Robert rightly raises a query based on CDC figures but I would dismiss them unless their definition of rape was physically forced sexual intercourse that would be accepted as rape by a court of law. This would include intercourse imposed on a victim unable to resist by being zonked out or asleep. I would doubt that "rapes" of men by women listed in the CDC survey were events that could lead to a court conviction. Certainly men, like women, can be coerced into sex by being at a social disadvantage but I would be astounded if the person doing the coercing was able to be convicted of rape if charges were laid and the facts put to a judge or jury.

Homosexual rape is part of the penalty knowingly imposed on (usually young) men by imprisonment with only nod-nod-wink-wink "supervision" by corrupt guards, but homosexual rape doesn't seem to be in the CDC stats. Certainly it would merit severe penalties (like the perp being exposed to a taste of his own medicine in prison?).

Physical sexual assault not including sexual penetration is an indictable crime but not equated by law to rape. A man would be unlikely to lay a complaint against a woman about this because he would be humiliated in a way that a woman sexually assaulted by a man be less likely to be. Actual sexual harassment of women (as exposed in the recent survey of universities) by men does carry an underlying threat of rape but it is not the same as rape.

EmperorJulian I largely agree other than the aspect that the definitions of rape are under continual pressure to the point where physical coercion or threat does not appear to be a defining characteristic.

Hard to get a good handle on how widespread it is but from what I can see there is a lot of scope in some areas for later regret of an at the time consensual activity to be later reframed as rape. Scope for the male to be regarded as at fault if both are intoxicated beyond the point of making good decisions about and she later regrets it.

Slightly off the original topic but allied with it is that there is a growing trend to demand sanctions against males accused of sexual assault (and DV etc) regardless of any evidence or legal process. Those sanctions can cause long term harm to the accused regardless of the outcome of any subsequent legal processes.

I don't consider a single survey conclusive, given the CDC's overall status I do consider it cause to acknowledge that my own beliefs around gender disparity in sexual assault and the social narrative on the topic may not be as firmly established as I'd previously thought.

R0bert

I agree with Robert's observations especially in that there is a trend towards redefining defendants to charges of sexual offences (or DV) as perps. This is evident in the hysteria over the arrival of Cardinal Pell to face charges of pederasty. No matter what one may think of the theocratic religious cult which the Cardinal peddles (I detest it) he is a man who is innocent unless proven guilty and deserves respect as such.

Treating an accused but not convicted person as guilty could be curbed by much stronger laws against libel.

I can recall the yellow Press routinely describing David Hicks as a terrorist though he had never been convicted of anything in a proper court (even a Yank one), and I wondered why he didn't do them for libel.