I left the following question (
currently in moderation at Man boobz it has now been approved – possibly because I made a typo in an HTML anchor tag I now remembered that I was put on moderation for discussing Mary P Koss’ paper where she argues that it’s inappropriate to call it rape when a man has unwanted sex with a woman) on a thread on Man boobz after seeing this comment by the blog owner David Futrelle:
I actually think it makes sense to categorize made-to-penetrate as a form of sexual violence other than rape, and to use the term rape for sexual acts in which the victim is penetrated. In any case, it is sexual violence and needs to be taken seriously.
David, a woman decided to put my penis inside her vagina without prior consent while I was asleep. I call and refer to what happened to me as rape. Are you telling me I am mistaken? That I should stop calling that rape?
James Landrith who has courageously publicly spoke about being a male rape survivor on CNN, HuffingtonPost and other places (at great personal cost and attacks from people like this who also don’t think that “rape-by-envelopment” is rape.). Is he mistaken in his self-identification? Should he stop referring to himself as a rape survivor?
I’ll check in on that Man boobz thread a couple of times the next few days and update this post if there is any reply by David Futrelle.
David Futrelle have in a comment of his own replied to the comment I posted at his blog, here is his reply in its entirety:
Tamen, you were sexually assaulted. What happened to you was a violation of your bodily autonomy. I take that seriously. No, I would not classify that as rape, but I’m not going to tell you what you should call it, because it’s your experience.
Calling something a sexual assault, or “sexual violence other than rape” does not diminish it or erase the experience of the person who suffered it. Sexual assaults other than rapes deserve to be taken seriously just as rapes do.
Update: After quite a discussion on that thread where also several of the “regulars” stated that made to penetrate ought to be categorized as rape David Futrell have posted a comment where he states that he has changed his mind. Here is an excerpt of that comment:
But I’ve been convinced by the comments here that this is probably overoptimistic on my part. If made-to-penetrate needs to be called rape to be taken as seriously as what has traditionally been called rape, then it should be called rape.
So, yes, I have changed my mind on this. Made-to-penetrate should be classified as rape.