Found here: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/210346.pdf It cites KOSS so we're off to a great start :/

Page 16 are the screening questions.

Firstly, take note of how most male victims of female rapists are carefully weeded out. Those who experienced attempted rape could potentially register as a positive vote, assuming they aren't persuaded or interpreted by the interviewer otherwise. If you were an interviewer that was specifically instructed to ask questions that excluded most male victims of female rapists, you might be a little hesitant about counting men who experienced attempted rape by women. It would be pretty inconsistent to count an attempted rape when, had it been rape,it wouldn't count.

Also, women get an entire additional question that specifically targets perpetrators who are men, with extra emphasis on the respondent taking into account that their whole life is being considered.

For a study that emphasizes the comparison of men and women, I can't think of a better way to skew the results than to exclude a huge subset of male victims, and add another question specifically for women respondents.

Consider that the study found that ~8 men were raped over the past 12 months, according to the study's definitions/questions, and that the 5 respondents who were excluded from the study were all men... I'm not saying they are related, but 8 and 5 are close enough that the percentages can be wildly impacted by omitting a few rape victims. Red flags are raised when zero women were omitted.

Secondly, the interviewers' genders were all women for the women respondents. For the men respondents, it was split 50/50 in the interest of eliminating bias. Curious that the issue of possible bias is not addressed at all later on, we're suppose to forget about this difference and assume that the rates ended up being equal between men and women interviewers. There's no reason why the same method could not be conducted for women respondents as well. When you get to the bottom of why they had women interviewers for the women respondents, it becomes clear why there shouldn't be a human component when interviewing respondents. People may be more likely to divulge their victimization to a machine, especially men.

Thirdly, the 12-month to lifetime ratio discrepancy between men and women is completely ignored, as usual. The lifetime rate for women is 50-60 times larger than the 12-month rate, while it's only 30 times larger for men. The study recorded the ages of the respondents, it's clear that the interviewers didn't just get male respondents that were more at-risk with respect to the general male population, while the female respondents were simply more representative. If the interviewers did only get disproportionately higher risk men, then it would make sense that the 12-month rate for men would make up a larger proportion of the lifetime rate. But that's not what happened here, and yet the discrepancy is ignored.

The study even acknowledges that older women are less likely to report being victimized during their life (4-5x less than those 3-4x younger than them), but then they completely avoid providing any rationale for the discrepancy with men. "Lifetime rape prevalence varied significantly by age group for women but not for men. " <- That was it, no reason to look into the issue further, right? Right?

There is abundant evidence, as shown by these studies, that either men under-report their victimization outside of 12 months, or women over-report. We're talking about a factor of 2 here. Lifetime male victims of rape, with respect to women, are being under-represented by these studies by a factor of 2. That's a substantial number of people, and that's not even factoring in all those victims who were excluded for not being penetrated by a women. We already have another feminist-funded study, the NISVS 2011-12, that clearly shows how women perpetrate the majority of male rape (as defined by these studies).

Fourthly, even when the study looks at judicial outcomes of rape when the victim is a woman, they don't even bother looking into or explaining why they omitted cases involving male victims.

Finally, the study's definition for rape was not upheld by the screening questions. Lack of consent and the use/threat of force are the 2 key components. The screening questions were inadequate at full-filling these 2 components. "Being made to" can easily be interpreted as "being convinced/persuaded", and "being convinced/persuaded" does not need to be malicious in nature. "Being convinced/persuaded" also does not mean the victim did not grant consent. Secondly, there was an absence of emphasizing "physical" force when talking about force, we are left to speculate that any interpretation of force was allowed. Here is a harmless example that probably makes up the majority of sexual encounters: Someone is horny and casually begs the other for sex. Maybe the "victim" gives in and they get it on consensually. Perhaps the "victim" regrets it, or didn't enjoy the occasion at all, I'm sure that happens often. Is this an example of rape? Some say yes, the courts disagree with them.

As for the attempted rape question, the study got even sloppier by leaving such a subjective term, attempted, unrestricted.

I want to also add that rape, as defined by this study, specifically uses "lack of consent". If you were to ask the authors of the definition what consent requires, they would say that it requires verbal consent. Ask anyone who has had sex more than once whether or not they grant verbal consent every time they have consensual sex, you would get a resounding no from all of them. Hence, there is simply no adequate method for distinguishing a consensual sexual act from rape if the only factor was whether or not verbal consent was given. What should be the focus of the screening questions is whether or not the respondent had sex either while they were severely intoxicated, and/or against their will and they were unable to prevent it from happening due to either physical threats, coercion(forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by using intimidation/blackmail/etc...), and/or physical force. The screening questions used are simply inadequate for excluding sexual encounters that fall outside of those parameters. Even then, the law does not even consider coercion to be a legitimate reason.

The reason why I bring this study up is because it was cited on this page: http://www.bluegrassrapecrisis.org/education/facts.html

I think it's fantastic that men can seek help too, but what a nice way to discourage male victims, of female perpetrators, from coming forward by reminding them of this myth: "Most men who are raped are raped by other men, not women."

Just remind those men that what happened to them is rare, how is that for their self-esteem? You're a man and you got raped by a woman, not a man, what a weakling. /s

What incentive is there for the center to make light of this reality, it just seems like boasting. Women are still winning the Rape Victimization Olympics, yay! At first glance, it seemed like the center would be concerned about the mental consequences experienced by male victims of rape. http://www.bluegrassrapecrisis.org/services/survivors/malesurvivors.html But can you think of a more subtle way to discourage male victims of female rapists from seeking help? By reminding them how rare their predicament apparently is? I can't.