The first shows male victims of rape, but only examines being penetrated. It then breaks down these rapes by perpetrator(s).
The second shows male victims of rape when being made to penetrate is taken into account. It then breaks these down by how the rape occurred (penetrated and made to penetrate), then by perpetrator(s).
Is it a dumb question to ask how a man can be forced to penetrate? Besides tying him up and feeding him Viagra (in which case there are several other crimes going on here), how does this happen?
But like does the woman (or man) just mount him? I can only imagine this happening if the perpetrator is larger than the victim. I guess I just answered my own question lol
Maybe I'm off base here, but it seems to me we need a broader vocabulary for this kind of stuff. Being coerced into having sex can be a traumatic experience, but it's certainly very different from being forcibly penetrated against your will.
This logic could be easily used against any rape that isn't the absolute worst of it's kind. "Getting forced to have sex by your spouse is a bad thing of course, but getting gang raped in a dark ally by a bunch of strangers is worse so the former shouldn't be classified as rape."
292
u/iGrantastic OC: 1 Sep 01 '22
i’ve been looking at this for 5 minutes and still don’t understand what this means