We need to get over the myth that men are invulnerable to sexual victimization at the hands of women says Hugo Schwyzer.
On Thursday, an Ohio judge sentenced Stacy Schuler, a popular high school gym teacher, to four years in prison for having had sex with at least five male students, including at least two members of the football team. During her trial, Schuler’s defense lawyers suggested that her judgment had been compromised by her vegan diet, irritable bowel syndrome, and anti-depressant medication.
Schuler’s case raises a familiar debate, one that’s been going on at least since Mary Kay Letourneau became a household name fifteen years ago. (For those who’ve forgotten, Letourneau was a 34 year-old middle school teacher when she began a sexual relationship with a 13 year-old student named Vili Fualaau. Sentenced to prison for second-degree child rape, she bore two of Fualaau’s children – and ended up marrying him after he turned 21.) The debate hinges on fundamental questions about the differences between the sexes – and about what it really means to be abused. What it boils down to is this: are sexual relationships between grown women and underage boys as harmful as those between adult men and underage girls?
♦◊♦
Because women are much less likely to sexually abuse teens than are men, those rare cases that do feature female defendants tend to attract lots of media attention – particularly when the woman involved is relatively young and conventionally attractive. Invariably, someone will suggest that the boys involved were lucky, and that rather than being abused, they had lived out every straight teen guy’s fantasy of nailing the hot teacher. When, as in this Ohio case, the boys involved are described as distraught at what had happened to them, there’s often a sense of disbelief. How could normal red-blooded American boys be upset about the fact that they got laid?
The myth that men are invulnerable to sexual victimization at the hands of women is a powerful one. It sits alongside several other myths. For one, we have a hard time believing that grown women could be attracted to adolescent boys (while we accept as normal the idea that grown men are sexually fixated on teen girls.) Second, we have a hard time acknowledging that guys are every bit as emotionally vulnerable as their sisters, just as easily traumatized by a predatory adult. Young men may indeed be horny (as are more young women than we sometimes admit), but a strong libido doesn’t functional as psychological armor.
But perhaps the most enduring myth brought up by cases like this is the idea that pleasure is incompatible with victimization. Real victims only feel pain, never arousal – or so far too many people still believe. An erection, or better still, ejaculation, functions as proof that a boy wasn’t really harmed. Most predators who molest children and underage teens know this; many sexual abusers go to great lengths to try to arouse their victims. The child’s pleasure functions as a kind of absolution in the mind of the abuser; “I can’t be that bad if I made them feel good!”
But of course, an orgasm isn’t evidence of consent. As decades of research have shown us, a surprising number of male and female victims of sexual abuse do report having experienced some physical pleasure while they were being molested. That memory of arousal can lead to greater feelings of guilt, as it seems proof in a child’s mind that he (or she) was somehow complicit in what happened. “Part of me enjoyed it, so I must have wanted it,” the thinking goes. Some therapists who work with survivors of abuse say that these cases are often the most difficult to treat.
♦◊♦
By not taking the sexual abuse of boys seriously, we perpetuate toxic myths about men and women alike. Muscles and high testosterone levels offer little protection against emotional violation; even football players can be profoundly injured by a sexually irresponsible adult. We need to acknowledge that young women don’t have a monopoly on psychological vulnerability, just as young men don’t have a monopoly on intense lust. And we need to remember that when it comes to relationships between adults and teens of either sex, desire and pleasure are never evidence of consent.
–
photo: Joseph Gray / flickr
About Hugo Schwyzer
This article is well thought-out, well-written, and well-argued. I enjoyed it very much; good work!
Amen. I wish every male victim could read this and know he did nothing wrong. Well-done.
*sigh* Good and bad.
“Because women are much less likely to sexually abuse teens than are men, those rare cases that do feature female defendants tend to attract lots of media attention – particularly when the woman involved is relatively young and conventionally attractive.”
We don’t know that. The split is 57% to 43% in favor of male teachers, and that’s, I believe, prosecutions so it is already fraught with problems that will lead to the undercounting of male victims.
The most comprehensive *survey* of teens exploited by adults is of juveniles in an institutional setting:
* 95% of sexually abused youth in correctional facilities reported being abused by female staff. [From Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities, 2008-09](http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry09.pdf)
Until they do the same thing with community students, there is no definitive evidence either way.
Aside from that… it was a good article.
Im glad you corrected the quote Typhon.
Apart from that, this article was sympathetic towards men. Floored me. Hugo must be setting men up for something in his next piece
Too bad you won’t see it corrected in the article.
We have asked people to contribute their own articles if they have a POV they want highlighted, rather than asking us to change things in the comments.
Hugo: women are much less likely to sexually abuse teens than are men, those rare cases that do feature female defendants tend to attract lots of media attention…
———-
And?
If a crime is rare, it is still a crime.
What means ‘rare’? It is said, it’s about 85 (men) : 15 (women), and it is said also, that women as perpetrators are much more difficult to indict than men.
It is also a fact, that if convicted, women get away with much shorter sentences than men.
There are cases known in USA where even minor-age boys were sentenced to long jail terms for having a relationship with a minor-age girl. He was17, she was 15 in one case I remember. She would never spent even a day in jail, if she is 17 and he is 15.
The interesting defense argument, he was seducing me, works well for a woman, but not for a man in court. We know even about women complaining about sexual harassment of boys who were only 4 and 5 year old…
Finally it should be noticed, that a boy as a victim in case the woman gets pregnant and decides to keep the child, the father against his will is supposed to pay child support to his female rapist in future. There are already court decisions about such a situation. Rather gender-biased decisions, if you ask me.
“Because women are much less likely to sexually abuse teens than are men”
Um, nope.
“those rare cases that do feature female defendants tend to attract lots of media attention”
Um, nope.
It is true that women get away scot-free with raping children a lot more than men do, though. Molest four kids and have a vagina: probation!
Like this one just over a week ago…
Woman got boys drunk for sex
This is merely the most recent. Similar cases have cropped up every few weeks through most of the decade since those legal changes. With one (obligatory) exception the above outcome is replicated in EVERY instance. No real punishment for the female perpetrator. In the same time frame a handful of women who abused girls fronted the courts and all went to jail.
Having followed this history through the entire decade it’s readily apparent that female rapists of boys will be treated as though they are schoolgirls caught in a prank.
In all seriousness I would argue that female perpetrators are actually treated with more sympathy and compassion than their victims, let alone any given male perpetrator.
I’ve recently begun questioning the training/guidance that has been provided to institutions and organisations in our communities of the like of judiciary, media, government and so on. I’ve written in the past that in a sexual impropriety any woman involved is always a default victim. Whilst said with some cynicism it seems I was more right than I realised. I’ve begun to realise that the training/guidance to which I refer seems to have resulted in compassion and sympathy ALWAYS being directed towards any woman involved regardless of which side of the equation she inhabits.
This paragraph…
“I live in Victoria in Australia. Just over ten years ago our state laws were amended to allow for the charging and conviction of female perps. Previously the definitions had been so anatomically specific that it was impossible to convict a female.”
…should follow the link in my prior post.
My apologies.
This article really annoyed me.
Hugo Schwyzer is one of the main promoters of the ‘myth’ that men can’t be raped by women.
I don’t trust his words or his motives.
And there is so little research on men being assaulted by women that we actually do not know the statistics. It is probably not as ‘rare’ as Schwyzer suggests.
Wait QRG, you agree with him but don’t trust him so you decide to attack him personally?
How about “yes, on this issue I agree with Hugo fully”
Nobody is ‘attacking’ anyone – your language is a bit OTT!
I do not agree with Hugo that assaults by women on men are ‘rare’. And I do not agree with his focus on ‘boys’. And I do not understand why this is supposed to be busting ‘myths’ that Hugo himself promotes day in, day out.
I don’t think anyone is trying to make a distinction between men and boys and their vulnerabilities. Of course men can be abused, both other men and by women.
” I don’t think anyone is trying to make a distinction between men and boys and their vulnerabilities”
Then why was there no mention of the fact that a male over the age of consent may say “no” to the woman he is with, yet his erect penis- a surefire sign of his arousal- negates his spoken word?
In terms of sheer numbers, the “two adults” scenario is far more common.
The double standard here- where a man is supposed (and properly so) to ignore his erect member and heed her word, yet he has no say should he hesitate at intercourse, being laughed at and told that women can’t rape men- is just another example of the dehumanizing of men that undergirds feminism.
Men are “walking dildos”, according to that crazy misandrist Valerie Solanas. Today’s thoroughgoing feminists will deny any substantial agreement with the SCUM Manifesto.
The common, dismissive, attitude held toward the possibility of women raping men places those who hold such attitude squarely in the SCUM camp- only they are less honest about it than was Solanas.
“I don’t trust his words or his motives” is a personal attack and is not allowed under our commenting policy. If you want to have a view on the topic go for it. But if you want to attack other commenters or authors personally you will be banned.
I think Tom in the light of the comments aimed at me over the months which I can easily present to you, that point is ridiculous. If you wish to ban me, maybe consult Lisa Hickey and Ryan first as I am a good and reliable writer for GMP.
I don’t trust Schwyzer’s motives in writing about men, as I think his motives are always informed by feminism which is misandrist.
QRR I am not questioning whether you are a good and valuable contributor. I do talk to Lisa and Ryan all day every day. I am just asking you to follow the commenting policy like everyone else. The mission of GMP is to allow as wide ranging a discussion as we can to try to advance all of our understanding. I disagree with much of what gets published here but always try to read with an open mind and comment on substance not on the author.
Feminism is about equality of the sexes. If something written is informed by feminism, it is philanthropic, not misandrist.
That’s the very basic defintion. However, once you go beyond the basic definition, feminism’s theories, positions, policies, and rhetoric seldom reflect equality, but often do reflect misandry or at best a tolerance and defense of it within its ranks,
Its difficult to really pin feminism down to be honest, some feminists are misandric, some are fairly egalitarian, some I’d even describe as mysogenistic. While I’d agree that historically feminism has failed to take into account men’s issues I think its also a little unfair to say that any feminist perspective is de-facto misandric.
Hope I used all the correct adjectived
“I think its also a little unfair to say that ANY feminist perspective is de-facto misandric.”
Plenty organizations/groups/entities that do, support, and stand for bad things also do some good and even charitable things. Feminism is an example.
Thank you Tom. As both a contributor and a reader, I am SO TIRED of this behavior in comment threads. It really ruins it for the rest of us, and is just unnecessary. And it seems to be a blind spot for some commenters as well, who seem unable or unwilling to take responsibility for personal attacks. Thanks for calling it like you see it. I see it that way too.
Hi Lori
I haven’t attacked anyone. i disagree with your point
best wishes
QRG
There you go. You disagreed again. They consider that a personal attack. Be nice and just agree with uncontested acquiescence.
Saying “I don’t trust…” isn’t a personal attack. I used to be a therapist. It’s clear to me that the author often projects his own issues onto other men. Some of the writers here seem to have a compulsion to control others’ behavior overmuch. For me, a realized “feminism” would incorporate greater flexibility of norms and behavior. I admit to being a situation ethicist pretty much. I agree with most of the ten commandments in principle. But there are times. Feminism has gone a long way in a bad direction to move away from the sexual freedom it’s enjoyed at times. The motif here seems to be to cater to the petite bourgeois needs of professional women only. Sure, these women have a right not to be sexually harrassed at work. But we’ve now reconceived flirting, virtually anything as sexual harrassment. All in the secret service of more corporate control, I tell you.
Tom, I think that in light of the inconsistency in the discussion pointed out by PQ in the comment below, QRG is just expressing frustration that Hugo might be conceived of as speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
And I can understand that frustration. When you hear someone espouse a view that you see to be untrue and offensive, until one day they speak out as if they are on your side… It sounds less like they really agree with you, and more like they are trying to change their image.
How about another alternative – perhaps Hugo is more complex than you give him credit for being. I find it fascinating that he has drawn such ire with this piece. I don’t agree with everything that Hugo writes, but I also don’t presume to know everything about him and his perspectives.
Hi Roger – I would certainly agree that Hugo’s piece has a received a lot of criticism that an identical piece by J. Random Writer would not. The extent to which this is reasonable seems a more complex question; I don’t and wouldn’t attempt to defend every disparaging comment it’s received, but I think it would be unreasonable to adopt the idea, as some seem to be leaning towards (I don’t assume that you are) that “Look, this shows that all those commentators are so blinkered they’ll attack Hugo *whatever* he writes”.
Rather, it seems more consistent with people considering both the source as well as the content, and being particularly cynical/unimpressed with perceived hypocrisy or inconsistency. If, say, Dick Cheney were to come out with a newspaper editorial exhorting the Syrian government to respect people’s human rights, then I doubt he’d get much disagreement as such, but there’d probably be rather a lot of snark about how his past actions haven’t exactly reflected such respect. Rightly or wrongly (not that I don’t have an opinion, but it’s a separate discussion) many perceive Hugo as typically being very dismissive of men’s concerns, particularly in cases involving moral wrongdoing by women. I don’t therefore find it surprising that he’s getting a less-than-wholly-positive reception here.
You’re right, and one example is how many people were honestly shocked and skeptical when Dick Cheney and Ted Olson came out to support gay rights. It took them quite some time to realize Cheney and Olson were sincere, and to learn a bit more about them.
thanks Michael that expresses my misgivings very well!
Why is my previous comment still “awaiting moderation?” Seems like a moderate enough comment to me.
Rev did you preach up a storm in your last comment?
We are asking that people who have points of view different than the author write a well reasoned point of view that is how they see the world. Quiet Riot Girl, we do offer you a platform for your beliefs. If you think someone is attacking you, you should speak to me. But please don’t put down other contributors — we want this to be a place where people are respectful of others points of views.
Lisa Hickey: I honestly don’t see where Quiet Riot Girl was the least bit disrespectful or engaged in any personal attacks. Perhaps it was on another thread. Could you cite a specific example of her questionable and/or offensive misgivings?
Barf
The myth that men are supposed to be resiliant and do all the rescuing is in my opinion a reason that many men and boys do not report, or even admit that thay are a victim, especially at the hands of a women. They can feel emmasculated. If the myth is brought to light, I feel that the statistics would match up with what is actually happening.
Hugo – I appreciate your article. Thanks for elevating this. Beyond the issue of sex/rape, there is the broader concern within our educational system that parents entrust their children to a system of adults that are supposed to understand, respect, and protect boundaries for our children. They are not only teaching them how to learn, but teaching them how to relate and socialize. If a teacher, whether female or male, is not willing to protect that boudary of appropriate behavior, how in the world do we expect the students in our schools to come away with a clear sense of what is and what is not appropriate. The judge in the case you reference got that. He acted quickly and appropriately in delivering his judgment.
Thanks for this Hugo. We were fighting about this case at our kitchen table last night since really I wasn’t sure what the heck to think. But I came around to exactly where you came out (after listening to women say that the boys here enjoyed “nailing their teach”). Teenage boys want sex, yes. So do girls. But more than that they want safety. And they are emotionally every bit as vulnerable as girls. And this idea that sexual pleasure forced upon the victim increases guilt is true for sure. I know about that from talking to men who were raped as boys by Catholic priests here in Boston.
In thinking of my own sexual experiences as an adolescent, I had a very hard time even with a very attractive older girl who was sexually aggressive with me. I just couldn’t handle it. There was nothing even vaguely illegal about what the girl was doing but I was just too inexperienced and too scared to own my own sexuality. I needed a much more gentle approach to get anywhere. I was a big (6’3″) strong (225 lb) kid. But inside I had absolutely no idea what I was doing. If I could be deeply hurt by the frankly appropriate sexual advances of a girl a couple years older who actually knew what the heck she was doing I have no idea if I had been coerced into sex with a teacher.
Thanks for your reply, Tom, and for naming your own vulnerability — and that of all boys.
what about men? are men not vulnerable too or is it just boys?
Good on you Tom for coming out with that. Hope you worked it out ok.
Thanks for putting this out there, Hugo – and helping readers understand the vulnerabilities of boys (which are not appreciated fully, and so much harm is done because of it!).
And Tom, great job helping the discussion stay on track…and minus attacks.
Thanks for finally posting an article that isn’t straight man bashing. You finally found something where in “rare” cases a woman is culpable for something. A lot of us were wondering if there was ever a situation where a woman could be at fault for something.
I do find it interesting that you didn’t cross post it to your own blog. Every other of Schwyzer’s GMP articles are cross posted to his personal blog. But not this one. He must not want to damage his sterling man bashing brand outside of our community.
Did GMP put you up to this?
Linguist how about just keeping at that you agree with this article rather than seeing something negative even in a positive? We agree on more than you know. So let’s try to focus on that, okay?
We should be rewarding good behavior, right? I appreciate the direction that GMP has been going of late, and I’m in full agreement with your “big tent” approach – having guys like Schwyzer on the one side and then binging in people like W.F.Price on the other. You’ve even had posts by Paul Elam – and he generally goes too far even for me.
I understand this is not without risks for GMP. I know GMP articles get cross posted on bigger women’s issues sites from time to time. They would probably be less willing if it meant sending traffic to a place they might perceive as anti-feminist.
But hey, if this place wants to be a men’s issues web site not all the conversations are going to be comfortable for women. There are some real problems hurting everyone. I don’t believe women are any happier with the destruction of marriage and the rise of “hookup culture”, than men are. And I don’t think many people are happy with the collapsing birth rate or the diminished outcomes for our children. Much needed change is coming. The young men I talk to have a different, much less idealistic, perspective on gender relations than I did.
There was a whole generation of feminists who helped bring in a whole raft of misguided laws who are now turning 40, childless and unmarried, and beginning to question the results of the destruction of marriage. That is why we are seeing a whole bunch of hand-wringing articles about the “end of men”.
The time is right for change and GMP should take a chance and get ahead of that curve.
Schwyzer serves a role on GMP, voicing that brand of increasingly discredited aggressive feminism. As GMP makes itself into a safe place for men who care about these issues to voice their opinions, posters like him will face – as he has been – increasing challenges in the comments.
Thanks Linguist, I appreciate this your specifics around agreeing we should have a “big tent”, understanding that it does come with risks for us, and getting that we do want to talk openly and honestly about the real problems hurting everyone.
We are ok with challenging ideas and adding different POVs to the mix. We won’t tolerate attacks on our writers, especially repeated ones.
I appreciate the conversation around men’s issues.
You’ve got a bad track record for promoting gender bias, but even a broken clock is sometimes right.
“when the woman involved is relatively young and conventionally attractive. Invariably, someone will suggest that the boys involved were lucky, and that rather than being abused, they had lived out every straight teen guy’s fantasy of nailing the hot teacher.”
If we live in a “rape culture” it is one that teaches boys that they should want sex and a culture that deliberately ignores male victims and diminishes their experiences.
The statistics are somewhat unreliable, depending on how sexual assault is defined, perceptions and willingness to report. How many men are victims? 1 in 3, 1 in 4? How many are female perpetrators of child sexual assault? About 1 in 3? The societal perception is much different because whenever rape is discussed, males are left out as victims and only blamed as perpetrators. GMPM regularly echoes that societal bias. IMO, the numbers of male victims are significant enough that they should never be dismissed because they are less than 50% and should be included in every discussion with more than a cursory note that males are less than female.
“IMO, the numbers of male victims are significant enough that they should never be dismissed because they are less than 50% and should be included in every discussion with more than a cursory note that males are less than female.”
But here’s the thing, bad man, we have no reasonable evidence that men are less then 50% of the victims of sexual assault and evidence that suggests they very well might be.
The problem with statistics is that public perception is orders of magnitude different which creates perception bias and cognitive dissonance. Hugo allows that perception bias to persist.
This is where I hold academics like Hugo to a higher standard. My central point being that it is long past the point of arguing over statistics and time to de-genderize they system.
I’ve read that the prevalance of men who’ve experienced rape is one in seven. However, these stats are likely to be off, as the FBI did not include many instances of assault or rape, and almost nothing about rape perpetrated against boys and men.
Apparently, the FBI has changed its definitions of rape, so that these crimes are tracked in a way that reflects reality. I just got back from a feminist site where there was real concern that men still wouldn’t be included in the definition of victims of rape, particularly if the perp was female. We’ve been trying to come up with a term that suitable defines the woman as perpetrator, since the terms used to describe rape are gender biased, in favor of seeing men as the rapist.
What do you think about this?
“Because women are much less likely to sexually abuse teens than are men, those rare cases that do feature female defendants tend to attract lots of media attention.”
That is not factual. Female on male cases are much less likely to be reported, believed, investigated thoroughly (e.g. no rape kits), and are not equally legislated. For example, this woman has sexual intercourse with five (5) boys a total of 16 times. 16 counts of rape, essentially.
The sentence? 4 years. Clearly, a male teacher would have been sentenced to several decades in prison, as per the sentencing guidelines. Why no mention of that?
Not a bad article, albeit rather at odds with the description of a man’s rape as a “seduction” in http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2009/09/15/lots-daughters-and-ours-on-sexualization-feminism-and-the-absence-of-agency/ .
There’s nothing analogous between a biblical narrative about Lot and his daughters and the Schuler case. Sheesh.
I didn’t write this piece to ingratiate myself to the “What About the Menz” gang and their MRA sistren and brethren. I wrote it because I thought the point was worth making. Happily enough, I’ll be back soon to writing the sorts of columns that leave reactionary wingnuts foaming with frothy indignation.
I’ve never denied that boys can be victimized — indeed, this piece is consistent with my stance that men and women are more alike than different in terms of their emotional depth and vulnerability. So consider this piece the nut a blind squirrel managed to capture, and let’s move on.
“There’s nothing analogous between a biblical narrative about Lot and his daughters and the Schuler case. Sheesh.”
You mean apart from the fact that both involve a woman having sex with a male without his consent? And, indeed, both involve commentators after the fact suggesting that the male in question was rather fortunate for what happened. I would hope that the analogy wouldn’t prove overly elusive merely because in the former the case the commentator was you.
Rest of comment snipped: you might find it productive to consider the possibility that strong criticism of your writing is not exclusively or even largely driven by the critics being “reactionary wingnuts”, comforting though the thought no doubt is.
“I’ve never denied that boys can be victimized.”
Yes you do. BY claiming that it seldom if ever happens.
Your statement to that effect: “Because women are much less likely to sexually abuse teens than are men, those RARE CASES that do feature female defendants . . .”
I suppose that should have been, “Yes, you have” rather than “Yes, you do.”
Exactly.
Hugo clearly used an example of boys being abused by mentioning the Schular case, and writing about it. He may have stated that it is more rare, but he i obviously saying that it does happen and it is an issue worth pointing out.
Foiled again by the auto-refresh! Better start using the word processor is right.
The writer was sure to clearly make the unsubstantiated claim that boys are seldom if ever victims.
A good opportunity wasted by falling back on the same old themes: males are evil abusers of females, seldom if ever the reverse. And if the reverse does occur on a very rare occassion, it’s because of something that male have caused the poor woman to do.
By the way, this is a good and sadly common example of evidence that feminism =/= equality; rather it promotes and defends misandry.
“Happily enough, I’ll be back soon to writing the sorts of columns that leave reactionary wingnuts foaming with frothy indignation.”
How nice it must be to be protected under threat of banishment from any perceived “personal attacks on the writer” while still being able to launch them at readers you disagree with.
Its almost like having your cake…and eating it too.
I have to say that Hugh and Tom are two of the men who give me hope for this world and for men. Thank god for you guys – if it weren’t for people like you on this site, the incendiary, reactionary wingnuts would have absolutely no opposition as the degradation of our society and safety of both men and women continues unabated. It’s nice to know that some people are willing to acknowledge certain glaring realities, and start living in 2011 (going on 2012) and not holding up the 1950s as some gilded age of sexual norms.
Hm… I think you just might be tilting at some imaginary windmill, there.
Show of hands how many people commenting here want to go back to the 1950s?
The “windmill” isn’t imaginary. Check out this article/post: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/fck-the-cleavers-how-shifting-gender-roles-affect-sex-relationships-the-economy/.
In the comments section there seems to be some people who would argue your assumption that few want to go back to life in the 50s.
It is somewhat disappointing to read this article and realize that the ethical questions that better define the damage that can occur are hijacked by the narrative style .If we alter our language to accomodate our desired beliefs by projecting our personal insights as nailing the hot teacher are we addressing the issue or confining it to a preferred interpretation. Isn’t this exactly what the media does with regularity when addressing this issue. Can we sell it any softer. Does’nt our understanding really reside in the narrative. Once we refer to it as less coersive than it is aren’t we really finished with our concerns. Wow, just wow.
Seems to be a bit of quibbling about the statistics. I’m going to assume this is because the details that matter are undisputed: myths about male sexuality, both psychological and physiological, make it more difficult for a) men and boys to recognize they’ve been abused and b) for society to acknowledge its (evidently still disputed) frequency.
Actually, the problem with the statistics comes from how they are gathered, who gathers them, and the social norms that influence people’s opinion about the frequency of female-perpetrated sexual violence. The situation for female-on-male abuse is pretty bad because there is so little research, but it is even worse for female-on-female abuse as literally only a handful of people research it.
Hi Jacob,
Agreed! I think there’s a cart before the horse problem involved though. One of the difficulties in a) obtaining credible statistics but also b) getting people to take real cases seriously is exactly the “he got hard so he must have wanted it, he ejaculated so he must have participated” myths Hugo says (correctly) that we need to overcome.
figleaf
Or maybe even more vulnerable than girls given how the brain matures. My understanding is that on average, girls brains develop faster than boys. That the average girl is two years more mature than the average boy. Society clearly sees the emotion exploitation if a man sleeps with a 12yo girl, but not when a woman of the same age sleeps with a 14yo boy. Yet, the brain of the average 14yo boy has the maturity of a 12yo girl
Posted this on Hugo’s site, but thought it worth adding in since it focuses on the content of the article:
Having treated both boys and girls and women (few men) who were survivors of sexual abuse and rape, I can tell you the “arousal/orgasm” factor is absolutely the most difficult piece to address and work through. Sadly, even some of my colleagues will get sidetracked by that factor and, depending on the age of the survivor, wonder if there was an element of consent involved.
One aspect of my work I’ve found fascinating are the number of young women I’ve worked with who told me that it was easier to work through it with me than female therapists they’ve had.
Whether that is due to my presence and therapy style or more a function of needing to work through with a man, I don’t know. I haven’t seen much research on success rates for female vs male therapists, but I think that may be due to male therapists being cautious going into that arena.
I showed this to my grandfather, who’s immediate reaction was, “Well, what about the rest of the football team, isn’t this teacher not abiding equality?” He meant this as a joke. Then he actually read the whole thing and asked me what I thought the purpose of it was. I said “To get people thinking about this issue.” he responded with another question, “Do you really think society feels this way about it?” I said “grampa, the first thing you said about it was a joke. This is meant to get people to take the problem a little more seriously. He stopped asking me questions about it.
I feel that that the myth that young boys should gladly accept the advances of an older women can cause the young boy to do exactly waht is expected of him, and that this abuse can be just as detrimental to a male as it would be to a female, inducing the same human feelings of guilt and shame upon the victim.
The purpose was to claim that such cases are overblown in the media, and are actually rare, not common.