~ archived since 2018 ~

"Made to penetrate" excludes male victims of rape. So does the FBI's "new" "rape definition", even if it included MTP.

February 24, 2021
134 upvotes

"Made to Penetrate / Forcible Envelopement" in their usual CDC definition are not including all the the male equivalents to their definition of rape, either. Many are hidden away even further.

The penetration can be done by, but not on an object or body part other than the vagina, anus or mouth. By the way, did you ever hear of sounding? That is the penetration of the urethra, which, in contrast to the urethra of women, is part of the reproductive system of men as it is used to deliver ejaculate. It is possible to do that on a penis with a whole finger. Anyway.
Anal penetration on me by a dildo would be rape. Making me penetrate a fleshlight would not be rape, neither made to penetrate by the CDC. Imitating intercourse on my ass with a hand, finger or fist, any other phallic-like shaped body part or object would be rape, imitating intercourse on my dick with a hand, finger, fist, any other ring or hole-like shape or using my foreskin under use of any body part or object of any shape would not be rape, nor made to penetrate by the CDC.

Neither the rape definitions, nor the made to penetrate definitions properly include male victims of rape unless you point me to a credible definition of "made to penetrate" I did not yet come across that explicitly includes the cases I just pointed out - that might be possible.

In the end, whenever some definition or law uses the word "penetration" alone, it is therefore unreasonable to assume it to be gender neutral. In most cases, penetration is considered to be only possible on vagina, anus and mouth, but by absolutely everything, making it far from gender neutral.

You can also interpret their phrasing yourself via the questions on page 106 of the 2010 report.

All of this also applies to the regularily cited, purely statistical and legally irrelevant FBI "definition", which imo has more issues than this, but that'll be its own post one day.

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” [...]

The new UCR SRS definition of rape does not change Federal or state criminal codes or impact charging and prosecution on the Federal, State or local level, it simply means that rape will be more accurately reported nationwide. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape

Edit: Same goes for the NIBRS etc. Please see this comment of mine for further clarifications: https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/lrm69c/comment/goo1ew1

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates.

/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title "Made to penetrate" excludes male victims of rape. So does the FBI's "new" "rape definition", even if it included MTP.
Author DistrictAccurate
Upvotes 134
Comments 7
Date February 24, 2021 8:09 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/made-to-penetrate-excludes-male-victims-of-rape-so.1061858
https://theredarchive.com/post/1061858
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/lrm69c/made_to_penetrate_excludes_male_victims_of_rape/
Comments

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Great that you brought it up

[–]massiveZO 13 points14 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

How about this

Any forced physical sexual actions are rape

Mind boggling, I know

[–]ColonialDagger 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think that "Any forced physical sexual actions" are a bit too broad, as it would constitute everything from sexual assault to what OP described as the same thing, when one is clearly more severe than the other.

What about "any forced physical sexual actions involving the genetalia of the perpetrator un-wanted by the victim"?

[–]massiveZO 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure, sounds good to me! Better than the discriminatory bullshit we have rn...

[–]duhhhh 9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I believe it depends on the jurisdiction. This is 5+ years old, but this is the best analysis I've seen.

https://tamenwrote.wordpress.com/2015/05/10/an-update-on-fbis-definition-of-rape/

This does look very promising. However, my original post unfortunately still stands. The definitions above are used by the NIBRS (National Incident-Based Reporting System) and indeed has been used by the NIBRS since well before the FBI changed their UCR definition of rape. Unfortunately all UCR data is not collected through the NIBRS: 15 states report via the NIBRS as well as individual Law Enforcing Agencies (LEAs) in another 18 states – in total 38.4% of LEAs reported via the NIBRS in 2013 (see footnote 1 in this document).The remaining states and LEAs report through so-called summary reports. And it was the guidelines for the summary reports which I suggested to the FBI that they changed to make the inclusion of male victims of being made to penetrate more clear and explicit. Here is the latest revised edition of the guidelines for reporting rape through the summary report system that I could find. The change description summary only lists one change: Remove references to SRS Rape as oral penetration by a sex object That change came as a direct result of the mail femmecheng and I sent the FBI although I didn’t suggest that change – I just noted that this wasn’t explicilty covered by the new definition. They made that change in a half-assed way, but they didn’t see a need to include an example of a male victim and female perpetrator where the male victim was made to penetrate. I say half-assed way because that particular example was mentioned twice in the original document and they have only removed one of them.

[–]DistrictAccurate[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I fail to see how this connects to my post.

What you talk about is the FBI including "made to penetrate". Same for NIBRS.

My post is about the fact that many male victims are not included in made to penetrate and the FBI definition is not ambiguous about that at all. It excludes them explicitly and there was never any uncertainty or debate about that. The thing that was uncertain and debatable was forced penetration of vagina, anus and mouth, which are just a portion of possible male victims. But that deserves its own post.

This post is about that discussion being useless, because there is another group of victims that was, until now, not ever included in any definition or survey I read that didn't just define all unconsensual sexual acts as rape and still MRAs, Male Advocates and some Feminists push the narrative that "made to penetrate" would be the equivalent to rape, thereby further supressing these victims. Articles like the one you mentioned also completely fail to acknowledge this and pretend it would all be fine if they just said that men being made to penetrate the vagina, anus and mouth were included - despite them being just one part of male victims, the rest being excluded explicitly and nobody seems to care.

"The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

The important part isn't if the victim can be the one penetrating. The important part is that one can use anything to penetrate, but one cannot penetrate everything. Penetration by that definition is in itself only possible on vagina, anus and mouth. Penetration is, however, possible by all body parts and objects. Therefore, even if the victim could be the one penetrating, they would only fall under this definition if they were made to penetrate a vagina anus or mouth and nothing else. This is blatantly sexist.

Penetrate vagina, anus, mouth with Penis - Rape.

Made to penetrate a vagina, anus, mouth with one's penis - Rape. (This is the one people were arguing about. But there's more.)

Penetrated by dildo - Rape / Sexual Assault with an object as per NIBRS.

Made to penetrate a fleshlight - Can't ever be rape nor made to penetrate nor "sexual assault with an object" as per NIBRS by definition.

Penetrated by Finger/Fist - Rape.

Made to penetrate Finger-Ring,-Gap etc./Fist - Can't be rape nor made to penetrate.

Penetrated by a cucumber - Rape / Sexual Assault with an object as per NIBRS.

Made to penetrate a cucumber - Can't ever be rape nor made to penetrate nor "sexual assault with an object" as per NIBRS by definition.

And so on...

[–]singymate 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

In the UK penetration is defined as 'entering and withdrawing'. So if a man is forced to penetrate when he is unconscious or the woman is straddling him, the government states it is the victim that is still doing the penetration. This clearly victimises the male which goes against the Equality Act 2010 surely?

If the woman is straddling the man then how is a penis penetrating if it is not moving? This would be enveloping the penis.

The law in the UK needs to stop descriminating against men.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2022. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter