Sometimes I do futile things – like posting a comment on Manboobz (this time on some quotes about rape and consent from Farrell’s 1993 book The Myth of Male Power.) I posted the link to the Mary P Koss paper where she calls it inappropriate to call men rape victims unless they have been penetrated as a example of other crappy things about rape that were published in 1993.
That was considered an attack – they sure are a reactive bunch over there. Beside the invectives, quote-falsifications, quote-misattributions, incapability to comprehend ratios and general rudeness I was spurred on to check to what extent Mary P Koss still adhers to the prevalency methods sha layed out in that 1993 paper. I have earlier stated that I suspect she is and that she has and is serving as advisor and consultant at CDC has influenced CDC’s decision to classify “being made to penetrate” as not rape.
I’ll post the full comment I posted at Manboobz (even though it contains a paragraph on CSEW which restates what I’ve written in earlier comments in this thread) – it follows in it’s entirety here:
I do not think Consent is the appropriate term here because, the victim could claim that “He/ she was too drunk” for consent or “He/ she was asleep”, and get away with it on grounds of Technicality, and accuse the Perpetrator successfully, even when the Perpetrator did not necessarily Force the Victim.
I haven’t written that drivel and I find it absolutely galling and dishonest that you attempt to pass it off as a quote by me,
On to your question/challenge:
I’d say it doesn’t, not unless she is on the review panel for all grants for studies used by the CDC in aggregating data; and that definition is the only one she has ever accepted.
Moreover, since we know you’ve not actually read the study (and I’ve not read it), I don’t know that the quotation you used compltely explains the justifications for the operational definition.
The Koss paper which is behind a paywall is the 1982 where they looked at rape prevalency among college women. I have made no claim one way or the other about the content of that paper (I reported that Ampersand wrote that it included men in the sample after Aaliyah wrote that she thought it didn’t). The operation definition I quoted is not from that paper.
If you are talking about the “Detecting the Scope of Rape – a review of prevalence research methods” paper by Mary P Koss where the (inappropriate to call a man rape victim…) quote came from I can assure you that I’ve read it. You can read it as well since I linked it in my first comment on this thread. For you convenience I’ll link it again [redacted for copyright reasons.]
The paper has been cited numerous times, including by the CDC. The extent of how involved Mary P Koss has been and is with the CDC can be seen from her public CV.
Can you show that it has been accepted as the working definition for rape studies afterwards? Is it a current usage in the field?
No? Than go to hell.
You know, I really do wish I could bring up some studies which doesn’t use something to that effect as a working definition of rape. Do you know of any?
CDC apparently found it inappropriate to call it rape – or rather they think it’s an unique male victimization that is separate from rape. The Crime Survey of England and Wales (CSEW) does not even bother to include it in the survey even if it under Sexual Offenses Act of 2003 Section 4 is punishable with a sentence up to life (SOA 2003 doesn’t call it rape either). The latest CSEW did a split-sample experiment to test a new set of questions. The new questions had an option that male victims who had been made to penetrate could answer yes. The analysts classified those who answered yes to that question as NON-VICTIMS.
Because once havging used a shitty operational definition she can never again use a non-shitty one? Of course not, that might undermine your claim to it being, The One True Feminist Idea of Rape.
There is no One True Feminist Idea of anything. But Mary P Koss’ having an operational definition and arguing for it academically in peer reviewed journals and very possibly on advisory boards for federal agencies who conduct national surveys on sexual victimization and publish reports on the results is a tad bit more influental than Jane/Joe/non-binary feminist blogger/blog commenter who thinks it’s should be classified as rape.
As for Koss changing her mind since 1993, here is a quote from her paper co-written with Lehrer and Lehrer on sexual victimization of men in college in Chile published in 2010:
It would also be desirable to conduct further quantitative inquiry using the revised SES (Koss et al. 2007), which contains items that have been crafted with behavior-specific wording to elicit information on a range of SV experiences. This will make it possible to base men’s rape prevalence estimates with more specificity on acts that involve sustaining forced penetration, leaving less leeway for men’s individual perceptions of what constitutes ‘forced sex.’
In that paper an affirmative response(from male respondents) to:
Someone forced me to have sex using physical force.
…was coded as physically-forced sex.
Lehrer, Lehrer, Lehere and Oyarzún have, using the same 2005 dataset, written a paper called : Prevalence of and Risk Factors for Sexual Victimization in College Women in Chile.
In that paper an affirmative response (from female respondents) to:
Someone forced me to have sex using physical force.
…was coded as rape.
But let’s take a look at the revised SES Koss et al would like to use instead on the Chilean dataset:
Here is a quote from the 2007 paper by Koss et al: Revising the SES: A Collaborative Process to Improve Assessment of Sexual Aggression and Victimization
We acknowledge the inappropriateness of female verbal coercion and the legitimacy of male perceptions that they have had unwanted sex. Although men may sometimes sexually penetrate women when ambivalent about their own desires, these acts fail to meet legal definitions of rape that are based on penetration of the body of the
victim. Furthermore, the data indicate that men’s experiences of pressured sex are qualitatively different from women’s experiences of rape. Specifically, the acts experienced by men lacked the level of force and psychologically distressing impact that women reported (Struckman-Johnson, 1988; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1994).
We worked diligently to develop item wording that captured men’s sense of pressure to have sex and draw their responses into an appropriate category of coercion instead of to rape items. The revised wording is discussed in more detail later in the article.
No, apparently it’s still inappropriate.
Both the SES-LSV (questions included in linked article above) and SES-LVF (link does not ask any questions about men being made to penetrate women without the man’s consent. They do ask men whether they have been anally penetrated without consent.