In doing research for another topic I visited the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports website. Link

The Uniform Crime Reports come out Annually and are excellent sources of information is one is attempting to research crime statistics. However, it would seem that in at least one category they are lacking.

While there, I reviewed their FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) and came across this startling admission:

Source: Uniform Crime Reports FAQ


I found it really surprising to discover that in this modern age of sexual equality the US Government and the FBI still feel that Men cannot be "Raped".


Questions for Debate:

Should the FBI continue to ONLY count female victims in their Rape statistics? Why or Why Not?

Can a man be Raped?

There is no question at all that men can be the victims of rape. Such a crime is in no way less horrible than the rape of a woman.

From the same link you provided, I found this, which is even more foolish:



This is nonsense, and gets in the way of accurate information.

Wow! Thanks for pointing that out. I was so floored by the first part (which lead to the creation of this topic) I didn't read any further.

This is simply insane.

A man cannot rape a man? There is a VERY small difference between the physical act of a man raping a man and a man raping a woman. Interestingly, while women are subject to less and less social stigma associated to rape as the years go on, a male victim is severely stigmatized.

What I find interesting is that the Federal Government has IRON CLAD rules when it comes to sexual equality in the workplace. link. Yet, the government chooses to treat men differently when dealing with the crime of rape. I know, the Federal Government and hypocrisy tends to be synonymous these days, but this is getting ridiculous.


Side Note:

Here's some more interesting hypocrisy for ya. Remember the attempt to get a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Remember the resistance to legislation designed to clearly include homosexuality as a protected category in terms of civil rights and discrimination? Well, I stumbled across this tonight and had to do a double take (for the record I COMPLETELY agree with it, I just don't understand how other government actions reconcile with it):

link

hypocrisy abounds.

The above probably deserves it's own topic, but I am really tired, so who is gonna start this one?

(1) The FBI needs to change its definition.

(2) Males can be raped [especially by other males, i.e., less of a mechanical problem in accomplishing the rape, as it were].

Now let me address ever so briefly another problem with the definition. "Forcibly." So that does not count statutory rape, nor does it count rape that is not accomplished by force [think date rape drugs].

And not only does it not include males, statutory rape, and non-forcible rape, but because some states, think Illinois, report as rape all rapes, the FBI does not use any data on rape from Illinois.

As a true measure of just how insidious the FBI definition is, a little over 30% of sexual assaults/rapes wherein the victim is under age 6 are male. So they not only don't get reported as having been raped, but for the lesser category that would apply, such only occurs if an arrest has been made, which is not the circumstance for the rape category [which includes all reported rapes not deemed to be "unfounded"].

Lastly, the sexism behind the definition is made plain when you consider that rape was not originally viewed as a crime against the person but as a crime against property. And that is why only females could be considered to have been raped. So, if nothing else, call the FBI definition the embodiment of our former rather unenlightened view of the status of women in our society. And for that reason alone, the definition should be chucked out the nearest window.

Should the FBI continue to ONLY count female victims in their Rape statistics?

No.

Why or Why Not?

Rape is an act of violence. The victim's gender is irrelevant.

Can a man be Raped?

As already stated, yes. I believe that we are talking about one
of the most un-talked about subjects because of the shame
associated with it.

Boys are victims of sexual abuse, just as girls are. But there
is even more stigma associated with victims who are boys
because they are not given the support and encouragment
and protection to come forward about it.

As discussed in other threads, there is so much sexual abuse
and exploitation, in many different forms, occurring still,
and we must find a better way to confront and eradicate
the ongoing epidemic.

Should the FBI continue to ONLY count female victims in their Rape statistics? Why or Why Not?

The FBI should count it as rape if the state in which it occurs counts it as rape. Rape is not a federal offense in most circumstances (I believe). If the crime that the state calls rape is committed, then a rape has been committed, and that should be counted in the FBI crime statistics as a rape, the same way federal statistics for OUI use state standards for the alcohol level that marks OUI. (On a related note, the MGL actually refers to a rape victim as "he.")

Can a man be Raped?

The primary answers are "no," "only by other men," or "yes, but it's not nearly as bad." "No" can only be justified by defining "rape" as such, a matter of semantics. For the purposes of argument, I'll define "rape" as "nonconsensual genital intercourse." The most common idea is that a man cannot be forced into sex with a woman, because he must have an erection, which implies consent. The logical, almost inescapable conclusion of this is that a woman who shows signs of arousal cannot be raped. Go into a women's rights rally and say that sometime, I dare you!

As for the third argument, there are two schools of thought that could lead there. The first is that men are fundamentally driven by sex, non plus ultra, and this is a boon to him, not a violation. It is impossible to convince a woman, or some men, that this argument is false. It is trivial to argue that it is only true for heterosexual or bisexual men, but some will say that no man who could be raped such could be truly homosexual. It could be argued that any man who would go to court proves that this is not true, at least for him, but other than that it is academic.

The other school of thought is that rape is a crime against women, and to rape a man, by a woman, is not nearly as bad. This argument is very common, and being a matter of pure philosophy, academic.

1.) No. The same government that promises to protect me denies me? Pigs...

Women fought for their equal rights, they've won. Men are now losing their rights to safety. In that safety I do not think the government should be there to prevent rape but to acknowledge it- rape is a crime regardless of sex age or gender.


2.) In short, yes a man can be. Hormonally challenged college students take to using "date rape drugs" for their pleasure- is it hard to imagine a women could do the same to a man? No matter how strong or freakishly huge a man may seem and how inconceivable it is for a female to rape him: a man can still fall victim to rape.

For what its worth VDemosthenes, the male version of rape is still classified as sexual assault, so its not like the law doesn't consider it a criminal act. Bear in mind, I'm not defending the classification, just explaining it a bit.

There's no question this statistical classification needs "modernizing". I find it ironic that the CRSA is so antiquated in one area (definition of rape) and so progressive in another (sexual orientation as a protected class). Your government dollars at work.

Doc

Tenn. Teacher Pleads No Contest in Sex Case



Her plea deal gives her nine months of jail and 90 hours of community service. Does anyone in their right mind believe that a man would have gotten the same deal? This woman is getting off the hook for rape because she is female and happens to be beautiful. This is a terrible double standard and does nothing but hurt the children involved in similar situations.

This looks like something of a semantics problem, although it does have a heavy overtone of insensitivity.

I have worked for court systems in the past, and according to what I recall, "rape" in the legal sense involves a penis and a vagina. A penis and any other orifice would be "sodomy" or "sexual assault." So therefore, a man can be "sodomized" by another person, but not "raped."

But by quibbling over the verbiage, the FBI only invites criticism for being insensitive, which is definitely the case if they are implying that "force" cannot be a factor in an assault against a man. Let's hope the guy who thought this up has never seen "Deliverance."

Also, in my recollection, there HAVE been a handful of cases where women raped men; however, they almost all involved multiple assailants and SEVERE mutilation. So if an FBI man thinks a male who's set upon by females should just relax and enjoy it ... let's hope he never gets told "you got a real purty mouth."

Questions for Debate:

Should the FBI continue to ONLY count female victims in their Rape statistics? Why or Why Not?

No. This should be changed ASAP. There is a stigma attached with being a victim of any sexual abuse, but I imagine even moreso for males who don't quite have as many support groups and advocates as females do. And then, on top of that to have their assaults disregarded because of their gender? That's absurd. I would certainly like to hear the rationale from someone who agrees that the FBI should only count females. I notice there haven't been any posted yet, but maybe some lurkers...?

Can a man be Raped?

I never knew there were so many definitions of rape and contexts in which similar words were used ("assault," "sodomy" etc.). I do know I always wondered why on some news reports they said "was sexually assaulted" when in context with their other comments, the person was obviously raped. Why would you want to use a euphemism for that? It seems to diminish the impact of the crime. I think that OF COURSE men can be raped, by women and men. Even if aroused (which I imagine some male rape victims by women would be), when someone says no/did not ask to have sex, that's rape. The feelings of guilt and shame afterward are the same, regardless what gender you are.

Actually I agree with the FBI definations.

Being in the medical profession, I can understand their perspective. Male to female rapes are forced sexual acts on tissues designed for sexual contact. Male to male rapes are a violation of tissues not designed for sexual contact.

The term rape, really has a very negative connotation. I believe sexual assault is the term that should be used for forced sexual activities in both genders.

Then perhaps we should not use Rape at all- something like "forced possible reproduction" instead for women? How would women find that term?

Rape is not about sex- that is one of the most important aspects of this crime- it is not about sex, it is about violence and control. If men, or women, wanted to play out a sexual fantasy, they could do this without problem, either hire a "professional" - or find a mate that likes this sort of thing- poeple "hook up" along those lines all the time-

finding an UNWILLING participant is the rapist scenario, whether it be man or woman- if a woman "rapes" a woman, it is still considered rape, if someone sodomizes a woman, it is still considered rape, despite lack of "reproductive tissues"

BTW Janabrute- welcome aboard, good to see you here, be sure and read the rules!

So Jana, if a man sodomizes a woman, it is not rape, right?

I'm not Jana, but I must respond here. "Rape," in a legal sense, involves a penis and a vagina. Any other combination -- a penis and an anus, a penis and a mouth, a foreign object and any orifice -- is sodomy.

The term "sexual assault," in my opinion conveys as strong a connotation as rape. One is not willingly "assaulted." Rape is not about sexual PASSION, but it DOES involve sex, so calling it "sexual assault" seems accurate to me.

For the record, if the woman was the attacker the FIB would still not call this "combination" Rape.

In our society Rape is synonymous with being violated. Since I doubt we will find anyone who is sodomized, or attack with an object unwillingly that does not feel violated I have a hard time with the distinction.

Sexual assault does not carry the same weight in the mind of the average American as rape. Worse still, in many jurisdictions, it does not carry the same penalty. Is it right for a victims rapist/attacker to serve less time simply because the part combination was different?

I agree with you that the penalty for sodomy or sexual assault of any person, male or female, should be the same as the penalty for rape. Without going into detail, let me just say that I have personal experience with this subject matter. I think sexual assailants should be prevented from ever again breathing a free breath, particularly in the case of child molesters, and although I'm anti-death penalty, that's the one case where I could conscion it.

No. Be it rape, or sexual assault, or sodomy, I think it is still considered a sexual violation and attackers should serve the same amount of time. Any manner of "forced entry" should carry with it the same negative connotation (and punishment) as "rape". People get too obsessed with definitions and overlook the fact that, even if it is "sodomy" - male to male or male to female - it is still forced entry, a clear violation, and thus should be reprimanded as such.


While male to male rape does not involve tissues designed for sexual contact, the tissues are still USED for sex, so I'm not sure you have an argument there.

There are physical implications with every assault, whether that be a pregancy, organ contusions and lacerations or even loss of life. In social circles, a pregnancy implies much more than in the medical profession. Pregnancy is a medical condition, no different than any other medical condition.

I like the term 'sexual assault' because it combines all the different acts into one catagory which should make legal repercussion more uniform. Not that the sentences should be uniform, the sentences should reflect the amount of physical and emotional damage that was incurred.

CR, thank you for the referral and welcome. I am in the learning curve for debate. I read the rules. In the case I missed something or did not understand it well enough, feel free to let me know.



When I am using the phrase " tissues designed for sexual contact" I am referring to the medical profession view. Anal sexual activity has many consequences because the tissues are being used for other than their designed purpose, regardless of the sexual pleasures those tissues may provide.