People here might be familiar with this paper :

https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s12119-021-09901-1

Full text here: https://gwern.net/doc/sociology/2021-dimarco.pdf

This paper was written by two mathematicians / statisticians and a philosopher of ethics who looked at previous research and data on sexual assault. And they came to the conclusion that men are raped (including by women) at essentially the same rate as the reverse. They also argued that hiding and minimizing this is an obvious ethical problem.

In particular, they analyzed the CDC NISVS data and came to the same conclusion that Time magazine, Stemple and Meyers (2014 & 2017), and men's activists have been saying now for 10 years: that the CDC has been carefully redefining female-on-male rape in a separate category ("made to penetrate") in order to hide the fact that their data very clearly shows that women rape men at equal rates that men rape women.

One interesting finding in this paper that wasn't seen anywhere else is that if you account for the fact that 51% of the population is female, then on a per capita basis, male sexual assault isn't just roughly the same as female sexual assault. It's slightly higher.

Given that the population of the United States in 2010 was only 49.00% male, the per capita rate of rape was actually 4.37% higher for males than it was for females.

The paper also notes that the overall profile and harm associated with female-on-male rape is roughly equivalent as the reverse. The physical and psychological harm that male victims experience is the same that female victims experience. Male victims attempt to resist their attackers at the exact same rate as female victims (89% of the time).

And female rapists use similar strategies at similar rates as male rapists. Including the use of violence and weapons (both male and female rapists use weapons 7% of the time). So overall, just about everything is the same between genders.

The only thing that is different that I've ran across is that female attackers often threaten male victims with false allegations ("say anything and I'll tell everyone you're the rapist"). This finding wasn't included in the paper though, likely because it comes from UK research, and this paper is focused on North America.

Now, as it happens every single time, some feminist authors had to take issues with it and guess what......they did.

This was one hell of a paper by Widanaralalage and colleagues to discredit this paper and tbh, it's laughable. Their main issues from the paper were that:

  • The definition of rape used by them is wrong and inconsistent
  • They misintrepreted the CDC reports
  • Rape and made to penetrate have seperate consequences and thus should be seperate
  • Male perepetration of sexual violence is still a problem and it's more than female perpetrated sexual violence
  • Male and females both underreport rape
  • They ignored other sexual minorities

I do agree from their first criticism that the defnition of rape cannot be restricted to heterosexual rape but what can be done is the division of rape into categories such as heterosexual and homosexual etc.(just a suggestion).

Their second criticism is just bogus. As a rule of thumb, 12 month data is generally more reliable than lifetime data and that's a fact supported by studies and common sense.

The third criticism is in fact supported by a study. It's similar to the first criticism and I agree with it partially but what I don't agree with is their assertion that made to penetrate should not be considered rape.

The fourth criticism shows their inherent bias. The authors in the previous paper explicitly stated that they do not intend to underplay rape or sexual violence against women.

The fifth criticism is somewhat dubious because one study found that vignettes portraying a woman raping a man led to a lower likelihood of disclosing or reporting the assault, compared with a male-on-female rape.

Their sixth point is similar to the first and third point.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12119-022-09988-0

As expected, the authors of the original paper replied to this and if I'm being honest, they went too easy on them.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364952829_Reply_to_Distorted_Reality_A_Commentary_on_DiMarco_et_al_2022_and_the_Question_of_Male_Sexual_Victimization

But regardless, this is the state of our academia. Full of biased individuals and male rape apologists like Mary Koss. I have spoken enough about the state of academe and I still can't comprehend the amount of BS they publish.