But according to table 2.1, on page 18, 1,270,000 women were raped “in the last 12 months” (1.1%). “Rape” includes: “Completed forced penetration,” “Attempted forced penetration” and “Completed alcohol/drug facilitated penetration.”
According to the table on the next page (table 2.2), 1,267,000 men were “Made to penetrate” “in the last 12 months” (1.1%).
This strikes me as unbelievable. But it seems to come from a perfectly legitimate source.
Definition of “made to penetrate” from the article for those that don’t want to load a PDF:
[QUOTE=The PDF]
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 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.
[/QUOTE]
I think the parts that probably have the most effect are the “victim was drunk or high” -(two drunk people having sex would both be victims under this scenario) and the “made to receive oral sex” (a sexually aggressive boss demanding an underling get a blowjob, or a cheating husband claiming rape).
Also from the report:
[QUOTE=The PDF]
Male victims most commonly
reported a known perpetrator
for all types of sexual violence
other than rape. Nearly half of
male victims reported an intimate
partner (44.8%) or an acquaintance
(44.7%) as a perpetrator in situations
where the male was made
to penetrate someone else.
[/QUOTE]
From this it sounds like an aggressive partner demanding sexual activity when the victim doesn’t want it.
I don’t know whether two drunk people having sex would both be victims in the CDC report. I mean, literally, I don’t know. But I think it’s more likely than not that you’re right.
However, does that explain the disparity? The CDC study explicitly includes “Completed alcohol/drug facilitated penetration” under its definition of rape of women. In fact, it’s the absolute majority of ALL rapes of women: 781,000. In other words, if the “two victims” scenario is accurate, wouldn’t they cancel each other out?
This doesn’t make sense to me. “Demanding an underling get a blowjob”? Maybe you could flesh it out, because it seems like a really unlikely scenario.
Of course, people could be lying. But it was a confidential survey. In any case, in order to explain the discrepancy, you’d have to be saying that men are lying more than women. I’m not sure why that would be the case. If anything, I’d expect men to be less likely to admit to being raped, than women.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. I mean, it’s still rape if a woman unwillingly has sex with an acquaintance or a partner, as far as the CDC is concerned. So that wouldn’t explain the discrepancy.
The answer to your title question is No. For one thing the data doesn’t indicate gender of perpetrator, and for another looking at more than just those two numbers indicate women are more likely to be victims over a lifetime.
That still leaves questions about how those numbers add up. For unwanted sexual contact the 12 month average is higher for men, and yet the life time estimate is 2.5 times higher for women.
There’s also gay males skewing the numbers - possibly, I don’t know if that’s the cause.
Surely you agree a male boss could be sexually aggressive towards a female employee? So why do you think a female boss wouldn’t be sexually aggressive towards a male employee? Besides, I think you may be underestimating the number of women that enjoy giving head, to the point where they may not care that it’s a willing partner.
I don’t understand your objection. If a dude’s girlfriend demands that he goes down on her if he doesn’t really want to, that would be “made to penetrate”. I think it’s much more likely that it would be rape, which is under a different column than made to penetrate, for the opposite gender alignment.
Plus, again, there’s gay males to skew the numbers.
“underestimating the number of women that enjoy giving head”? Possibly. I thought that number was something close to zero. But my experiences are admittedly limited.
You think what is “much more likely that it would be rape”? In other words, what does “it” refer to in the second sentence?
The “Rape” category, I think, refers to the victim being penetrated; otherwise there’d be no reason for a separate “made to penetrate” category.
Yeah, I was wondering about that too. It seems like another discrepancy.
The only things that come to mind are (1.) drunk sex. That’s the largest single category under rape for women. I suspect it accounts for a lot of the “made to penetrate” numbers for men. (2.) Maybe older men aren’t willing to answer questions in a way that gets them in the “made to penetrate” category. As in, “I was so drunk last night, I don’t remember anything, but at least I got laid!”
I think yellowjacketcoder’s comment ("If a dude’s girlfriend demands that he goes down on her if he doesn’t really want to, that would be “made to penetrate”) is misleading. I don’t think they’re defining “unwanted sex” as rape. But you can judge for yourself (page 17):
But seriously, the number is far from zero. Just as there are guys that enjoy going down on a woman, there are women that enjoy going down on a man. Frankly, I am surprised this is not common knowledge among those that are not prudish in the extreme.
My apologies for being unclear.
I mean a woman being sexually aggressive towards a man is more likely to fall into the “made to penetrate” category, which is distinct from the “rape” category, while a man being sexually aggressive towards a woman is more likely to fall into the “rape” category.
Thanks, some things I am seeing which could seriously skew the numbers is the drunk or high thing, how are they quantifying that? Does it mean slightly intoxicated but still able to give consent or unconscious? If you call any sexual contact where one or more participants have consumed drugs or alcohol in some previous time frame rape you will find a lot of rape.
Also the non-physical sexual coercion category which can be almost anything.
On page 24, it does discuss the sex of the perpetrator involved - 79.2% of male victims of “being forced to penetrate” indicated that it was a female who forced penetration.
One in 5 women have been raped, and one in 21 men have been forced to penetrate someone else (page 2).
No, I don’t really understand just how the numbers all add up either.
I’m not sure about that. Pornhub has several documentaries about that very topic.
So, lemme get this straight, since I’m finding the study’s results unconvincing. Being drunk, a guy wearing beer goggles is being forced to penetrate a woman he would not normally be attracted to? When his partner manipulates an erection and climbs on after he said he was too tired he’s being raped, so he goes along to make his partner happy and because it’s a shame to waste an erection and a willing partner, so what the fuck? Are these the pathetic things the CDC is calling rape?
The word “rape” is suffering serious dilution in recent years. Where once it was a powerful word describing a violent act, it’s becoming meaningless.
Not sure Pornhub is reliable source. I mean, correct me if I’m wrong; it’s just that the fact that it has “porn” has part of it’s name automatically makes me suspicious. Am I being prejudiced?
I don’t think so. You can look at the study, or the definitions posted upthread and make your own decisions.
Well, taking advantage of a woman when she’s drunk has been part of the definition of rape for a while. The single biggest category under the “Rape of women” section of the CDC report is “Completed alcohol/drug facilitated penetration”. Penetrating a woman “when she’s too incapacitated due to the introduction of drugs or alcohol to meaningfully consent” has been part of the law of rape in many (most?) states for some time.
Now you could argue there should be a double-standard. And maybe there should be. Maybe it’s fine for women to have sex with men when they’re too drunk to meaningfully consent. The CDC’s own definition is “unable to consent”. So your example: “so he goes along to make his partner happy and because it’s a shame to waste an erection and a willing partner” would not make it into the CDC sample, because “he goes along” means he’s consenting.
The numbers not adding up have a lot to do with one of the unstated assumptions I think most are making. That assumption is that any given offense adds to both lifetime and current 12 month rates. That’s not necessarily the case. Explaining the difference between men being the target of violence as often in the last 12 months vs liftetime could potentially be explained by the same men being targeted more often. That could be in an ongoing relationship with an offender (and we see people stay in violent relationships so it wouldn’t be surprising to see similar relationships related to sexual violence.) Tip toeing around the victim blaming line, there’s also the possibility that men who are targeted, for whatever demographic or cultural reason, are more likely to be targeted multiple times by different offenders across their life.