Not that either would be much of a preference, but which would be less traumatizing? This is assuming that the rapist isn’t someone you know well, not a family member, close friend, or boyfriend but someone who might be a threat to your life, something like a date rape scenario.
Someone brought this up and I’m kind of thinking the average woman would prefer to be raped by another woman as another woman would seem a little less likely to kill you. That’s certainly the way I would feel about it whether it’s true or not. I don’t really have much perspective on such a situation though so I’d like some opinions from women.
Rape is rape. Are you thinking that a rape that “aligns” with your sexual orientation is somehow a “lesser” crime? It’s not. And do you really think that, while getting raped, someone’s thinking “Well, at least she’s not gonna kill me.”? I doubt it, and the implication is offensive.
Neither, although a woman wouldn’t be able to get me pregnant.
I also believe that a male rape victim can potentially experience greater trauma than a female victim, especially if he’s straight. No, he can’t get pregnant, but he can get an STD.
Women who were convicted of raping another woman usually assisted a man by acting as a lookout, or holding the woman down.
I can’t imagine that the sex of the person would enter into it. Being raped is, well, being raped - there’s no way you could describe the experience as being ‘better than’.
I am by far no expert on rape and certainly hope I do not ever get raped, but I think I can easily imagine types of rape that would be better than others. For example, if my rapist used lube instead of just letting me bleed to provide lubrication, lubed rape would be objectively better than unlubed rape. Psychologically and emotionally it might not feel any better, but I if I had to pick between the two, I know which one I’d pick.
That being said, I don’t think there’s enough info. A woman raping another woman could in theory do all the same terrible things a man could do, including getting the woman pregnant if she had some viable semen with her for some reason. In general, statistically speaking, women are probably less likely to kill other people, and be a little less physically brutal or strong, so on statistical grounds, I would probably rather be raped by a woman than by a man. And I’m a gay man, so I’m not choosing this based on sexual orientation.
That’s exactly the kind of answer I was looking for, and not simply because it agrees with what I was thinking. I almost mentioned gay men in my original post since they kind of fall into the same boat as straight women in this sense. And it’s not simply about actual statistics (I doubt many have actually looked up the statistics) but which gender is simply perceived to be more dangerous. On a similar note, if I was going to be tortured and was given the choice of a male or female torturer (an odd scenario I know), I’d go with the female.
Several of the times I’ve had people attempting to rape me it was mixed-gender groups. I’m wondering why does the OP assume rapists always work alone when there are so many cases, specially when it’s over a long time, when it’s a group.
One of those times was brought up by the OP: a college student leaving a busy street market, a couple in a car with a map open, “excuse me, could you give us a hand here?”, the woman opens the door to show me the map (already unusual, most people would just poke it through the window), I give them directions, she says “oh, you’re so nice, why don’t you come with us and we can have us some fun?”, I look at her leer, I look at the man behind the wheel, he’s pretty much slobbering, I say “no” and try to walk back, she tries to grab my hand, she doesn’t lose an arm because she’s faster pulling it back than the door slamming, I run back to the market where I know it’ll be safe.
It’s been over 20 years and I still don’t know which one of those two pieces of human-shaped filth pisses me most, sorry.
You said you’re talking about something like a date rape scenario, so in that case I wouldn’t really fear for my life, so I guess a man. And I’d rather it was a man I didn’t find physically gross. I think the closer it was to a situation I might actually choose to have sex in, the less traumatic it would be.
Date rapists don’t usually kill people. Whether or not I would fear for my life would depend on what exactly he was doing though. If it was sadistic, then yes, I would be scared. If it was the kind of sex I might choose to have voluntarily, but just HADN’T chosen, I’d just be mad (and I’ve been in that situation so it’s not hypothetical).
The last time I heard of any actual scientific studies on what kind of rape is most traumatic, women apparently suffered the most emotional trauma when raped in a way where pregnancy is possible, which makes sense.
How do your statistical grounds hold up when you control for the fact that your sample group already consists of those who are prepared to commit violent crimes?
No, I wouldn’t prefer to be raped by a woman. The idea that woman-on-woman rape is the inherently preferable combination of victim and attacker would seem to follow from the sexist belief that women are incapable of doing real physical harm to others, along with the belief that “real sex” requires the penetration of a vagina by a penis. Even though rape is not sex, this thought still comes into play. You can see it in people’s reactions to male-on-female rapes in which the victim is raped non-vaginally: either it’s not so bad, and not really rape, or else it’s all that much more horrible because of the rapist’s choice to forgo “the natural way” in committing his crime.
How is this perception relevant in a situation in which a woman has already begun or completed a physical assault against someone and proved herself to be a danger?
I can’t understand why. It’s not as though women are any more gentle than men when committing torture. Maybe the average man possesses more bodily strength than the average woman, but the average woman is also stronger than the average torture victim—someone who in most cases has been deliberately weakened or immobilized.
I don’t really see it as a significant factor. I already didn’t want it to happen, so the gender of the rapist doesn’t make a difference. Like “would you rather be raped by someone with attached earlobes, or the free kind?”
There are perhaps things that are “worse” (as drewtwo99 mentioned), but for me, the rapist’s gender is not one of them.
That really depends. Plus, I think that a lot of people assume that one woman raping the other wouldn’t involve penetration. That’s not necessarily so. There are lots of implements that aren’t penises that can be inserted into a vagina or even a rectum. Depending upon the implement used - fingers, dildos, sticks, other homemade implements - it could be just as painful and damaging, possibly moreso than being raped by a man. It all depends upon the intent of the rapist.
I try to imagine it like this. A man has you in a room and he tells you that behind the green door is another man and behind the yellow door is a woman. Both of them want to rape you but only one will be allowed. You have to pick which one rapes you.