Human Rights Abuses and Rape of Men

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About ozyfrantz

Ozy Frantz is a student at a well-respected Hippie College in the United States. Zie bases most of zir life decisions on Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, and identifies more closely with Pinkie Pie than is probably necessary. Ozy can be contacted at [email protected] or on Twitter as @ozyfrantz. Writing is presently Ozy's primary means of support, so to tip the blogger, click here.


  1. “(Someone needs to do further studies to see if this is people believing queer men are more likely to want rape in general, or people believing that all men would like to be raped but that straight men would not like to be penetrated.)”

    Given the attitude of “You got lucky!” when a boy is raped by his female teacher, babysitter etc, I’d say the latter. That they believe all men want it, but queer men want it anally, straight men don’t.

    Let’s not forget the J Michael Bailey notion of male homosexuality: That gay men like sex a lot lot lot, universally, no exception there, and since they pair with other gay men (who are unlikely to be gatekeepers like het women), it’s orgy time all the time… right?

  2. Bailey uses his notion of male homosexuality to tend transform it into his notion of trans women sexuality. Because trans women ‘are male’, they have “male sexuality”, and of course, they transition to have more sex.

    See how that works: Transform any narrative you find to fit your pet theory. Anything thrown his way is just a proof his theory (well, he really borrowed Blanchard’s) is right. If you say you’re not like that, you’re just lying. And Bailey has also “proven” that gay men are all secretly feminine, using “lisp detection”, questioning the past of a few token men, and newspaper ads about gay men wanting to meet other gay men.

    Gender roles: They’re perpetuated because some people like to think the world works that way, and since it’s that way it must be that way for a reason, so this reason, whatever it is, must be right. And here goes the status quo. Blue for boys, “because it’s always been done”.

  3. Jesus_marley says:

    “Bailey uses his notion of male homosexuality to tend transform it into his notion of trans women sexuality. Because trans women ‘are male’, they have “male sexuality”, and of course, they transition to have more sex.”

    That has got to be the most fucked up notion I have ever heard. I’ll admit my ignorance here, and ask who the fuck this Bailey guy is so I know to avoid anything he’s done…

  4. J. Michael Bailey is an asshat sexologist. His other greatest hits include saying that bi men don’t exist, everyone’s either gay, straight, or lying.

  5. dancinbojangles says:

    What’s needed here really is cold, hard numbers and a ton more research. “1 in 6 men have had an abusive sexual experience before the age of 18″ is a hell of a lot more convincing than “men get raped too, seriously!” Even those who might disagree with the 1 in 6 number (at least anyone reasonable) would have to question the methodology of the study, rather than simply saying “nuh-uh.” Once we have ironclad data, hopefully we’ll finally be able to start moving in the right direction, and finally dispel this notion that men can’t be victims, or that the victims must of necessity be lumped into a single collective with perpetrators. There’s cracks showing, getting wider all the time. Even the fact that this is being acknowledged as a human rights issue anywhere, rather than universally being shouted down as stealing focus from women’s issues, is a huge step in the right direction.

  6. Within our cultural consciousness, a man dead in war is a hero;”

    That only applies to “our” dead men. The male dead on the other side aren’t anything at all.

  7. dancinbojangles: part of the problem, of course, is that those who are in a position to actually conduct this kind of research don’t consider men being raped to be a problem. If I can manage to dig out the source, apparently even the NCVS and its derivatives – which that article, like most, seems to rely on quite a bit – weren’t originally intended to count male victims of rape at all.

    I don’t think more research would necessarily help that much either, because bad research from influential researchers tends to drive out good research. For example, apparently there’s a vast amount of research demonstrating that the usual narrative of domestic violence as female-on-male is false (seriously, I don’t know how Feckless manages to find some of his information), and yet it languishes whilst research that’s known to be flawed but which supports that narrative is widely broadcast.

    (Not sure if it was linked here earlier by the way – and this link comes with a trigger warning for graphic descriptions of rape – but this Observer piece from July talks quite a bit about the experience of male war rape victims and their experiences with international NGOs.)

  8. SurvivorsUK ( have recently started a billboard add campaign in London to try and raise awareness of these issues:

    The Stern report mentioned in the article is available here:

  9. “Given the attitude of “You got lucky!” when a boy is raped by his female teacher, babysitter etc, I’d say the latter. That they believe all men want it, but queer men want it anally, straight men don’t.”

    I’m going to come off as a bit of a radical here I think:

    The law currently makes a blanket statement that sex with anyone below 18 is rape if there’s too big an age difference. This confuses rape and consentual sex, because the law regards all sex between those individuals as non-consentual.

    I think this confusion is obvious when you compare the common internet forum reactions between cases when the victim is male and when the victim is female. In the case of a female victim and male perpetrator, the male is obviously absolute scum (i wonder if that is based on the underlying and repressed assumption that women are property of men). When the victim is male on the other hand, we see reactions akin to those you’re quoting (because the male is always the agressor, and the male always want sex totally obviously all the time!!!!!).

    What actually happened was a sexual encounter. It might have been non-consentual. It might have been consentual. Ignore what the law says. Think of it instead in terms of degree of consent. Was it consentual or non-consentual? That’s all that matters. Ignore the gender. It doesn’t matter if it was a male or a female; So why is his or her gender more important than his or her consent? The general idea right now seems to be that guys always consent and girls can’t consent at all. Basically that guys always want sex and girls never want it.

    The law should take consent into consideration just as people’s reactions to these cases should be based on consent rather than the gender of the victim.

  10. “I think the most important thing to notice, here, is the gendered nature of the rape of men. Saying that rape happens to everyone does not mean erasing the gendered nature of rape.”

    “erasing the gendered nature of rape”

    I think this is part of a broader problem. It may sound hyperbolic but it seems like a lot of people don’t think men have a gender. Maybe it’s an offshoot of the old idea that the middle-class white American male was neutral and everyone else was in some minority category. Either way, there’s plenty of recognition of the forces that shape girls into women, but boys are lumped into the category of “women and children” and at some unspecified point they become “men” as if they hatched from an egg fully formed. You have liberal newspeak terminology like “gender violence” instead of “violence against people who aren’t men.” Violence against people who aren’t men could be a perfectly legitimate area of concern if spoken about honestly, but it’s used to completely invalidate the concept of violence against men and erase it’s gendered components. It seems to me that masculinity is far more likely to be policed and taught through violence than the femininity yet routine brawling, violent role models, mock combat, et al are left out of the discussion. We get viral stories about a boy in a GameStop standing up for his little brother who wants girl games and a purple controller against a father who “threaten[s] to whoop his son if he doesn’t choose different items” and we all cheer for the little progressive victory when dad backs down, but if this happens with no older brother and a kid gets his ass beat for liking the wrong video games were supposed to file it under “violence, non-gender”.

    Not only is that ethically unsound, but it just boggles my mind that people can attempt to study these things and yet have such enormous blind spots. It’s like building an electron and neutron only atomic model. I have to stretch my credulity just to assume good faith when it comes to these discussions.

  11. The key phrase here for me is when you say “toxic idea of masculinity”. This affects so much more than just non-consent sexual encounters, as you know. In fact, our twisted definitions of “masculinity” and “femininity” are both responsible about much of our materialisam, our addictions to mass media, our twisted childhoods (yes, and even for “straights” as well!), our warlike solutions to global conflicts–you name it! We just screwed up a very long time ago about humankind in general, okay?

Speak Your Mind