the time and this just show how easy it is to do.”

    In both cases it is not even excusable as satire, because he is not satirising the behaviour or words of specific feminists, he is constructing a straw man and then satirising that.

    In this case, as you show, he has clearly not read anything by Mary Koss. What he has done is read Tamen’s blog (which I have some disagreements with, but is a serious and genuine attempt to address a difficult topic) and then Elam twists it in his own imagination into another paranoid fantasy about teh evil feminazis.

    He then writes a “satire” – not of what Koss actually says but of what he imagines she is saying or, worse, what he imagines she is saying.

    It would be a reasonable (if slightly dumb and lazy) rhetorical device for Elam to take an article by Mary Koss or any other feminist academic about sexual abuse of men, and flip the genders.But he doesn’t do that. He is not satirising Koss. He is satirising a paranoid straw man version of Koss.

  8. Ally Fogg says

    Interesting penultimate paragraph above! I can’t remember what I actually intended to write but I’m sure you can work it out.

  9. says

    you had such a problem with the start of his article without acknowledging that it was parody of Mary Koss’s positions on male rape victims, you also state early on 90% of victims are female then go on to look at the CDC statistics and say that made to penetrate should be rape which would change that 90% to about 51%. All the problem you have witht this article should be directed at academic feminism where they originated and are parodied in this article. You lack intellectual integrity and are so opposed to Paul Elam the person that you seem blind to the actual arguments he was making instead bringing up other shit unrelated to the argument to try to attack his character instead, I cannot fathom how anyone thing FTB is a place for intellectuals.

  10. says

    1. Pay Attention. I used british statistics.

    2. When we add made to penetrate to male rape and compare it to female rape (without made to penetrate added to female rape) you get a 1:4 ratio. AKA 80%.

    AKA it’s not 90% anymore, it’s 80%. Not 50%. Still the majority of victims are female. And still the majority of perpetrators are male.


    And no. It is not parody. Someone has fucking died in agony. They were raped so horrifically they died due to the object penetrating their body through their rectum. They died of rape.

    And Paul has given a platform to people who were not Parody in the aftermath of that who denigrated her suffering. Who blamed her for going out late and to a bad neighbourhood. They also made fun of the man who was beaten so badly (Because Men’s Rights is just a title you know!).

    I pointed out why Made to Penetrate is not classed as rape. Because Made to Penetrate is not classed as rape in women.

    No. I am aware of his arguments. This was a man who parotted the arguments used to force women into their homes in India. They were out late so she got raped to death. She was out with a boy so she got raped to death. Men don’t have it good in India, never mind the reality, men have to pay for nightclub entry. THAT was his website’s argument.

    He also claimed that women in Afghanistan have it better than the men. A country where I have seen women murdered for smiling. Where rape is a weapon because raping a woman will have her killed by her own family. A country where women are mutilated for being beautiful.

    Where once the biggest killers of women were childbirth, preventable disease and murder.

    And Paul Elam and his friends supported that culture.

    No I am afraid I know precisely what sort of a man Paul Elam is.

    So in short? His argument is stupid. His argument insults the deaths of those women he repeatedly accused of being sluts and who’s rapists he and his movement actually defended. And he didn’t read the damn papers he quoted.

    Otherwise he would have known precisely why Made to Penetrate is not included.

    And I repeat. Made to Penetrate was not included for women. If you wish to skew the stats that way then you have to add Made to Penetrate for women too and even without it the statistic is 1;4.

    And I also put up stats from the UK and the most recent one which includes made to penetrate stats and that shows the “same ratio” making Paul highly incorrect and indeed primarily against Mary Koss due to her stances on date rape and indeed it is clear he doesnt’ consider “got drunk and fucked” as rape. His stances on the treatment of the Steubenville Rape Victim are clear on that.

    What was it? Oh Yes. Gold Digger was one of the things the MRA called her. Do you know why she was raped?

    Because she REFUSED to sleep with the stars of the football team. They raped her because “she thought she was too good for them”. They raped her because she said no.

    And the MRA misters and their friends? They were more interested in why they were ruining the football careers of two rapists. Because throwing a ball around is more important no?

    And I am opposed to Paul Elam as a person. Anyone who fucks with my patients and makes their life worse is a terrible wanker. Paul’s ideology is actually more read on the Internet than mine and he has a bigger audience world wide. However it doesn’t make him right. It just means that a lot of people would rather think that a place where women are burned to death for not being worth as much as men is a world where men have it worse.

    Paul is a rape apologist. It is in his interest to portray women as some sort of super intelligent queen bee who sits at home eating cake and watching Loose Women. Even if it is in Afghanistan or India or the DRC. So I am afraid I am quite correct in considering him a vile and useless human being.

    There is nothing positive he brings to the world. Not One Thing.

  11. says

    Is not knowing the difference between “satire” and a “joke,” a prerequisite for writers at FTB?

    You attack Paul Elam because you don’t like him. You attack his rhetorical style because it makes you feel uncomfortable (as intended.) However, in order to attack his MESSAGE, you have to obscure, twist and change it into something it is not.


  12. says

    No, it is not “parody.” it is satire. You’re a writer and you don’t get that? Or do you just not want to acknowledge it because your finer feelings are offended? Sheesh!

  13. says

    A few weeks back I mentioned that roughly a 100 women are proven to be gang raped in Bihar with nearly 30% of them dying.

    Please don’t use the women of India for your Satire. Not after you fucking threw them under the bus.

    Paul Elam supported a “wide view of MRA issues” from India. And that involved rape apologies.

    I can tell the difference between Satire. This is not it. If this is what passes for MRA wit then I suggest you stop. The Chuckle Brothers are more witty than this. There is more satire in Asterix the Gaul than in this.

    This is not acceptable. Elam has hidden behind Nirbhaya and utilised the tragic rape to push and fight against womens’ rights in India. He has mocked attempts to help women In Afghanistan.

    His Rhetorical Style is no different to his normal bullshit.

  14. says

    And I repeat. His statistics are incorrect and he is not only quotemining the articles he mentioned but also misunderstanding them on purpose. He is confusing the legal classification of rape with the medical statistics of the CDC.

    And he doesn’t think Date Rape is a thing and has routinely attacked women who got “drunk”.

    So no. He is anti Koss.

    No one is stopping him from doing real research. In fact if we stood up and said we wanted to do something to help men right now, it will be feminists who wish to do something rather than whatever the MRA do.

    It’s simple mathematics here my dear.

    Paul Elam has explicitly supported the rape apologists of India and gave them a voice on his website. He has also supported the notion that men in Afghanistan have it worse than women there.

    I repeat. Do you think he is a good person? The man who slut shamed a 17 year old rape victim? A man who claims that the worst place in the world to be a woman is “not that bad”?

    I don’t think he is. If you think he is a good representative for the male gender then I am afraid you live in a fantasy world where you have had nothing to oppress you. Or worse. You live in the same gilded cage that the women who force their daughter in laws into purdah do.

  15. says

    There is a dead girl and her family. My feelings may be offended.

    But think what they would think if they read Mr. Elam’s work. In particular if they read his “earlier” stances on her rape and death.

    Still think it’s parody?

  16. says

    1. the CDC stats show 1.27million female victims of rape and 1.267 male victims of made to penetrate for a total of 2.537million victims which makes men 49.9%.
    2. fuck Afghanistan it has nothing to do with this article, your bringing it up is pointless to the context of this article.
    3. your disgust at him is hilarious because what he did was write female out of the definition of rape, he recounted their terrible experiences and wrote them out of the definition just the same as feminists has done to male victims and he did it with he intent of highlighting how wrong it is to do and you have a problem with him writing an article with the message that it’s wrong to write half the population of humanity out of the definition of rape instead of being mad at feminists which have actually written male out of the definition of rape in law.
    4. you still seem to not understand his comments about the steubenville case and other cases were not serious, he did not accuse them of being sluts he did not excuse their rapes, he actually made it quite clear that their rapes were horrible as that’s why he chose to use them to highlight the injustice of writing such cases out of the definition of rape. He intentionally highlighted how bad they were and then wrote them out of the definition of rape to show what Mary Koss did to male victims
    5. I would like to see links to the article which says “women have it better than men in [india or afghanistan], there is quite a difference between acknowledging that men have problems too and dismissing women’s problems.

  17. says

    “Paul Elam has explicitly supported the rape apologists of India and gave them a voice on his website. He has also supported the notion that men in Afghanistan have it worse than women there.”

    Hamsterlation: I think Paul Elam is a creepy person and he associates with other people I think are creepy. He’s a Bad Man, and I can prove it with carefully worded intentional misrepresentations (Mary Koss taught me that trick) vague accusations, and subjectively defined but inflammatory terms like ‘rape apologist.’

    They weren’t kidding when they said this has become “Free FROM Thought Blogs.”

  18. hoary puccoon says

    Paul Elam also seems to think that nobody realized the earth was round until the moon shots in the 1960s. So he’s not exactly got a clear and logical mind, there.

  19. says

    As a man I find pretty much everything I’ve heard of from A Voice for Men to be amazingly insulting and offensive. I definitely have far more trust in feminists than the likes of the MRAs for improving the lives of men generally.

    I don’t see a vision from the MRAs of what they would like to see society as that is even as good as what the feminists most dismissive of men are working on. In contrast the feminists around FtB are pretty thoughtful and convincing and would seem to improve lives for everyone quite a bit. I especially admire Greta Christina quite a lot.

    In contrast I’ve seen nothing to indicate Paul Elam is anything but a horrible person. He clearly doesn’t know how to write satire; the only thing he was satirizing was MRA positions. Hating on women isn’t going to improve things for men in the least.

  20. anne mariehovgaard says

    Suz: That’s not satire. Really, if you think saying the exact same vile shit as all the other bigots and then adding “LOL, I just said that to make a point” is satire, you need to take a remedial high school level literature class.

  21. says

    Thanks Anne Mariehovgaard! A literary critique is just the ticket. By all means, let’s debate what does and does not qualify as “satire.”

    I see nobody here has a coherent answer to *all of* what Paul actually said in his article. Anybody care to address PhillipMeehass’ points? Anyone care to address Paul’s points? (With something more relevant than “MY statistics are from a different country!” and “Raaaaaaype Apologist!!!”)

    Mary Koss is a liar who advises policy makers at the highest levels of Western government. As a result, sexual violence against women has been highly exaggerated and sexual violence against men has been not merely marginalized, but redefined into almost nothing.

  22. says

    Suz she’s not going to do that because she hates Eskimo’s and think clubbing seals should be a real sport!(see I can come up with random accusations of things which have nothing to do with the article you’re critiquing and have no actual merit whatsoever)

  23. firsttimereader says

    Avi, The first 1/3 of your post seems to be taking serious issue with words written by Paul Elam that he already admitted he made up in his attempt to make a point. There is no point to this.

    His main point seems to be that some feminist spokesperson or another sometimes deny the existence of female on male rape, or that ignoring such victims is “collateral damage” of the war against male rapists. This makes him so angry that he uses words that are deeply offensive to some people.

    I think Paul Elam is a sad angry guy, and I don’t normally read his work. Some other commentators here though seem to be stating that because they find his words offensive, it means that it is not satire…hmm. It’s only satire if I don’t find it offensive…really?

    There is a healthy debate to be had around statistics of sexual assault, (this is clouded by the changing definitions). I see the numbers of male victims reporting increasing, as will female ones, as victim shaming reduces and police improve their techniques and hopefully making the justice process more effective.

  24. says

    Except these were words and ideas that A Voice For Men specifically supported in the past. I only came across AVfM when they were fobbing off the notion that India treats women badly. Just a two weeks ago I wrote about them claiming that women in Afghanistan have it better than men.

    I also pointed out in that article Paul Elam himself supporting that stance.

    So I am afraid this is not “Parody”. It isn’t him mockingly saying that people accuse him of these things when really it’s not that way like for instance my post on “How Gays are Ruining Marriage For us All” (By having such beautiful marriages that it makes anything I could have look rather lame).

    It’s not sarcasm. It’s stuff he has done in the past. He and the MRA movement defended the Rapists of the Steubenville Rape. He and the MRA movement downplayed the severity of the Indian Rape until she died and then they tried to downplay the amount of rape in India and then they tried to hide the treatment of women under affirmative action rules without mentioning why those rules were put in place in the first place.

    No I am afraid this is not new for Paul and the MRA movement. It is not parody or satire. It is unfortunately repeating words that Paul and his movement have said in the past.


    This was just after Nirbhaya died. A Voice For Men came out swinging against the notion that India sucks for women. After a woman was raped to death and after people pointed out that the main reason for the anger was the rapists “accidentally” targetted someone from a group of people who won’t take such attacks lying down. If they had raped and murdered a poorer woman they would have got away with it. The women who fought this time were rich, educated and had monetary independence that couldn’t be stiffled by the police.

    And AVfM came out on the side of the culture that raped her.

    You may not realise this but just because Indians don’t comment on the site doesn’t mean they do not read it. It gets passed on. AVfM’s article was a horrid testament to everything that was wrong about Indian culture.

    And Paul Elam encouraged it. He Supported It.

    “The easiest way for any government to control the entire population is to turn women against men, while telling them it is empowerment.

    Toss in a couple of shiny trinkets, and presto, you can pass any law you want and no one will make a peep.”

    “It seems to have struck a chord of discontent with some in India, though.”

    I liked that quote. It had MRA in Canada going “oh those poor Indian Men! Without an ounce of sarcasm”.

    Every single post there is one of absolute vapidity. Not one post by Paul is a “No mate, now is not the time” or “Are you kidding me? The reason why women get separate seats in buses is to stop men from groping them”.

    Not One. Instead it is unquestioning support.

    Paul Elam never cared about the horror of Nirbhaya or the fact that most Indians were puzzled that it made International news. Why?

    Because what happened to Nirbahaya happened every day. The only reason it hit the collective consciousness was that she was a University Student so the student protests and vigils that were broken up resulted in students “not listening”. And then students got shot and beaten by policemen. Which caused more students to take to the streets. Which caused their parents to get involved. Which basically dragged the part of India that is rich enough to not fear the police or politicians to get up. This group is the most educated and the hardest to corrupt but often the most silent because it is a group without the gross wealth or the numbers to make itself felt. It is the middle class.

    So instead of mindless arguments you found women demanding sex education and changes to the way boys are taught and the culture.

    And all that was ignored for “Well Women Do Not Pay Entry Into Night Clubs”. Do you know why? Because women are often so harassed in them that they won’t go. This is a desperate attempt to get even a few women into the clubs.

    Oh and I have to point out that I could only afford to go to one of these places if I saved up for a month. Each drink is the cost of my normal day’s food and entry alone is more than a week’s worth. Paul Elam quoted the lifestyle of the equivalent of a millionaire. He may as well have complained about the price of Caviar when discussing the economic crisis in the west.

    There is no healthy debate with this sort of person. Paul’s intentions are clear. Hate Women At All Costs.

    Think of it as how White Pride isn’t about caucasian culture but about bashing black people. Men’s Rights are not about Men but about bashing women. You never hear about White Pride Ballet or Morris Dancing. You hear about them goose stepping, tattoing each other and fighting minorities.

  25. thascius says

    Since the MRA’s are throwing around the CDC’s statistics on rape, I thought I’d look up the actual report and see what it says. Surprise, surprise, MRA’s lie, or at any rate exaggerate. According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey the estimated lifetime prevalence of sexual violence (including all types-completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, alcohol drug facilitated penetration, MADE TO PENETRATE (emphasis mine), sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, non-contact unwanted sexual experiences) is 75,014,000 for women and 26,711,000 for men, which translates to roughly 26% male victims of sexual violence. More than some other estimates I’ve seen, but given that male victims of sexual assault generally face even more disbelief and victim blaming than female victims of rape, not too surprising. Still, a lot less than 50/50 though.

  26. thascius says

    Another thing I noticed about the CDC #’s. The MRA’s have been citing the 12-month prevalence of rape for women (1,270,000) vs the 12-month prevalence of forced to penetrate for men (1,267,000). On the other hand the lifetime prevalence of rape for women is 21,840,000 while the lifetime prevalence of forced to penetrate for men is 5,451,000. Only looking at those 2 #’s the percentage of total male victims is about 20%. I’m not sure what to make of that discrepancy. It does seem rather strange that men could make up half of the victims in these 2 categories in the last 12 months before the survey, but only about a fifth over the course of their entire lives.

  27. Tamen says

    Except I pointed out and have posted the “2013″ Crime Survey of England and Wales which classifies all unwanted sex against will or without consent as rape.

    I have looked closely at the CSEW published earlier this year and looked at the questionaire used. All unwanted sex against will or without consent is NOT counted as rape. Mainly due to CSEW closely following the UK legal definition of rape given in SOA 2003 which states that the rape victim has to be penetrated.

    A man who are given a blow job or being mounted by a woman who inserts his penis into her vagina while he is for instance unconscious or otherwise not consenting was not counted as rape in the CSEW published earlier this year.

    You seem to be of a different opinion – can you lay out the support for you assertions that all unwanted sex without will or consent is counted as rape in the newest CSEW?

  28. thascius says

    @30-I read through the CSEW as well and you are correct that unwanted sex is not counted as rape unless penetration is involved. It is counted as sexual assault. I think the point that was intended to be made is that it is being counted as sexual violence. I agree it should be counted as rape, but it isn’t being ignored, at least in the crime survey.

  29. Tamen says

    Actually it’s not even counted as sexual assault. CSEW (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214970/sexual-offending-overview-jan-2013.pdf) operate with three categories (see table 2.6 p 18) where the two first have two sub-categories:

    Most Serious Sexual Offense (including attempts)
    — Rape
    — Assault by penetration

    Most Serious Sexual Offense (excluding attempts)

    Grouping the percentage of men who actually had been made to penetrate someone else together with the likely-higher percentages of victims having been groped, flashed, sexually threatened and so on (all part of the sexual assault category in CSEW) effectively hides how many men are victims of “being made to penetrate someone else”.

  30. Tamen says

    Apologies, I somehow entered submit by a keyboard shortcut before I was finished typing my comment and the above is a unfinished draft. I’ll continue where I left off with the categories used in table 2.6 p. 18 in the linked report.

    Most Serious Sexual Offense (including attempts)
    — Rape (SOA2003 p1 section 1 – require victim penetrated by perpetrators penis)
    — Assault by penetration (SOA2003 p1 section 2 – require victim to be penetrated)

    The same as above but excluding attempts and finally the last category:

    Other Sexual Offence

    From page 11:

    For both sexes, the vast majority of incidents are accounted
    for by “other sexual offences”, which include offences relating to indecent exposure,
    sexual threats and unwanted touching.

    In fact when looking at the current question set (not the new one in the split sample evaluation) the only answers a male victim of being made to penetrate might answer that makes him count in the statistics at all is option 2 and perhaps 3 in the question PV5A-PV5F:

    Since the age of 16, has ANYONE ever caused you fear, alarm or distress by doing any of the following? This may have been a partner, a family member, someone you knew casually or a stranger.

    1. Indecently exposed themselves to you (i.e. flashing)
    2. Touched you sexually when you did not want it (e.g. groping, touching of breasts or bottom, unwanted kissing)
    3. Sexually threatened you (e.g. demanded sex when you did not want it, followed or cornered you in a sexually threatening way)
    4. None of these
    5. Don’t know/ can’t remember
    6. Don’t wish to answer

    Now, I’ve heard it argued that these (2 and 3) can be said to capture men being made to penetrate, but then it can be argued that they are equally suited for capturing women who are raped (who by definition also have been touched sexually when they didn’t want or have perhaps been sexually threatened) .

    In contrast one can look at the question for Most Serious Sexual Offense (PV13A-PV13I):

    Since the age of 16, has ANYONE ever done any of the following things to you, when you made it clear that you did not agree or when you were not capable of consent? This may have been a partner, a family member, someone you knew casually, or a stranger.

    1. Penetrated your [vagina or anus/anus] with their penis, even if only slightly
    2. Penetrated your [vagina or anus/anus] with an object (including fingers) even if only slightly
    3. Penetrated your mouth with their penis even if only slightly
    4. ATTEMPTED to penetrate your [vagina or anus/anus] with their penis, but did not succeed
    5. ATTEMPTED to penetrate your [vagina or anus/anus] with an object (including fingers) but did not succeed
    6. ATTEMPTED to penetrate your mouth with their penis but did not succeed
    7. None of these
    8. Don’t know/can’t remember
    9. Don’t wish to answer

    Notice how specific it is. It is much harder to imagine a rape victim who has been penetrated not answering any of these in the affirmative compared to imagining that a rape victim who has been made to penetrate would answer no to all the options in PV5A-PV5F – perhaps in the expectation that there later would be a question later directly addressing the crime they’ve been victims of – as described in SOA2003 part 1 section 4 subsection 4 c-d (which is punishable with up to life). As an interesting sidenote section 4 subsection 4 a-b seem to pretty much be a redundant as it is already covered by section 1 (rape) and 2 (assault by penetration). I speculate that at some point there was a move to replace the legal term rape (like they have in Canada), but it failed and the attempt wasn’t cleaned up before the law was in effect.

    So I strongly suspect that CSEW undercounts male victims of “being made to penetrate” (SOA2004 4.4 c-d), but that it hardly matters anyways since their numbers are buried in muvh less serious and much more common sexual offenses like unwanted kissing, groping, indecent exposure and so on.

    And when the OP here boldly asserts that the CSEW does include all unwanted sex without will or consent as rape I wonder how they reached that conclusion. Either they made an assumption or they believe that only the person being penetrated is having sex.

    The OP is by the way also wrong about Mary P Koss when she writes:

    “It would also be desirable to conduct further quantitative inquiry using the revised SES (Koss et al. 2007), which contains items that have been crafted with behavior-specific wording to elicit information on a range of SV experiences. This will make it possible to base men’s rape prevalence estimates with more specificity on acts that involve sustaining forced penetration, leaving less leeway for men’s individual perceptions of what constitutes ‘forced sex.’”

    and the OP interpret this to mean that

    The idea is that Koss et. al wish to codify and specify what forced sex is so that it only involves penetrative sex EITHER being forced to penetrate or being penetrated. This includes anal, vaginal and oral sex. So if a man doesn’t want to have sex and you give him a blow job it is penetrative and therefore Forced.

    reveals that the OP didn’t look up the revised SES (the questions are available online if you search for them), because then he would’ve seen that none of the questions will capture a man who has been forced to penetrate someone else either anally nor vaginally. It will however capture the case with oral sex as Koss et al doesn’t split forced oral sex into fellatio or cunnilingus – only because either would be rape if done against a woman the cynic in me presume and not by some considerations to men performing oral sex without their consent.

    Mary P Koss is the author of a paper called “Detecting the Scope of Rape : A Review of Prevalence Research Methods” published in Journal of Interpersonal Violence June 1993 8: 198-222. She talks about male victims three places in this paper and I’ll quote those places in their entirety:
    Page 206:

    Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.

    That quote pisses me. It strips for instance James Landrith of his identification as a rape victim.

    Page 208:

    Among men, the terms “sex” and “sexual relations” may activate schemas for situations where they penetrated women. Clarification is necessary to ensure that male respondents realize that the situations of interest are those in which they were penetrated forcibly and against their will by another person, and not situations where they felt pressure or coercion to have sexual relations with a woman partner.

    Page 218, which contains a list of recommendations on measuring rape prevalence, one of which is:

    2. If men and boys are to be included, care must be taken to ensure that their data are accurate counterparts of rape prevalence among women. This means that men must be reporting instances where they experienced penetration of their own bodies (or attempts).

    All which makes it crystal clear that Mary P Koss thinks it’s inappropriate to call a man who have been made to have sex for a rape victim unless he was the one being penetrated by the perpetrator.

    The Chile survey did not follow recommendation 2 by Koss as the surveyors simply used the question-set meant for female victims (there were none for SES Victim question set for men) in the original SES. The Chile paper co-authored by Koss stated that the revised SES would make sure that only men being penetrated are counted as rape victims – and a look at the questions in the revised SES Victimization (revised SESV) reveals that victims of being made to penetrate (with the exception of oral sex) wold not be counted.

  31. thascius says

    “Since the age of 16, has ANYONE ever caused you fear, alarm or distress by doing any of the following? This may have been a partner, a family member, someone you knew casually or a stranger.

    1. Indecently exposed themselves to you (i.e. flashing)
    2. Touched you sexually when you did not want it (e.g. groping, touching of breasts or bottom, unwanted kissing)
    3. Sexually threatened you (e.g. demanded sex when you did not want it, followed or cornered you in a sexually threatening way)
    4. None of these
    5. Don’t know/ can’t remember
    6. Don’t wish to answer ”
    I don’t see how being made to penetrate could NOT be counted as 2 and possibly 3 depending on exactly what happened. If your point is that classifying this with “other sexual offenses” downplays the seriousness of it, then yes, I agree. If your point is that being made to penetrate should be listed as a separate question, that’s reasonable.
    Koss’s position in that 1993 paper you quoted is screwed up. It is not, however a position universally held by feminists or unique to feminists. I remember watching a legal program 5-6 years ago where the case being discussed was of a teacher who had had sex with an underage male student (I think he was 12 or 13) and received a much lighter sentence than a man who had sex with an underage female student. The self-identified feminist panelists (all women) all agreed that this woman should have received as severe a sentence as a male offender. The male panelists (not self-identified MRA’s but none were pro-feminist) all said she should not be punished severely, maybe she shouldn’t be punished at all, since (and I’m paraphrasing as best I can remember) “penetration is what makes sexual abuse traumatic.”

  32. thascius says

    Another thought occurred to me. In the debates over rape statistics “made to penetrate” tends to be used as a proxy figure for “women raping men” but that may not be accurate. A man can fellate another man against his will as easily as a woman can. A man can be made to penetrate another man as easily as he can be made to penetrate a woman. Unless the numbers are broken down by gender of perpetrator as well as victim, we don’t really know how many “made to penetrate” cases are female on male rape vs male on male rape.

  33. Tamen says

    Well, what “made to penetrate” tends to be used as a proxy figure for depends. In pretty much any debate I’ve been someone has invariably put forth the argument that male victims are primarily victimized by other men, often unsubstantiated, other times supported by anecdotal evidence as the OP here and other times referring to statistics like the NCVS or police reports (NCVS doesn’t conside being made to penetrate rape and Police reports and conviction rates does not paint a true picture of rape for either gender). So in my experience the claim that most raped men are raped by other men is a claim that often surfaces when the issue of male rape is brought up. The OP here for example used is as a proxy figure for male-on-male date rape (as I quoted him in my previous comment).

    CDC did in fact do a breakdown by the gender of perpetrator in their NISVS 2010 Report and they found that 79.2% of the men who reported being made to penetrate reported a female perpetrator (page 24). Which certainly is vital information to have if one is going to design preventive measures.

    As for question PV5A-PV5F which you quoted, if you read my previous comment you’ll see that I DON’T argue that “being made to penetrate” CANNOT be covered by answering yes to answers 2 and/or possibly 3, I am however arguing that it’s likely to undercount victims of “being made to penetrate”. Most people have an mental image of what “unwanted sexual touching” is. I wager that most people primarily think of groping when they hear that term. I’m also sure that most people wouldn’t ever describe anal, vaginal or oral intercourse as “sexual touching” – despite by a strict definition it is. This is further supported by the question listing “groping, touching of breasts or bottom, unwanted kissing” as examples of unwanted sexual touching which makes me think that the designers of they survey doesn’t think “being made to penetrate” belongs in that category.

    As for number 3 it wouldn’t cover sleeping or unconscious or otherwise incapacitated victims, nor would it necessarily cover physical force (unless it was preceded by a threat). Ask yourself, do you think this question captures accurately all female rape victims (remember, it’s asked prior to the question about rape (PV13)) – and by that I mean, do you find it likely that all or close to all female rape victims answer yes on PV5. Do you think the survey would have much use for victims of penetrative rape if question PV13 was removed?

    And yes, I also think classifying “being made to penetrate” as “Other sexual offenses” downplays the seriousness of the act itself (just as many feminists argue that the term “grey rape” downplays the seriousness of rape), but more importantly it also effectively makes it disappear – the report itself reports that 0.5% of men experienced other sexual offenses (“which include offences relating to indecent exposure,
    sexual threats and unwanted touching”) – any victims of “being made to penetrate” who answered yes on PV5 might as well not done so.

    And yes, I would like being made to penetrate either listed as a separate question or as explicit alternatives on the question about rape. The new revised question which have been evaluated by use of a split sample in the latest CSEW survey do have a “some other sex act” option for the question about rape (NIPV35 and NIPV35AA-NIPV35AF). In other words it listed up the explicit way one can be raped by penetration and throws in a “some other sex act not listed above” option. It’s better, but still suffers from the fact that one simply can’t tell how many victims have been made to have oral,anal,vaginal intercourse against their will and/or against their consent – since “other sexual acts” is a term pretty wide open for individual interpretations by the respondents. There is also the fact that the researcher evaluating the new question set in their report states this (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/analysis-bcs-ipv-2011) :

    If the alternative question set is favoured then are further amendments needed to minimise the risk of reporting experiences that should not be classed as IPV? Should these be limited to the stalking questions, less serious sexual assault questions or to others?

    And later on they state this:

    In the analysis presented here those respondents who said that they had only experienced ‘some other sex act not described above’ were categorised as non-victims to ensure that the category of serious sexual assault retained the same definition as in the current question set (this is not an option in the current question set).

    which makes me less than confident that any new question set will capture all victims accurately.

    Koss’s position in that 1993 paper you quoted is screwed up. It is not, however a position universally held by feminists or unique to feminists

    No, and as far as I can see I haven’t made that claim. I am however troubled by the lack of outrage (and sometimes the defense Koss gets – like in the OP) when this is brought up. This lack of outrage, discussion, and criticism troubles me. The significance of this not only being the opinion of the average Jane and John Doe on the streets, but also for one of the most cited researchers on rape isn’t recognized.

    One of the things I think Elam was aiming for was to contrast the outrage against people saying that the Steubenville victim wasn’t raped against the non-outrage against Koss stance that it’s inappropriate to call it rape if a man is forced to PIV/PIA/(PIM) intercourse.

    As for the anecdote about feminist panelists seeing female-on-male teacher-pupil statutory rape as not different than male-on-female teacher-pupil statutory rape it really doesn’t say much as there are plenty of anecdotes finding feminists separating those two: http://jezebel.com/5131399/is-there-an-upswing-in-high-school-female+to+male-statutory-rape (with a dose of blaming the victims of looking better these days due to Retin-A and and increase in personal grooming and weightlifting). Gloria Erin Ryan posted a jokey comment on that article stating “This problem would go away if just teachers would stop being so hot.”

    But, yes, it is a fact that many men fail to see being made to penetrate as harmful. Research indicate that there is a difference in male victims perception of harm and actual clinical harm:

    Given the evidence of numerous adverse clinical outcomes following sexual abuse, the positive and neutral perceptions of many male sexual abuse victims are perplexing. Hunter et al reported that males who were older when victimized were less likely to blame the perpetrator (P<.01), and males involved in more coercive experiences were more likely to blame themselves (P<.01). Perhaps abused males perceive that they have failed to meet a social expectation of self-protection. Rather than accept the failing, they may minimize the event itself. The experience of physical pleasure, as well, may complicate reactions after abuse.


    Research also indicate that male victims of CSA are much less likely to report/disclose the abuse even on surveys:

    Using data from a prospective-cohorts-design study, a large group of children who were sexually and physically abused or neglected approximately 20 years ago were followed up and compared with a matched control group. Accuracy of adult recollections of childhood sexual abuse was assessed using 4 different measures, completed in the context of a 2-hr in-person interview in young adulthood ( N = 1, 196). Results indicate gender differences in reporting and accuracy, substantial underreporting by sexually abused respondents in general, good discriminant validity and predictive efficiency of self-report measures for women, and some support for the construct validity of the measures.

    In general, we found that women and men differ in the extent to which they recall or report having experienced childhood sexual abuse. Approximately 16% of men with documented cases of sexual abuse considered their early childhood experiences sexual abuse, compared with 64% of women with documented cases of sexual abuse. These gender differences may reflect inadequate measurement techniques or an unwillingness on the part of men to disclose this information. They may also reflect differences in the meaning of these behaviors for men and women, particularly viewed in a cultural context. Gender differences in reporting and in perceptions of early childhood experiences may reflect early socialization experiences in which men learn to view these behaviors as nonpredatory and nonabusive.

    Overall, we found substantial underreporting of sexual abuse among known victims of childhood sexual abuse. This is particularly impressive because these are court-substantiated (documented) cases of childhood sexual abuse. Much attention has been paid to the lack of recall or failure to report histories of childhood sexual abuse among known victims of abuse. Although this lack of reporting is significant, it may not be surprising when viewed in a somewhat different context. Nonreporting by crime victims in the context of victimization surveys has been studied for a number of years (Garofalo & Hindelang, 1977), and problems with respondent embarrassment about the incident or “protective mechanisms,” or simply memory decay or forgetting have been described.

    Widom, C. S. & Morris, S. (1997). Accuracy of adult recollections of childhood victimization: Part 2. Childhood sexual abuse. Psychological Assessment, 8, 412-421.

  34. says

    Hello there! Would you mind if I share your blog with my zynga group? There’s a lot of people that I think would really appreciate your content. Please let me know. Thanks

  35. bastet1 says

    The MRA’s, manoshere, redpill and other sex based hate groups are doing more to trivialise and undermine the concerns of men internationally. Their focus on ‘feminazi’s’ and the hatred of women is drowning out the genuine voices of men who are trying to improve the world for the whole of humanity. Their female members are either men pretending to be women or are women suffering Stockholm syndrome. We need to remember these loud and heinous voices of contemptuous bile are the last desperate stragglers of a devolved mindset desperately trying to rally support for old, archaic ideas. We are hearing the desperate screams of a dying hate culture.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>