You will need some info on the report in order to understand the impact of the statements made by the former director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Please stay with me as it will be worth it.
In 2012, the Bureau of Justice Statistics published their report on Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth. (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry12.pdf)
As with all reports on sexual victimizations, one has to first examine the commonly misleading definitions. Those given at the beginning sound good at first, until it becomes clear that the first sentence of each is a summary of how they would describe the following list (which does not fit the summary). It will become more clear when you look at what the items of each table claim to include or, even better, the survey items themselves on page 32.
Many tables will report data on:
Youth reporting other sexual contacts only: Includes kissing on the lips or another part of the body; looking at private body parts; showing something sexual, such as pictures or a movie; and engaging in some other sexual contact that did not involve touching.
Youth reporting nonconsensual sexual acts excluding touching: Includes contact between the penis and the vagina or the penis and the anus; contact between the mouth and the penis, vagina, or anus; penetration of the anal or vaginal opening of another person by a hand, finger, or other object; and rubbing of another person’s penis or vagina by a hand. Includes any of these acts with a staff member and any forced acts with another youth.
This clearly fails the fleshlight check, i.e. it does not treat forced envelopment and forced penetration as equals. Penetrations by dildos(objects) are explicutly mentioned and fall under category 2, whilst penetrations of fleshlights(objects) are not mentioned and do not fall under either. Same goes for any other body part or object, including the hand, which is only counted if it is used for rubbing but not for envelopment alone (unlike for penetration).
That being said, in theory, item C17a response 6 of Appendix 1 (page 32) could include those measures, though they are apparently only included in the "all sexual misconduct" category. Additionally, they do not reference any specific behaviors and are thus hardly comparable to the behavioral items.
In the report, it was found that:
8.2% of males and 2.8% of females reported sexual activity with staff. 5.4% of females and 2.2% of males reported forced sexual activity with another youth at a facility. White youth reported sexual victimization by another youth (4.0%) more often than black youth (1.4%) or Hispanic youth (2.1%). Black youth reported a higher rate of sexual victimization by facility staff (9.6%) than white youth (6.4%) or Hispanic youth (6.4%). Youth who identified their sexual orientation as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or other reported a substantially higher rate of youth-on-youth victimization (10.3%) than heterosexual youth (1.5%) [note: rates were indepented of orientation for those victimized by staff; see table 11 on page 20].
Female-only facilities had the highest rates of youth-on-youth sexual victimization (5.7%), while male-only facilities had the highest rates of staff sexual misconduct (8.2%) [note: and female-only facilities had the lowest rates with 2.2%; see table 9 on page 17].
An estimated 92.4% of all youth who reported staff sexual misconduct said they were victimized by female facility staff (table 14). An estimated 91% of all adjudicated youth held in the sampled facilities were male. Approximately 44% of all staff and 34% of frontline staff in participating facilities were female. Among the estimated 1,390 adjudicated youth who reported victimization, 89.1% were males reporting sexual activity with female staff only, and 3.0% were males reporting sexual activity with both female and male staff. An estimated 630 youth reported physical force, threat of force, and other forms of pressure and coercion by facility staff. Among these victims, 20.5% reported a male staff member as the perpetrator (15.0% involved male staff only and 5.5% involved both male and female staff). Male staff members represented a smaller percentage of perpetrators among youth reporting staff sexual misconduct that did not involve any force. Among the 840 youth who experienced staff sexual misconduct without force, 5.1% reported the involvement of a male staff.
Most victims of staff sexual misconduct reported more than one incident (85.9%). Among these youth, nearly 1 in 5 (20.4%) reported 11 or more incidents. About 1 in 5 (20.3%) victims of staff sexual misconduct reported experiencing physical force or threat of force, 12.3% were offered protection, and 21.5% were given drugs or alcohol to engage in sexual contact.
Approximately a third (32.0%) of youth were victimized by more than one staff member (table 15).
An estimated 41.1% of staff sexual misconduct victims said that the first sexual activity occurred during the first month at the facility (10.6% within the first 24 hours, 6.9% during the remainder of the first week, and 23.6% during the remainder of the month).
So, this sounds quite bad, but maybe we can still save this (/s):
Looking at table 15 on page 24, we see that:
63.4% of victims reported no force or pressure used, though it is noted that this includes cases where types of force or pressure were not reported
And on page 25:
When youth were asked who initiated sexual contact, 36.4% reported that the facility staff always made the first move, 17.4% reported that they always made the first move, and 46.3% said that sometimes the facility staff made the first move and sometimes they did.
Also keep this in mind:
A high percentage of adjudicated youth reported staff sexual misconduct in these four states (not shown; see appendix table 7). An estimated 17.1% of adjudicated youth in Ohio, 17.0% in South Carolina, 15.0% in Georgia, and 13.7% in Illinois reported one or more incidents of staff sexual misconduct. The lower bound of the confidence interval was 35% higher than the national average (7.7%) for estimates in each of these states.
Now, as the former director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction... how would you react to these numbers?
Of course, this is a rethorical question that was answered as soon as we saw that the victims were predominantly male - especially with predominantly female perpetrators.
Thus, apparently he decided to go out there and tell the press about the hard truth of these bad boys being just too persuasive. He just didn't focus on the victims who were physically forced or paid with drugs and preferential treatment... instead, he discredited them with those who are easier to blame.
There’s no such thing as consensual sex when you are supervising someone, regardless of their age, but the reality of it is that some of the guys in prison are very persuasive and some of the women are very persuasive.
Now, of course he'd have to tell them something about how one could address the issue but apparently... nobody really knows anything about this "female on male rape" thing.
I’m not sure anybody has got a real handle on why the Bureau of Justice Statistics is finding these kinds of numbers, but it’s on the radar screen of a lot of people.
You know you matter when "a lot of people" have no idea why these statistics spread the unbelievable idea that you could be getting raped and have a penis at the same time.
So, I guess he also believed this to be an outstanding opportunity to let the press know that, in many cases, he believes female staff to be better suited than male staff. Maybe this would feel less problematic had he properly acknowledged the scope and severity of the issue before.
I think in many cases female staff are better suited than males. A good mix of staff is what we always want. That so-called motherly impact is a big deal and women who are stern but fair with the inmates I think can perform that job as well as any male could.
This was the actual reaction of the former director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Reggie Wilkinson, to these numbers.
These statements are, in fact, in line with court decisions made on statutory rape cases for decades.
A 2016 publication in the Child and Family Law Journal (https://lawpublications.barry.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=cflj) stated regarding the discriminatory practice of holding male victims liable for child support:
Another, and perhaps the most concerning reason many courts have given is that the boys/fathers are willing participants, not victims. In Jevning v. Cichos, the father was a fifteen-year-old boy and the mother was a twenty-year-old woman. The Court of Appeals of Minnesota referred to the boy on numerous occasions using the term “victim” in quotation marks and said, “[i]t is hard to characterize appellant as the classic innocent victim of a crime.” The Supreme Court of Kansas used the same approach in State ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer, a case in which the thirteen-year-old male victim’s babysitter became pregnant and was adjudicated for a lessor crime of contributing to a child’s misconduct. The court in Hermesmann referred to the resultant child as “. . . the only truly innocent party. . . .” Similarly, in Nathanial J., where the victim was a fifteen-year-old boy and the offender was a thirty-four-year-old woman, the Second District Courts of Appeals of California determined, “[t]he law should not except Nathaniel J. from his responsibility because he is not an innocent victim of Jones’s criminal acts.” The court went on to find that the victim and offender “decided” to have sex. In In re Paternity of J.L.H., the victim said that the sex was non-consensual and that he suffered from psychosis and was unable to support himself because of the sexual assault. Nevertheless, the court held him liable for support, finding that he had not made a showing to support the assertion that the sexual encounter was non-consensual, and that his psychiatric issues were to be considered only as it pertained to child support amounts. The Fifth District Court of Appeals of Florida adopted the reasoning of the courts in Hermesmann and Paternity of J.L.H. in its case of first impression, Department of Revenue v. Miller. Bennett was a twenty-year-old woman who was living with fifteen-year-old Miller and his family when conception occurred. The trial court originally dismissed the petition for paternity, holding that Miller could not be financially liable because he was a victim of sexual battery. The appellate court reversed, however, finding that the trial court erred because the sexual battery statute was not related to child support. In its opinion, the court noted that neither it nor the cases it relied upon had addressed the issue of whether “actual nonconsent” could be a defense in a paternity proceeding. On the one hand, courts are determining that the issue of consent is irrelevant in these civil proceedings, but on the other hand they are saying that the minor fathers are willing participants and situations of nonconsensual sex are not being discussed. Obviously, the issue of consent is relevant and the courts have decided, even when the fathers stated otherwise, that they were capable of and did consent.
It should be noted that both parties in the Hermesmann v. Seyer ruling were minors and thus the criticism here focuses mainly on the double standard:
While female victims of statutory rape have the opportunity to avoid the financial responsibility of raising a resultant child by either placing the child up for adoption or having an abortion, these options are not available to male victims. [...] Male victims’ rights are being practically ignored by Florida and every other state that has ordered them to pay child support for the resultant children. Statutes exist that are supposed to protect both female and male victims, but in reality, when pregnancy results from statutory rape, only female victims are being protected against the undesirable ramifications.
and shall be evaluated separately from wether such interactions carry the same risks of coercion and whether these minors can be held to the same standards as adults and if so, under which circumstances (note that Hermesmann was Seyer's babysitter) - especially considering the serious nature/name and consequences (not just legal) of the crime, the substantial inter-individual differences in development as well as the need to prioritize addressing actually dangerous individuals rather than two teenagers beyond the developmental milestone of fertility who mutually agreed to a loving relationship despite both of them not yet being fully developed. There are more than ten states where the intercourse that lead to the pregnancy would not have been illegal (at least not as statutory rape) unless de-facto unconsensuality was present and depending on the circumstances, that possibility has to be evaluated differently than when the perpetrator is an adult in both age and development.
In fact, the paper itself suggests that the opportunity for male victims to terminate their parental rights and responsibilities shall require the offender to be an adult:
This note proposes that this option only be available when there is an instance of an adult woman who engages in illicit sexual intercourse with a minor male and takes the resultant pregnancy to term. This distinction is necessary and justifiable because sexual activity between peers does not involve the same risks of coercion or undue influence that exist in sexual activity between adults and minors.
That being said, it afterwards incorrectly claims this to be a requirement for it to be criminally punishable anyway - which is only true for a few states.
Still, the double standard here is undeniable and considerations of a more nuanced and productive discussion on consent among teenagers do not change the fact that these same principles are applied by multiple people with multiple levels of authority when the offenders are over thirty years old, the victim's prison guards or when the victims are mentally impaired.
At that point, it becomes a valid question what a boy would have to do in order to not be invalidated by the most influencial parts of our society's system for the heinous crime of being a boy.
We are fooling ourselves if we believe "teach X not to rape" will lead anywhere whilst the institutions responsible for handling youth coming from dysfunctional backgrounds is subjecting practically all of them to at least some form of abuse - which in turn predicts continued criminal behavior (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263919832_Victims_Behind_Bars_A_Preliminary_Study_of_Abuse_During_Juvenile_Incarceration_and_Post-Release_Social_and_Emotional_Functioning/link/5665a81808ae4931cd6248b5/download). This is particularly true when looking at sex-offenders:
[...] sex offenders had more than 3 times the odds of child sexual abuse (CSA), nearly twice the odds of physical abuse, 13 times the odds of verbal abuse, and more than 4 times the odds of emotional neglect and coming from a broken home.(https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1079063214535819)
Of the 100 male inmates who participated in this study, 59% reported experiencing some form of sexual abuse before puberty, and all such instances occurred before or at the age of 13 years. [...] The total number of perpetrators was 165, with 10% male and 90% female. Friends (n = 72) and family (n = 56) were the most frequent perpetrators.(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213405003017)
We compared rates of sexual and other forms of abuse reported in 17 studies, involving 1,037 sex offenders and 1,762 non-sex offenders.[...] We observed a higher prevalence of sexual abuse history among adult sex offenders than among non-sex offenders (Odds Ratio = 3.36, 95% confidence intervals of 2.23–4.82).(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213409000374)
The best way to start teaching boys not to rape would be to stop raping or otherwise abusing them, but apparently even acknowledging their victimization is too much to ask.
Maybe, had you swapped your newest post on toxic masculinity for one combating male rape myths by exposing the findings on "made to penetrate" as comparably prevalent to women being "made to be penetrated" and the fact that men are mostly forced to intercourse by women and not men (unlike commonly claimed), or a post on the fact that "made to penetrate" is not included in their rape definition, or a post showing that, whilst penetrations by other body parts and objects like dildos are included in the rape definition, penetrations of other body parts and objects like fleshlights are not even included in their "made to penetrate" definition (yes, I'm serious):
NISVS 2010 showed that in the past 12 months, 1.1% of men were made to penetrate and 1.1% of women were raped. Look at Table 2.1 and 2.2 on pages 18 and 19 respectively.
NISVS 2011 showed that in the past 12 months, 1.7% of men were made to penetrate and 1.6% of women were raped. Look at Table 1 on page 5.
NISVS 2012 showed that in the past 12 months, 1.7% of men were made to penetrate and 1.0% of women were raped. Look at Table A.1 and A.5 on pages 217 and 222 respectively.
NISVS 2015 showed that in the past 12 months, 0.7% of men were made to penetrate and 1.2% of women were raped. Look at Table 1 and 2 on page 15 and 16 respectively.
In each of the years the case count for male rape victims and female victims of made-to-penetrate were too small to provide a statistically reliable prevalence estimate.
We see fluctuations, yet overall it is at least equal and that is whilst even made to penetrate is discriminatory: /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/lrm69c/made_to_penetrate_excludes_male_victims_of_rape/
These problematic definitions lead to stuff like this: https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/799366/download
Or see this post on a representative (data from late 2019 and early 2020) survey from Belgium (EU): showing that in the past 12 months, 1.4% of men and 1.5% of women were victims of completed rape. https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/pasbbk/new_nationally_representative_age_1669_survey/
Or a post on the higher prevalence of denial and attempts to hide the sexual nature of their assaults leading to different needs when assessing victimization rates (asking them if they were victimized may not work)...
See this post, especially point b): https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/pasbbk/new_nationally_representative_age_1669_survey/
Or how about a post on the differences in practicioner behaviors, highlighting how men are currently failed / discriminated against by a system that does not even bother to implement proper strategies on how to combat the discriminatory treatment that is keeping them from receiving the help they need:
More specifically, the data indicate that participants (note: who are practitioners) feel as though practitioners are less likely and/or slower to identify males as victims of CSE than females. This is in accordance with the findings of Barnardo's (2017), who found that practitioners find it harder to identify CSE for males than females. Furthermore, the second theme indicates that participants feel as though practitioners are more likely to provide a multi-agency and supportive response to females affected by CSE, in comparison with males. National guidance states that effective responses to CSE should involve a multi-agency approach (DfE, 2017), and thus, it can be suggested that practitioners may be providing males with a less effective response than females. This is similar to the findings of McNaughton Nicholls, Cockbain, et al. (2014), who found that male victims (or those at risk) of CSE are significantly less likely to be referred to specialist CSE support services than females. This is also in line with the findings of a SCR published by Sunderland Safeguarding Children Board (2017), which focused on the significant harm suffered by a young male referred to as ‘Mark’. Despite Mark being identified by practitioners to be at risk of CSE, no preventative or disruptive actions were taken. The SCR concluded that ‘had Mark been female there may well have been a far more urgent response by professionals’ (p. 10). The second theme also highlights another gender difference in practitioners' identification of victims (or those at risk) of CSE, as six participants reported believing that in comparison with females, males displaying risk indicators for CSE are more likely to be identified as victims (or at risk) of CCE. This corresponds with findings reported by Barnardo's (2017), who found that practitioners give greater focus to offending behaviour for males affected by CSE (rather than other risk indicators). This is also in accordance with findings reported by McNaughton Nicholls, Harvey, and Paskell (2014), which suggest that practitioners are more likely to view CSE risk indicators as signs of offending behaviour (rather than victimisation) for males. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cfs.12845
maybe you would have made an actual difference in stopping the cycle. But nope, preventing abuse has to take the backseat when your misguided narrative around issues that don't affect you could be impacted by it - even if that results in their consequences affecting you later on.
It is cool that most scholars avoid the term misandry and instead make up all kinds of concerningly inaccurate labels that are then further misrepresented and misused beyond repair - even by them themselves - whilst itself being inconsistent with the terms we already have, in order to make you happy. I hope that's what was hurting you, because it holds back progress in what you claim to be hurting you. At the end of the day you can sit in your chair and look at how decades of change were wasted because what you did missed its proclaimed goal. Read your nice books on your subjective perception of the world, because now you've found people that cater to the oversimplyfied and conspirational approach that managed to convince you for being exclusionary and dismissive enough of other's experiences for you to call it inclusive and sensitive.
Way to go, congratulations.