Rape and the social differences between MF and FM rape

[Lief]

Hi I am quite new here, but this topic came up between myself and my g/f earlier today, and we both kind of agreed on the reasons behind the general social outlook on each type of rape.

I apologise if this is either inappropiate, or has been covered before (a link would be nice!)

First is the male rapes female, but also the male beats female (partner), or the male somehow abuses female.

In general society, the woman is just a victim of a physically superior male, and he should be punished.

Second is the female rapes male, and all the other variations.

In general society, the man would be a 'pussy' for complaining about said acts.

I think the obvious answers are that men are generally physically superior to women, and as such this shouldn't happen to a man, but I was wondering why this is the general society outlook on said events, or to be more specific:

Why (and is) this the general outlook of society?

I haven't slept yet so I may of worded this all badly, but I hope you can get the general principles of my question, cheers.

[Ziggy Stardust]

What you say is certainly part of it. There are social double-standards.

Honestly, though, it is simply more difficult (on a biological level) for a female to rape a man, regardless of relative physical strength. For a man, it is a pretty simple procedure. Subdue and insert. For a female, it is a little more problematic. They have to induce an erection. Unless they slip a guy a roofie and a viagra, or penetrate them with a strap-on. That difference is pretty profound, when it comes right down to it.

This is a decent study, and there are certainly more out there on various academic journals.

[Coyote]

Female rape of a male would probably not rely on physical force so much as some sort of psychological or emotional pressure to engage in unwanted sex. But getting an erection is frequently an automatic response with the right stimulus, so under the right conditions a female could rape a male.

I suppose it would also be possible for alcohol or drugs to be involved. A male could complain, but not only is there the social stigma of being seen as a sissy for crying "rape" after unwanted sex with a female, there's also the notion that it probably wasn't "unwanted"; that he's just saying it as post-coital guilt or something.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Female rape of a male would probably not rely on physical force so much as some sort of psychological or emotional pressure to engage in unwanted sex. But getting an erection is frequently an automatic response with the right stimulus, so under the right conditions a female could rape a male.

IIRC (I last read about this years ago and am hardly an expert), the typical scenario typically involves either the man being tied down or several women. As for stimulating an erection that's simple enough; strangulation is the usual method I understand.

[Temujin]

Well in the case of a legitimate rape the male does have some things to be concerned about besides being called a pussy. The female could purposely avoid birth control and get pregnant, and then try to further fleece him for alimony. She could also have an STD, which could result in a merely mild inconvenience to a death sentence. Granted either would likely be rare, but not impossible.

[ArmorPierce]

Women getting physically turned on and making vaginal secretions whilst getting raped is not unheard of you know.

[Temujin]

I just reread my post, and while it may not be too clear, I am referring to the male being raped by the female. My apologies if I confused anyone, as it seemed potentially confusing to me.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Women getting physically turned on and making vaginal secretions whilst getting raped is not unheard of you know.

It's certainly not very common, but of course it's not completely unheard of, either. Rape fantasies are quite common and some women might get a subconscious response to an actual rape by becoming physically turned on. It would still be a rape, since actual consent would require actively signaling a wish for sex and not doing anything to resist (well, there might be mock resistance in an S&M or rough sex roleplay, but you usually do not do such things with strangers, so the rules of the game would be known to both).

So, it really is analogous to inducing an erection in a man by any means necessary. The only difference is that inducing an erection in a physically fit man is probably easier than inducing a physical arousal in a woman under duress, and of course you do not even need the latter in order to rape a woman.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Female rape of a male would probably not rely on physical force so much as some sort of psychological or emotional pressure to engage in unwanted sex. But getting an erection is frequently an automatic response with the right stimulus, so under the right conditions a female could rape a male.

IIRC (I last read about this years ago and am hardly an expert), the typical scenario typically involves either the man being tied down or several women. As for stimulating an erection that's simple enough; strangulation is the usual method I understand.

I really wish I knew where it was, but a while ago I had a report that said that a large percentage of Males being "raped" involved 'facesitting' or Forced Oral stimulation against the male victim as opposed to traditional vaginal sex.

[Oskuro]

In my understanding, what really makes rape what it is is the psychological factor (the penis/vagina couldn't care less), so a person of whatever gender can be raped by being subjected to a situation that its mind understands as rape. Coitus is not necessary (legal definitions aside).

A woman could pretty well cause a similar psychological effect on a man through psychological torture. For example, a very self-conscious (as in shy) man being forced to nakedness and humiliated before a group of women could be a devastating psychological blow tightly related to sexuality and intimacy, even if the man's penis is never inserted anywhere aganist his will.

And, of course, using a strap-on to anally rape a man is essentially the same thing as a man anally raping a woman, no physiological difference there.

[Molyneux]

Hi I am quite new here, but this topic came up between myself and my g/f earlier today, and we both kind of agreed on the reasons behind the general social outlook on each type of rape.

I apologise if this is either inappropiate, or has been covered before (a link would be nice!)

First is the male rapes female, but also the male beats female (partner), or the male somehow abuses female.

In general society, the woman is just a victim of a physically superior male, and he should be punished.

Second is the female rapes male, and all the other variations.

In general society, the man would be a 'pussy' for complaining about said acts.

I think the obvious answers are that men are generally physically superior to women, and as such this shouldn't happen to a man, but I was wondering why this is the general society outlook on said events, or to be more specific:

Why (and is) this the general outlook of society?

I haven't slept yet so I may of worded this all badly, but I hope you can get the general principles of my question, cheers.

Something that may prove helpful for you: look up the rates of male-on-female domestic abuse and compare them with the rates of female-on-male domestic abuse. Then think about how often you've heard the term "battered husband", no matter what the numbers say.

[Ilya Muromets]

And, of course, using a strap-on to anally rape a man is essentially the same thing as a man anally raping a woman, no physiological difference there.

There's still a difference in the possible physical damage induced. Given a penis and a dildo of similar dimensions, the penis is still made of flesh. A penis also won't stay rigid indefinitely. It won't be as hard and unyielding as most materials dildos are made of. Even the relatively softer jelly-rubber or silicone ones are still more unyielding than your average penis. You factor in all the aggressive thrusting involved in anal rape and it's likely that a dildo would be likely to do much more damage to the rectal tissues than an equivalently-sized penis.

[Coyote]

Something that may prove helpful for you: look up the rates of male-on-female domestic abuse and compare them with the rates of female-on-male domestic abuse. Then think about how often you've heard the term "battered husband", no matter what the numbers say.

But is that entirely fair, though? Think about even our most liberal democracies and how many men will immediately run to the police and admit they've been raped at all, much less by a woman?

It is hard to get women to report being raped; it comes with shame and humiliation and a many times a sense that they did something wrong that brought the assault on themselves... now imagine all that along with the certain sense of ridicule that will go along with a man saying a woman raped him.

Plus, men who are victims may not even see themselves as victims, really. If a woman gets angry and slaps her husband, but the husband isn't actually hurt, he may just shake his head and think, "she's off on one of her tantrums again" and not really connect the dots that he's just been the victim of domestic violence. And if he isn't hurt, he may feel silly or childish in reporting it since "nothing really happened". There may well be a lot of men who endure physical abuse from women because they don't think they should hit a female but don't want to admit that a woman is doing this to him.

Rape and abuse in relationships is a strange and tricky place, because so much of it is wrapped up in both psychological and emotional blind spots.

[Oskuro]

There's still a difference in the possible physical damage induced.

My point was about anatomical differences, not about the item being used to rape the person. From behind, men and women are essentially the same, so it is a way to physically rape a man that doesn't require an erection.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Plus, men who are victims may not even see themselves as victims, really. If a woman gets angry and slaps her husband, but the husband isn't actually hurt, he may just shake his head and think, "she's off on one of her tantrums again" and not really connect the dots that he's just been the victim of domestic violence. And if he isn't hurt, he may feel silly or childish in reporting it since "nothing really happened". There may well be a lot of men who endure physical abuse from women because they don't think they should hit a female but don't want to admit that a woman is doing this to him.

There have been some recent studies about domestic violence towards men in a relationship and it really appears that it is a very under-reported problem. Not so common as domestic violence towards women, but not terribly rare either. Since being beaten by your wife or girlfriend is still something that would make you a "pussy" and an object of ridicule among other men and even women, abused men do not usually talk about their experiences even with their friends, much less with officials. Also, like you said, because the injuries are often less visible due to women being on average physically weaker, the battered husbands sometimes do not even realize that they are being abused.

In fact often these cases are reported only as the man finally "loses it" and starts to hit back. While retaliation in kind is definitely not acceptable either, it could very well have been avoided completely if society would not deem women hitting men in the heat of a row as a non-problem.

[Molyneux]

Something that may prove helpful for you: look up the rates of male-on-female domestic abuse and compare them with the rates of female-on-male domestic abuse. Then think about how often you've heard the term "battered husband", no matter what the numbers say.

But is that entirely fair, though? Think about even our most liberal democracies and how many men will immediately run to the police and admit they've been raped at all, much less by a woman?

It is hard to get women to report being raped; it comes with shame and humiliation and a many times a sense that they did something wrong that brought the assault on themselves... now imagine all that along with the certain sense of ridicule that will go along with a man saying a woman raped him.

Plus, men who are victims may not even see themselves as victims, really. If a woman gets angry and slaps her husband, but the husband isn't actually hurt, he may just shake his head and think, "she's off on one of her tantrums again" and not really connect the dots that he's just been the victim of domestic violence. And if he isn't hurt, he may feel silly or childish in reporting it since "nothing really happened". There may well be a lot of men who endure physical abuse from women because they don't think they should hit a female but don't want to admit that a woman is doing this to him.

Rape and abuse in relationships is a strange and tricky place, because so much of it is wrapped up in both psychological and emotional blind spots.

I'm not entirely sure whether you are disagreeing with me or not.
What I was getting at is that the rates of female-on-male domestic abuse are not insignificant, but the very concept is not taken seriously in most popular media in the US.

[Coyote]

Ah, okay, then-- sorry, Molyneux, I misread and thought you were implying it wasn't a major problem. My apologies.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Something that may prove helpful for you: look up the rates of male-on-female domestic abuse and compare them with the rates of female-on-male domestic abuse. Then think about how often you've heard the term "battered husband", no matter what the numbers say.

Last i heard, the most recent studies estimated the rates of abuse to be approximately equal; but as you imply the rates of female-on-male abuse being reported much less arrested and prosecuted is far lower.

One example; I recall some years ago reading a news story about how feminists in various states got laws passed in several states requiring that the police arrest the perpetrator of a domestic assault without discretion and regardless of whether or not the victim wanted it, under the apparently honest belief that a great many male perpetrators were being let slide. Instead, the result was a large upsurge in women being arrested, because it was the women who were being let slide. I recall one of the feminists in question being quoted as saying that was because men were stabbing and hitting themselves to make their wives look bad.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

I can attest to this having had experiences with my mother throwing chairs, other objects, scratches (still have some literal scars), hitting me in the face (major no no for me) and calling the cops on me because I restrained her mostly for her protection (swear if she'd kept going I would have killed her). When these situations took place I was young ~14-16 and while I realize that it isn't fair and is exceedingly biased in females favor I understood that pound for pound, even with a significant weight advantage, females (obviously dependent on health) are really at a disadvantage when it comes to physical confrontations. In one chair incident I simply bear hugged my mom and she couldn't move. I squeezed her so hard her arms were heavily bruised and while I had a pretty decent lump on my head, it went away much faster than the bruises on her arms.

Basically what I'm saying is that socially I can understand the difference between male and female biases toward rape and violence. Females just aren't equipped with the same parts for stress responses that we are. However that does not remove the responsibility from the aggressor party be they female or male. I don't think that one should be held any more or less accountable. However I do believe that the actual overall physical damage sustained by the victim will most likely be worse in a male aggressor female victim scenario than a female aggressor male victim scenario and even in a non-biased legal system when it came to reporting of crimes (under reporting due to victim shame), would still result in a bias in sentencing simply due to injuries sustained by the victim.

[Dark Hellion]

Rape is a very tricky subject to talk about for a variety of reasons. Since these reasons are somewhat independent but interconnect I will give each a separate paragraph, although in reality one could write essays on each facet.

First, among the three major 'sins' in Western civilization (murder, rape and torture) none seems to engender the same moral outrage as rape. Unlike murder and torture, rape seems to have an air of violation that transcends the physical and psychological harm it inflicts. This makes it very hard to talk about in an objective manner and the excessive emotion tends to badly cloud judgments. There is much more that could be said about this and I could give my personal reactions but I think this suffices to lay out the first problem.

Second, rape is very difficult to classify. There seems to be a continuum of sorts between persuaded sex, coerced sex and forced sex. Where we draw the line is very difficult to determine. It seems logical that the line is somewhere in the persuaded sex range, but where within this loose classification is very hard to put ones finger on.

A simple scenario can show that not all persuaded sex is necessarily immoral or akin to rape. Imagine the following; you have just got off of a long day of work. You are tired and you really just want to go home, sit on the couch, eat some food and chill for a couple of hours. Your significant other (S.O) had the day off and has been sitting around most of the day doing their thing. You get home and start to change out of your work cloths. Maybe they were already in the mood or maybe seeing you changing spurred their sex drive, but for whatever reason your S.O. now really wants to fuck. They tell you as such and you say you really don't want to. You are worn out from work and don't want to have sex at the moment but 30 seconds of your S.O.'s tongue in your mouth and hands down your pants changes your mind. Now, when initial sexual contact was initiated you didn't want to have sex and gave a generic refusal of consent. Your S.O. through their actions persuaded you. But clearly you don't feel raped because you were easily persuaded and you did not feel any violation because of your S.O.'s actions. Hell, the above scenario happens quite frequently and occasionally leads to some of the best sexual experiences one can have. It also reads exactly the same as a date rape scenario up to the last sentence.

The above is a rather round-about but generally illustrative example of why it is so hard to classify the lower end of the rape spectrum. It is highly dependent upon the feelings of those involved and an idea of consent that is difficult to pin down. It clearly becomes even worse when intoxicants are involved, a drunk stranger generally can't give consent but your S.O. may want to drag you back to their room for a quicky when sloshed. This makes date rapes, acquaintance rapes, and spousal rapes very hard to accurately judge as it is understandable how someone could misread implied consent and the mixture of emotions can make accurate determinations nearly impossible. But these difficulties do not diminish the significance of the reality of such crimes.

Now, coerced sex is much easier to judge. It will probably be either rape or prostitution, dependent upon how the victim perceives it. If there is a certain willingness to consent, then it become a form of prostitution such as a student of legal age sleeping with a professor for grades or an employee sleeping with a boss for promotion. Even if the coercion came first, the victim is willing to trade sex for the reward and thus has prostituted themselves. This does not absolve the guilt of the perpetrator, who is at best an extortionist. This tangent is a whole other can of worms and while on topic would be better suited for another post. Most other times coerced sex is very simply and rape. Same with forced sex. These obviously bring the full weight of moral condemnation.

The final difficulty with rape I'll discuss is motive. Contrary to some beliefs rape often (or generally by some studies) isn't about simple sex. It has a lot to do with power, dominance and aspects of self-esteem/self-confidence. This is yet a further complication to the discussion and one that I probably could go into further as well.

While probably a general repetition of what people already knew these factors (along with others) help to explain some of the reasons why it is very hard to have consistent social attitudes about rape. People tend to be overly emotional to the nature of the crime which they have trouble classifying and understanding the motives of. This will lead to the somewhat confused and confusing positions that people generally have about the subject.

[adam_grif]

Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse: How Women Batter Men and the Role of the Feminist State

By Linda Kelly. Makes for interesting reading. Of note:

While the similarity of rates of physical violence by wives and
husbands presented by the various surveys is revealing, such data is
not sufficient to make an accurate comparison of the violent nature of
wives and husbands. As the definition of “physical violence” used in
the various CTS-based studies ranges from “throwing something” to
“using a knife or gun,” wives arguably could compare to husbands in
use and frequency of violent behavior, but not in the severity of the
type of violence employed.
Some differences per type of violence utilized by each sex are certainly
evident. Women were found to be twice as likely to throw
something at their husbands.24 Wives were also more likely than
husbands to kick, bite and punch.25 They were also more likely to hit,
or try to hit, their spouses with something and more likely to
threaten their spouses with a knife or gun.26 Husbands, on the other
hand, rated higher in the four categories of pushing, grabbing and
shoving;27 slapping or hitting;28 beating up;29 and actually using a
knife or gun.30 Yet, such per category differences did not evidence
that men were unquestionably more prone to acts of severe domestic
violence than women. Combining the data collected on the last five
categories of physical violence to create a “Severe Violence Index,”
wives were found to engage in more severe acts of violence than husbands.
31 Taking the frequency of severely violent behavior into account
does not mitigate these findings. Wives show a pattern of severely
violent behavior statistically comparable to husbands.32 Consistent
with this “over-all similarity” found in the 1975 survey,33
other early reports also found that husbands and wives show “equal
potential” for intimate violence and that they “initiate[d] similar acts
of violence.”34

[Oskuro]

First, among the three major 'sins' in Western civilization (murder, rape and torture) none seems to engender the same moral outrage as rape. Unlike murder and torture, rape seems to have an air of violation that transcends the physical and psychological harm it inflicts.

I guess that, from an evolutionary standpoint, rape (of a female) implies the possibility of her being impregnated by another male, wich would result in a drain of resources that does not ensure the propagation of the chosen male's genes.

[eyl]

First, among the three major 'sins' in Western civilization (murder, rape and torture) none seems to engender the same moral outrage as rape. Unlike murder and torture, rape seems to have an air of violation that transcends the physical and psychological harm it inflicts.

I guess that, from an evolutionary standpoint, rape (of a female) implies the possibility of her being impregnated by another male, wich would result in a drain of resources that does not ensure the propagation of the chosen male's genes.

Another possible reason is that unlike murder or (to a more limited degree) torture, you can't really compose a scenario where rape is justified (I can't imagine any such scenario, anyway).

[Tolya]

I've read a piece on the topic in one of the polish weeklies a few years ago.

One of the female rapes on a male that was presented there was a story of a soldier, who was drugged and then blackmailed into having sex. He said that the woman threatened him to file a rape charge if he didn't have sex with her. And who would believe that a fragile woman could rape a strong soldier, right?

Afterwards, the guy was so embarrased and traumatized that he kept this a secret for many years and ended up with PTSD, as far as I can remember.

Rape doesn't have to rely on physical force. There are other means of enforcing submission. Like weapons. Or the aforementioned psychical blackmail.

[adam_grif]

Or the aforementioned psychical blackmail.

I think you mean "emotional" or "mental", but neither fits what you're saying perfectly. Just "blackmail" is fine.