Anyone have critiques of this paper? “Distorted Reality: A Commentary on DiMarco et al. (2022) and the Distorted Reality: A Commentary on DiMarco et al. (2022) and the Question of Male Sexual Victimization”

https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=sociology\_criminaljustice\_fac\_pubs

Original paper it’s critiquing: https://gwern.net/doc/sociology/2021-dimarco.pdf

The source barely understands the study it is replying to and repeatedly goes out of its way to reject calling forced-to-penetrate victims rape victims.

My thoughts so far:

* It focuses way too much on definitions instead of the actual coercion and harm involved.

* It keeps saying forced-to-penetrate is different from rape without really proving why that difference matters so much.

* It accuses the other paper of cherry-picking a few specific years and stats while doing the same in its own way. For example it puts an emphasis on lifetime statistics which are reported less while less so on annual.

* It seems weirdly uncomfortable with the idea of women being major perpetrators in some cases.

* It spends more time on the narrative than actually dealing with the experience itself.

* The repetition makes it come off more defensive than convincing.

* It makes a huge claim that men forced to penetrate don’t have as bad outcomes while the paper even admits right after that men report bad outcomes much less, which is a blatant contradiction.