I would personally argue against the legal use of the term “rape,” as its colloquial use has recently grown to encompass implicitly coercive acts. Although these can be traumatic for the victim, they do not necessarily indicate ill will or intent on the part of the perpetrator. In such situations, mandatory counseling for first offenses followed by increased punishment for further infractions would seem to be acceptable. This is probably pretty close to what already happens now.
Why would you think this? There are surely many men who have been victims of sexual abuse by women.
What is your evidence that 1. these cases are not prosecuted?
What is your evidence that 2. women commit half of them?
What is your evidence that 3. the offenses are not prosecuted because women commit half of them?
Keep in mind that:
A. For mechanical reasons, STD transmission from the penetrated partner to the penetrating partner is significantly less likely than the reverse.
B. The percentage of men who are carriers of any given STD is not necessarily equal to the percentage of women who are carriers of that STD.
I apologize for having no statistical data on the subject I have studied for a long time – after the invention of antibiotics the problem is largely history.
I have read many books about sex workers who felt exploited and infected hundreds of men.
I would venture to guess that most sex workers who feel that they are being exploited are probably correct. It’s dangerous for them to freelance and they aren’t typically union. 
You see, this is exactly what I’ve been talking about since the OP. We have widespread rape of men, female guards responsible for a large proportion of it, but some people will go through any outlandish rape-apologist intellectual contortions because they would rather believe the rape victims are seducing their rapists, presumably with the promise of an emotionally fulfilling and mutually respectful relationship on the outside, and then cruelly exploiting them as part of, what, an elaborate prison break? Or is “good in the sack” something that sounds good before a parole board?
We’re talking about women who rape men, let’s not build castles in the sky like a pervy romance novelist, okay? Some women are just bad, they’re sexual predators and gravitate to somewhere they can rape with impunity, not a big surprise, surely.
Which would you guess is more common: female COs boning male prisoners, or male prisoners trying to bone female COs?
And how many male prisoners do think are going to bed sad tonight because their CO girlfriend broke their heart?
I said it should be dealt with very harshly legally and professionally. But do we really have to pretend it’s actually hurtful to the affected men?
Again, you’re trying to distract from the fact of female rape by pretending it’s consensual sex.
Raping someone doesn’t make them your boyfriend.
Rape? Yeah, I think it’s harmful, no matter how much you want to pretend that we’re talking about consensual sex.
I bet the literal majority of male prisoners would love to have sex with a female CO.
Both males and females have been convicted for this. The most notorious is Aziga, who received two life sentences without possibility of parole for twenty-five years and a dangerous offender designation for two murders, ten aggravated sexual assaults, and one attempted aggravated sexual assault.
Last October, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously found in both the Mabior and the D.C. matters that even if there is no disclosure of HIV, there should not be a conviction if both the viral load is low and a condom is used.
Note that in Canada rape is no longer a specific charge, and instead is charged as sexual assault, which has a much broader definition. See section 271 and following of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Now we’re getting really, really far into “overapplying rape” territory, imo. Yes, it can be emotionally devastating, and in fact be rape when a person abuses their position of power to force somebody they have power over to have sex with them (or if not force, otherwise get sex because the person is indifferent and would rather not rock the boat).
However, this creeps into territory that you have to be very careful with. The reason is that sexual relationships involving a power dynamic are not always rapey. The difference between this kind of crime and rape is that it can plausibly* be completely consensual, with the “victim” being absolutely 100% okay with it and consenting. Even if the sex isn’t for love, the person at the lower level may be initiating it to get kinder/better treatment (the stereotypical “secretary seduces boss to get a raise”). So pretending like all such cases are emotionally devastating is very disingenuous.
That said, the problem with these scenarios is that they might be non-consensual, with the superior using their power as leverage – or as I said, the superior not explicitly using their power, but the inferior merely being afraid they’ll use their power if they don’t have sex (even if the fear is unfounded). This is why it shouldn’t be allowed, and a firing offense, because you can’t know the reasons and the potential victim could be too afraid to speak up because of the repercussions associated with accusing a superior of doing such a thing (or alternatively, the fear that the inferior will get preferential treatment when the superior is on duty). Should we prosecute it as rape if the victim comes up to the cops/courts saying “so-and-so used his/her position to force me into sex”? Yeah, sure. But pretending that all instances of sex involving a power dynamic, even in a prison scenario, are rape of the inferior is really, really stretching it beyond credibility.
I’m not going to make the same judgment Blackberry is making about whether or not male prisoners having sex with female COs is more likely to be with the prisoner as initiator (i.e. whether or not it’s more often a rape scenario or not). My opinion is that there’s not enough data to be sure, but you’re acting like it even happening is necessarily rape, and that’s simply not true.
ETA: And before you say it. Adult/child statutory rape is different because as a society we’ve deemed children and teenagers not intelligent/mature enough to enter into consensual contracts, including the one required for sex. That part doesn’t apply to the two-adults case.
- I say plausibly because somebody can come up with some wacky scenario where somebody getting jumped-out-of-the-bushes raped legitimately enjoys it and consents mid-rape, but unlike in this case it’s almost purely a bizarre magical parallel universe scenario.
I assume, with this prison stuff, we’re talking about the study linked back on the first age, that says men are more likely to be “victimised” by female staff than by male inmates in American prisons. I’ve read through it, and it does report some inmates, both male and female, wanting to have sex. It says women “were equally likely” to say the sex they had as inmates was willing or unwilling. It also says that 42.2% of prisoners who had “unwilling” sex were men victimised by women, a plurality. It also counts sex obtained under threat of being denied parole as “willing”.
So, we’re not talking about prisoners seducing their female guards here, we’re talking about rape, or at the very least some sexual coercion which could easily be construed as rape, and would be if the sexes were reversed. Not just legal rape, which it is even when the sex is willing, but actual “sex against his will” rape. The sexy seduction angle is just Blackberry’s fantasy. In fact attempting such a seduction would normally be against the rules, and even when an inmate is rapes against his will, the study reports, the most common response is that the inmate be punished.
The study clearly shows, yes, that there is “willing” sex in prisons. Although it does undermine that by counting “coercion” as “willing”, but still. But that’s not what we’re talking about, is it? We’re talking about those who were forced to have sex, the largest group of which were men victimised by female staff.
It’s not necessarily rape, it’s mostly rape. According to the aforementioned study 56% of men who were “sexually victimised” had willing sex, although that includes coerced sex and obviously includes those who had both willing and unwilling sex. Nonetheless the most common group having unwilling sex in prison are male inmates being specifically victimised by female guards.
I disagree. It’s the same because prisoners don’t have the power to say no when that’s what they want, as children don’t have the intelligence (or the power, probably). But even so, that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about prisoners who don’t have sex willingly, but against their wills, not even willing because of coercion, but straight up unwilling.
People in prison have to carry on their lives as best they can, which might well involve having sex. But again, that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about prisoners being raped by their guards, the largest group being men abused by women. But some people just don’t want to believe it, they want to pretend that really the prisoners are seducing their rapists.
Comment withdrawn then, I thought we were talking about the general case, I didn’t realize we were talking about a specific study of prisoners who self-report having sex unwillingly. In that case yeah, sure, rape.
Don’t you think it’s probably true though? It seems pretty obvious to me. It’s prison. It’s a barbaric place that does not inspire good behavior. They have very little access to women, for years or decades or forever. The woman can go have sex with any number of free men. The man cannot.
Plus I’ve known female COs. And I’ve known men who have been in prison. I got propositioned while briefly visiting a juvenile detention facility, for god’s sake.
Sure, conventional wisdom says this is the case, but if there’s a study that contradicts conventional wisdom then I tend to go with the study (unless the study is blatantly, obviously wrong such as claiming 98.2% of men sexually prefer ducks to human women or something). I didn’t read the study linked so I’m mostly taking blindboyard at his word that it says what it says, but my agreement is contingent that the article wasn’t misrepresented. However, if there’s a glaring error in methodology or similar and your objection isn’t just “but it comes to a conclusion that clashes with my intuition” then I wouldn’t mind hearing it. I’ll try to get around to reading the study later, so I can actually offer a substantive dis/agreement. I’m just used to approaching studies with the mind that common sense doesn’t really mean anything (perhaps it’s because I come from a math/science field rather than a humanities one).