Sexual assault hurts everyone
By Alex Gregory August 22, 2011 at 8:22 pm 
Print This Post
“I do think it’s quite fabulous,” Sharon Osbourne declared on a recent episode of CBS’s “The Talk.”
But she wasn’t commenting on makeup, books, or typical talk show fodder. She was applauding a California woman who cut off her husband’s penis and put it in the garbage disposal.
The five co-hosts giggled and speculated, even going so far as to reenact the scene at the sink and discuss whether he may have “deserved it.”
These women are paid to act like eighth grade girls around the lockers at lunchtime, but typically I don’t even mind their childish demeanors. Do as you please, CBS, but stick to new recipes and fall clothing lines.
Don’t endorse sexual abuse. In a culture so committed to “equal rights” for women, men’s rights to sexual integrity often get swept under the rug.
Gruesome physical assault is no joke. Would a national news network ever air women laughing about another woman having her clitoris cut off in Somalia?
Making jokes about a man who had his genitals cut off is offensive, too. If five men sat around a table on a national news network, laughing about the violent abuse of a woman, outrage would ensue.
However, when women applaud a female perpetrator, it’s no longer about abuse. Suddenly, women are fighting for that mythical empowerment and retribution they’ve deserved for years.
By encouraging violence, abuse, and gender discrimination, these ladies shed light upon a repulsive double standard.
Society almost always considers rape and sexual assault as a crime committed solely against women. And even when a man’s traumatic experience is brought to light, “high-five, bro” comments ensue.
When a 33-year-old female teacher allegedly filmed the rape of a 17-year-old male student in early August, multiple comments on the CBS New York story online reflected these sexist double standards.
“Dang, why couldn’t I have a hot, willing teacher like that when I was in high school?” one person asked.
And another wrote “That’s one lucky kid that will have a wonderful lasting memory!”
A wonderful lasting memory of helplessness and humiliation?
According to a National Institute of Justice report, an estimated 2.78 million men have experienced rape at some point, and 71 percent of these victims were raped before their eighteenth birthday.
To call these young men “lucky” is absurd.
And even here at ASU, standard assumptions prevail. “As a female, avoid parties where males greatly outnumber females,” ASU’s campus security policy states. The policy goes on to discuss the Rape Aggression Defense Systems, “a 12-hour training course designed to maximize the physical defensive abilities of women.”
I guess men have to fend for themselves.
Yes, rape is more physically plausible with a male perpetrator. But under the influence of drugs, alcohol—or just social pressure— both genders are capable of violating physical wishes.
Furthermore, in an atmosphere where men are called “lucky” after sexual contact in any context, women feel entitled to sex whenever they want it. They’re doing him a favor, they think, so why not?
Like all social norms, change will come slowly. But it’s on its way, and we should work to reel it in. While “The Talk”’s ladies’ public apology lacked sincere discussion of the double standard at hand, it indicated at least a minor public outcry — a step in the right direction.
Colleges should take the next step forward. Where young people are coming to terms with responsibility, sexuality and consequences, sexual abuse guidance should be made available to everyone.
Not only will this provide practical support, but it will also help dispel the myth that men don’t suffer from sexual abuse.
Reach the columnist at algrego1@asu.edu.
The female version of equality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_2LpLhOsc4
You are totally right that it was horrible for the women on The Talk to joke about a man being assaulted like that, and you are completely right that men can be victims of sexual abuse, too. You’re also right that there’s a stigma of, when a man is assaulted, he gets “lucky.” It’s a problem.
However, to say that men will just have to “fend for themselves” because the course is only offered to women at the college is misdirected. This link is a good resource: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims
The vast majority of sexual assault cases are against women. This is absolutely not to take power away from the fact that men are sexually assaulted. But women are certainly sexually assaulted much, much more. Let’s not hate on ASU for trying to provide women some sense of knowledge and ability to fight back.
Also, while most of your article was pretty well substantiated, you get very misogynistic when you say, “Furthermore, in an atmosphere where men are called “lucky” after sexual contact in any context, women feel entitled to sex whenever they want it. They’re doing him a favor, they think, so why not?” Where is your evidence? Women feel entitled to sex? According to whom? So now the problem is women feeling entitled to sex and that’s why sexual assault occurs? I think you’ll find that is decidedly NOT the case, that rather men often feel entitled to sex (how often do you hear, “She had it coming”, “She was asking for it.”) and thus take it. I’m not saying it never happens, but to blame women and make sweeping generalizations based on no evidence is bad journalism and a poor argument.
And all of this is not an issue because of the Talk, or ASU campus. It’s because our culture places a huge barrier between what it means to be feminine and what it means to be masculine and allows little movement between.
“However, to say that men will just have to “fend for themselves” because the course is only offered to women at the college is misdirected.”
Is it? That site you linked to acknowledges men as victims too. It claims women are by far the greater victim, but acknowledges male victims. So why then are men denied access to a self defense course? Why can’t the course be open to anyone? Why is it people like you feel that, because one group is allegedly more likely to be victimized, that it is acceptable not only to victimize another group by discriminating against them, but also to utterly ignore the victims that do exist in that other group?
“The vast majority of sexual assault cases are against women.”
Those statistics are set out by a group who’s very funding comes from people believing the very claim you make. So there exists a conflict of interest that puts those numbers in question. It bases those numbers on the reports filed to police, but ignores the fact that not all reports to police are true. And despite constant claims that women don’t report due to the humiliation involved, it ignores that men would suffer even greater humiliation, and so are even less likely to report then women.
And again, the “vast majority” acknowledges some victims are men, but you then ignore that factor in your attempts to discriminate against men and deny them an opportunity granted to women.
“you get very misogynistic when you say, “Furthermore, in an atmosphere where men are called “lucky” after sexual contact in any context, women feel entitled to sex whenever they want it. They’re doing him a favor, they think, so why not?” ”
How is that misogynistic? Or are you just resorting to the standard shaming tactics? Drop Misogynism as an accusation as quickly as possible to put dissenting opinions on the defensive, or silence them altogether. It is a tiresome tactic.
Furthermore, are you denying that modern society see’s women having sex with men as her granting him her favour? Just watch this video and tell me otherwise: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii85hTSYHBU&feature=feedwll&list=WL
That’s not hateful of women, it’s female chauvinism. And coming from someone who just said that men shouldn’t be offered defensive training because they are victims of rape enough (ignoring they are victims of mugging a whole lot more), your throwing around the misogyny accusation seems a little hypocritical.
“So now the problem is women feeling entitled to sex and that’s why sexual assault occurs?”
This is called Reductio ad absurdum, a logical fallacy. At no point did the article say that sexual assault (in it’s entirety). You seem to have already forgotten that men are victims too, by your own admission and that of the article you linked, but seem to find it implausible that women can fall prey to the same mentality that male rapists do, that they are entitled. You entirely miss the point because you are too focused on usurping this back into a woman’s issue instead of addressing it as a whole. The fact is, women today are feeling more and more entitled to whatever they want, and that includes sex. What men happen to feel in no way changes this. And it is this sense of entitlement and idea’s like “he wants it, he’s a man” and “I did him a favor by sleeping with him” is leading to more men being raped. Just watch the movie 40 days and 40 nights and see what male rape results in, IE, the man having to beg forgivness from his new girlfriend because his ex raped him while he was tied up and asleep. It is a punchline, and an example of the very mentality (men want sex, so women are entitled to it) the article discusses.
Yes, it is misdirected. I did NOT say that a course should not be offered. But to criticize a course for aiming to teach women to potentially protect themselves because men are excluded is an all-or-nothing mentality. Women, by a much larger majority, get breast cancer, and thus are taught how to give themselves breast checks. Men are not, though men can still get breast cancer. It’s not discrimination against men. It’s planning for the most-likely-to-be-affected. The same thing happens here. Women, by a much larger majority (though both men and women are thought to have tremendous amounts of unreported sexual assaults) get sexually assaulted. This is not saying that men do not, or that it’s not absolutely horrendous that it happens. It’s just not the majority.
(Also, did you ignore my first two paragraphs where I completely acknowledged that men are sexually assaulted, that it was horrible of the women on the Talk to make light of such a situation?)
There are a few reasons it might not be open to everyone, though I don’t know the course’s particular reasoning. And have you asked whether or not, if you fear you may be sexually abused, you could join the course? But for example: women might feel rather uncomfortable learning to protect themselves against rapists, who are likely to be men, alongside a man. It might be ineffective because men who are fearful of sexual assault might need a radically different approach to teach them how to defend themselves – while men and women aren’t incredibly different, society treats them as such, and thus statistically the methods used by rapists may be different.
Everything you said about the reality being skewed about whether women are assaulted more than men is speculative. I completely agree that men are very likely to not report their sexual assault, as are women, and the numbers are probably higher than said, and it’s a shame that anyone would not feel comfortable getting justice for a crime against them. However, you can’t argue that it’s a lie and that the numbers are skewed for publicity reasons unless you have actual facts. You don’t.
That I’m “discriminating” against men is not even worth debating.
I specifically said where you were getting sexist. You made a broad generalization about women and their attitudes toward sex and the way it is affecting men, and having a youtube video and a reference to Pop Culture movies does not change the fact that you didn’t substantiate your claims. The vast majority of reported sexual assault cases are men assaulting men (97-98%), though, of course, we have a culture that doesn’t think a man can be raped by a woman. They’re wrong and that attitude needs to be changed. The numbers should be higher for women who rape men. But we can’t see those figures, so to make the accusation that somehow it’s women’s idea of sex that is causing these sexual assaults is inaccurate (according to the data we have) and, yes, misogynistic. It’s like you’re trying to level the playing field by saying women do bad things to men, too. Of course they do. But don’t over-emphasize the extent to which they do them. It’s similar to saying women who are raped are raped because men are incapable of not having sex with every woman who walks by. It’s not factual. There is much more to rape than a desire to orgasm.
I disagree that my argument was a logical fallacy. You made a statement, and in the context of the rest of what you said, the implication is that women are sexually assaulting men more often because they feel entitled to sex and they feel as if they are doing the guy a favor. However, you failed to provide evidence (beyond a movie) that this is actually raising the amount of sexual assault cases against men. Is it an attitude? Absolutely. Especially as presented in Hollywood. But you have no data about how it is permeating into the rest of the culture, and so your assertion holds little weight.
What’s funny is that I actually appreciated much of what you said. I appreciate that you’re shedding light on sexual assault against males. I just wonder why you had to hate on women in the process.
“Women, by a much larger majority, get breast cancer, and thus are taught how to give themselves breast checks. Men are not, though men can still get breast cancer. It’s not discrimination against men. ”
It is if you denied them the opportunity to learn how to test. There is a distinct difference between having a course that is targeted at women, and having a course that only allows women. And as a man who HAS gone for testing for breast cancer (it was only a cyst under the nipple), I can assure you that if I was told I by a breast cancer clinic they weren’t willing to teach me how to do a breast exam, I would have sued them severely, and I would have won.
It’s the same as having a golf course that targets it’s services to men, as opposed to a golf course that only services men. The fact you can’t seem to see the difference between targeting your services to a group, and actually denying those services to another group, shows a degree of bigotry. You may want to work on that.
“Also, did you ignore my first two paragraphs where I completely acknowledged that men are sexually assaulted, ”
No, I actually acknowledged that you said it, I just also acknowledged that you immediately forgot it come your next paragraph.
“There are a few reasons it might not be open to everyone, though I don’t know the course’s particular reasoning.”
And based on feminist inspired equality laws, any of those reasons are sexist. Men’s change rooms are not even off limits to women reporters now, because that would be discriminatory and sexist, and you want me to believe that we should accept self defense course can deny men for some kind of legitimate reason that you can’t even think of an example of?
You also seem to be focusing on the sexual assault. Are you suggesting sexual assault is the ONLY reason someone would need to learn self defense? I did note in my last post that men suffer from muggings and general assault at far greater numbers then women, but you must have missed that.
Lastly, you are just making excuses for your discrimination, women will feel uncomfortable, so men should be excluded… the fact that gentlemans clubs (not strip clubs, but proper gentlemens clubs, golf clubs etc.) may have become uncomfortable with the inclusion of women didn’t stop feminists from calling them discriminatory. You can’t have a separate set of rules for men and women, no matter how justified you think you are. You instead need to make inclusive rules that apply to both and cover both genders concerns.
“Everything you said about the reality being skewed about whether women are assaulted more than men is speculative. ”
If you think I wrote anything like that, you are sadly mistaken. I suggest you go back and red what I wrote again. If you still think I said anything like that, you will need to provide a quote so that I can correct you what I really said.
“I specifically said where you were getting sexist”
You couldn’t possibly have said where I was getting sexist, given this post I’m replying to is the first time you have replied to me. But as to you being sexist, you’re the one trying to justify excluding men from a self defense course, for the sole reason that you feel men don’t get sexually assaulted often enough, and you don’t seem to think any other crime warrants the need for self defense.
I’m going to ignore the rest of your response because you appear to think that I’m the author of this article, and are confusing my response with the attitudes and beliefs of the author. as such, you are creating a fictional person with which to argue, and I don’t care to play that role. With this sole exception…
Someone claiming that women feel entitled to sex, and as such, are more likely to force themselves on men, IE raping them, does not equate into women feeling entitled to sex and that’s why sexual assault occurs? You have taken “A” reason sexual assault occurs against MEN, and exaggerated it into “THE” reason sexual assault occurs… period. Look up the logical fallacy… perhaps it’s a slippery slope fallacy, not ad absurdum
I apologize, I did think you were the author of the article, and thus some of my replies were not in reference to your reply but rather in reference to the article.
No one is DENYING men the opportunity to learn how to defend themselves, this just isn’t the class for it. You couldn’t go to my gynecologist to learn how to get a breast self exam. Also, some degree of “sex segregation” is allowed. For example, think of battered women’s shelters: in many (if not most), men are not allowed. Because women would feel threatened. Just like they might in this class. You could call that actively discriminating against men. However, you would not win a legal suit against it.
But this is a course for women who already feel uncomfortable and unsafe around men (though potentially otherwise, since women can sexually assault women, too, though again the majority of cases are men against women), at least in certain situations, and want more information on how to better protect themselves.
You keep going on about men being taught about how to prevent muggings, but this article deals specifically with “Rape Aggression Defense System.” Women aren’t being taught how to deal with a mugging, either. You accuse me of suggesting that sexual assault is the only kind of assault. No. I’m trying to stay within the barriers of this article, which is dealing specifically with sexual assault.
There’s a huge difference between not allowing men into a Rape Aggression Defense class because a woman might feel physically unsafe and allowing women into a gentleman’s club where men might feel like women won’t fit in. Let’s not draw lines where there are no connections. Sexual discrimination laws are in place to make sure that men and women get the same opportunities, not to disallow men and women from doing things separately, especially not in regards to safety.
“No one is DENYING men the opportunity to learn how to defend themselves, this just isn’t the class for it.”
But they are, men might be able to find somewhere else to learn how to defend themselves, but that particular school IS denying men the opportunity to learn.
” Also, some degree of “sex segregation” is allowed. ”
sex segregation is allowed… for women, not men. Which is part of the problem. If you really wanted to prove the point that sex segregation is allowed, you would have provided an example of something that is “men only” that ISN’t being called sexist with demands of allowing women to join (the only thing I can think of that is men only is special forces, it’s men only so women don’t die in service, and women say it is sexist and demand it end). The truth is, men are being discriminated against, first by accusing them all of being potential rapists and abusers, and then using that to exclude them “for women’s protection”.
“For example, think of battered women’s shelters: in many (if not most), men are not allowed. Because women would feel threatened”
Except in Valley Oasis Shelter in Lancaster, Calif., male and female victims not only used the same compound, when too many men for the men’s building showed up in need of help, the women victims welcomed those men in to one of their buildings. The idea that a battered women is terrified of anything with a penis is both offensive to men as being all abusers, and offensive to women as being perpetual victims and cowards. The reason men are denied access to women’s shelter is to maintain the illusion that abuse is only one way, man on women. here’s a little story on the matter:
http://ncfm.org/2011/08/activities/national/pioneering-domestic-violence-advocate-who-refused-to-discriminate-leaves-lasting-legacy/
And what is different about a “Rape Aggression Defense System” and any other self defense course, besides the name and who it targets? It’s getting to the point that all someone has to do is tack rape or abuse on something and suddenly they can exclude men without consequence. And a gentleman’s clud didn’t exclude women because “they wouldn’t fit in”, they were places to escape the demands placed upon them. Demands still placed upon them, you can not deny that, for all the choice women have been given, men are still locked into the provided/protector role, whether they like it or not, unless their wives gives them them an alternative, and those roles aren’t just expected, they are legally enforced. men have NOTHING that is their own anymore, while women have their own gyms (no men allowed, for their “safety”), their own spa’s, their own boxing clubs (Toronto on Carlaw street), and so much more, all based on the belief that men are going to rape them the first chance they get, because that what a man is. And you don’t think that’s discrimination? let me ask you, would you deem it acceptable to deny a black person into a club due to the increased risk of theft? Is that acceptable? Didn’t think so.
I think you pretty much sum up your stance when you say “they were places to escape the demands placed upon them.” It’s irrational to say that women can’t be fearful of men (yes, ALL men) immediately after traumatic abuse and yet it’s completely reasonable for men to feel that ALL women demand from them something that they need a break from?
Actually, your whole last paragraph reeks of a real distaste for women and women’s rights. This has gone from a discussion about a specific area on a specific article to full-on misogyny. That’s not me throwing around a word “as soon as possible”, friend, that’s completely evidenced by your post. I was really interested in your discussion of sex bias in this case but can’t really validate your point of view because it is so full of hate and misguidance.
Men have NOTHING to themselves any more? except, of course, those golf courses. 20% more money than women in the United States. A majority of political power in the U.S. More high-level jobs than women.
I hope you come to realize the incredible privilege provided to you as a man. Which is not to say discrimination against men doesn’t occur, but it doesn’t seem you’ve reached a point to accurately discuss it yet.