LUST er en svensk TV-serie som hadde premiere på HBO MAX den 18. mars. Den handler om fire middelaldrende kvinners lyst og mangelfulle sexliv.

Den fikk kun terningkast 2 i VG, men i anmeldelsen var det en ting jeg la merke til:

Anette (Sofia Helin) jobber med en statlig undersøkelse om middelaldrende kvinners seksualitet (med den tantra-parodiske tittelen «Sex är en motorväg till hälsa»). Blir så inspirert at hun prøver seg på mannen mens han sover (morsomt).

Jeg ble nysgjerrig på hvordan serieskaperne hadde håndtert dette, og litt skeptisk siden VGs mannlige anmelder beskrev sekvensen som morsom.

Anette er forsker som intervjuer svenske middelaldrende kvinner om deres sexliv. En undersøkelse igangsatt av staten for å se om det er en sammenheng mellom middelaldrendes kvinners (manglende) sexliv og høyt sykefravær. Hun er selv misfornøyd med sitt sexliv da mannen og henne ikke har sex, mens deres tenåringsdatter har både hyppig og høylytt sex med sin tyske kjæreste som er på besøk.

Scenen som er tidlig i første episode starter med at Anette ligger våken i sengen og er kåt. Hun snur seg mot mannen sin som ligger med ryggen til og spør om han er våken. Ingen respons. Hun tar tak i ham og snur ham mot seg. Han lager noen lyder. Hun ser nedover kroppen hans og ser tydeligvis at han har en ereksjon (utenfor kamera). Hun setter seg oppå ham, løfter nattkjolen og begynner å ha et samleie med ham. Mens han sover. Han har øynene igjen og rører seg ikke. Etter at hun har beveget seg opp og ned 2-3 ganger så våkner han til med et rykk og dytter henne bort slik at hun faller på gulvet og slår et kutt i pannen. Du kan ikke gjøre det, det er jo voldtekt, utbryter han. Jeg trodde du var våken, svarer hun. Jeg sov svarer han tilbake. Datteren og kjæresten som har hørt bråket av fallet på gulvet stormer inn og det blir en pinlig affære der foreldrene bortforklarer hva som har hendt.

I slutten av episoden så ringer mannen til Anette på jobben hennes og beklager at han kalte det voldtekt. Verneombudet overhører ordet voldtekt, tror det er Anette som har vært utsatt for det og tar kontakt for å hjelpe. Anette forklarer at det er mannen som mente seg utsatt, men at han hadde brukt ordet feil: “For med menn kan man jo se at de vil.”

Ereksjon er lik samtykke. Sagt rett ut som et fakta uten noe som helst problematisering rundt det.

Innimellom så vises klipp av intervjuene Anette gjør i sin undersøkelse. Bl.a. en der kvinnen anbefaler Anette å ordentlig se på sitt eget kjønnsorgan på huk over et speil (Anette prøver dette senere), en der intervjuobjektet er lesbisk og forteller som sin venninne som ikke skjønte hun var lesbisk før hun var i 40-årene (Anette prøver å kysse en venninne for å se om hun er lesbisk). I episode 4 eller 5 vises et intervju der kvinnen forteller om en mann som penetrerte henne mens hun sov. Når hun så spurte ham hvorfor han gjorde det selv om de var enige om ikke å ha sex så svarte han “fordi du hadde lyst”. Dette blir fremstilt som en historie der man skal føle empati med kvinnen – i hvert fall gjør jeg det. Men det blir ikke trukket noen paralleller til hva Anette utsatte mannen sin for, og Anette reagerer heller ikke på noen måte på dette intervjuet.

Jeg kan ikke si annet at jeg er skuffet over hvordan denne serien støtter opp under voldtektsmyten om at ereksjon betyr samtykke.

Jeg er også skuffet over at ingen av de anmeldelsene jeg kunne finne om denne serien problematiserte dette i det hele tatt. Bortsett fra VG som fant det morsomt så ble det ikke nevnt noen andre steder.

English summary:

LUST is a Swedish TV-series released on HBO MAX on the 18th of March. It’s a show about middle-aged women’s sexuality centered around four friends. In one of the earliest scene of the first episode one of the women (Anette) lies at night in her bed while her husband is asleep. She is horny and quietly ask her husband if he is awake. No response. She turns him towards her. Although he makes some sounds when she does that he’s clearly not awake. She looks down his body and apparently sees that he has an erection (off-camera). She lifts her night-gown and mount him. He is lying still with his eyes closed and not making any sound. After a few thrusts from her he very startled wakes up and pushes her off him and onto the floor while he exclaims that she can’t do that, it’s rape to do so while he is asleep. She defends herself saying she thought he was awake. I wasn’t he answered. The daughter and her boyfriend heard the noise from Anette falling off the bed and rushes into the room and the awkwardness of the situation is played off for laughs.

Later that episode Anette’s husband calls her at work and apologies for using the word rape. The safety representative on Anette’s workplace overhears part of the conversation, believes Anette is a victim of rape and contacts her to see if she needs help. Anette explains that it was her husband who felt raped, but that he was mistaken, because “you can tell that men want to by looking at them”. Basically saying that erection equals consent. All played straight and no subverting in sight.

I had hoped we were past TV programs perpetuating rape myths like “erection equals consent” for laughs.

I was also disappointed that with the exception of one who described this scene as funny no reviews I found even mentioned this scene, much less its problematic aspect regarding male consent.

Fallgruver hun unngår:

1. Hun setter ikke opp antall utsatte menn opp mot antall utsatte kvinner for å gjøre et poeng av at dette sjeldent skjer menn eller at det er et mindre samfunnsproblem når det skjer menn.
   
2. Hun trekker inn et eksempel på hvordan kjønnsrolleforventningene kan skade utsatte kvinner for å utvide, forklare og komplementere problemet – ikke for å monopolisere det eller sette grupper av utsatte opp mot hverandre.
   
3. Hun unngår å komme med bortforklaringer av kvinnelige overgriperes handlinger. Et vanlig eksempel er å påpeke hvordan misogyni fører til at kvinner har lavt selvbilde og at de har internalisert myten om at menn alltid ønsker sex. Og at det er derfor de presser eller til og med tvinger menn til sex selv om mannen sier nei. Denne bortforklaringer er gjerne etterulgt av en oppfordring til menn om å endre denne myten.
   
4. Hun unngår å bagatellisere skaden som utsatte menn er påført. Eksempler kan være argumentasjon rundt det å bli penetrert uten samtykke er verre enn å bli omsluttet av noen uten samtykke og at menn ikke løper risiko for å bli gravide etter et overgrep.
   
5. Hun approprierer ikke utsatte menn for å egentlig snakke kun om utsatte kvinner. Et eksempel på dette var innlegget der forfatteren overhørte en gutt snakke med kameratene om et overgrep han var utsatt for fra en jente. Kameratene støttet ham ikke, men da gutten tilslutt sa at det ville jo ikke vært ok om en gutt hadde gjort det mot en jente så brøt forfatteren inn og fullstendig ignorerte hva gutten hadde vært utsatt for mens hun gratulerte ham for å stå opp for jenter og kvinner.

Ting hun skriver som ofte blir utelatt:

1. Hennes empati for utsatte menn skinner klart igjennom teksten. Hun ønsker at det ikke hadde skjedd meg. Det betyr mye for meg.
   Jeg har andre steder hørt ønsker om at flere menn opplevde seksuelle overgrep slik at menn ville skjønne hvordan det var for kvinner.
   
2. Hun sier min historie er viktig. Det betyr mye for meg.
   Jeg har blitt fortalt andre steder at historier som min er en distraksjon og rett fram farlig å fortelle fordi de stjeler fokus fra overgrep mot kvinner.
   
3. Hun er helt tydelig på hva det å ignorere en manns manglende samtykke er: “Dette er et overgrep”. Det betyr mye for meg.
   Jeg har sett det bli påstått at når en mann var opprørt og ikke klarte å snakke med sin partner etter å ha våknet til at hhun har sex med ham uten hans samtykke så var det han som mishandlet henne psykisk ved å få henne til å føle at hun hadde gjort noe galt.
   
4. Hun er helt tydelig på ansvarliggjøringen av kvinners holdninger og handlinger som tilrettelegger for kvinners overgrep mot menn. Det betyr mye for meg.

Tusen takk Natalie!

Takk til @geirilja1 for å gjøre meg oppmerksom på Natalies innlegg.

For English readers:
Natalie, a social engaged woman with a degree in social work and a feminist published a really good opinion piece in a Norwegian newspaper addressed to the man (as in men) on the subject of sexual violence and sexual assaults against men perpetrated by women. I enumerate some typical pitfalls she avoided and some things that she did include which too often are left out in articles and opinion pieces on male victims not written by male victims themselves. And I expressed my gratitude towards her for writing this piece.

Pitfalls she avoided:

1. Does not use the prevalence numbers for women vs. men victims to downplay how often men are victims.
2. She includes an example of how female gender expectations can lead to victim-blaming of women victims to expand and illustrate how it also affects men, not to monopolize the discourse for only women victims nor to pit them against each other.
3. She avoids excusing women who perpetrate or who enables women perpetrators by believing that a man’s sex drive is any indication of his manhood or manliness.
4. She avoids trivializing the harm done to male victims.
5. She avoid appropriating men who are victims as a means to only talk about women victims and men who perpetrate.
   

Things she did include that too often is left out:

1. Her empathy for men who are victims shines clearly through her text and she states clearly and unequivocally that she whished I was without my experience.
2. She states that my story is important.
3. She states clearly and unequivocally that ignoring a man’s lack of consent is a sexual assault.
4. She unequivocally stated that women are responsible for their own stereotypical beliefs of male sexuality that are dangerous (enables and leads to sexual assaults of men by women) and she encourages women to examine their own beliefs – even the subconscious ones.

It makes me sad. And angry.

Charlotte Vigdisdatter Vogel forteller i dette debattinnlegget (publisert 3. mai 2018 på Aftenposten debatt) om en interaksjon mellom henne og noen unge gutter som fikk henne til å gå av bussen med et glis. Jeg derimot ble bare trist av å lese innlegget.

Hun overhører noen gutter snakke sammen på bussen om en fest. Den ene gutten fortalte hvordan en jente hadde gått rett bort til ham og tatt ham i skrittet.

«Fyfaen, hu ene jenta på den festen var jo gæærn! Hu kom rett bort til meg og græbba pikken min jo!»

Kameratene hans lo det bort.

«Hahaha, særr!?»

Gutten sier han er alvorlig. Det er en klar indikasjon på at han opplevde hendelsen som svært negativt.

«Jaaa, jeg tenkte bare; hva faen? Hun kan vel ikke bare gjøre sånn! Det er jo ulovlig!»

Kameratene fortsetter å bagatellisere det.

«Hahahaha, det er vel ikke ulovlig, haha din idiot, bare ei dame som tok deg på pikken jo!»

Gutten mangler støtte fra kameratene er på vikende front. Han tyr til en sammenligning for å framheve at dette ikke var ok.

«Høhø, nei, men hør da, okei kanskje det ikke er ulovlig da, men tenk da, hvis det var en gutt som gjorde det på en jente?! Da hadde hun jo blitt kjemperedd, og det er faen ikke greit ass!»

Kameratene er enige at det ikke er greit å gjøre dette mot en jente, men fremholder at det er annerledes mot gutter.

«Neeei, du har jo rett i det da kis … men haha, hun tok deg jo bare på ballene da, og vi blir jo ikke sånn redde, vi reagerer jo annerledes ikke sant!»

Gutten forsøker å si at det ikke er greit mot gutter.

«Jojo, men jeg syns bare ikke det er greit jeg ass, skal ikke drive å græbbe folk på kroppen akkurat sånn som man vil, det er ikke kult!»

På dette tidspunktet bestemmer artikkelforfatteren å hoppe inn samtalen mellom guttene. Kommentaren hennes begynner lovende.

Sa at det var det beste jeg hadde hørt på lenge, at jeg var utrolig stolt av det jeg hadde overhørt, og at dette virkelig var noe han måtte fortsette med.

Men den fortsetter ikke like bra. De som hadde håpet at hun skulle støtte gutten og bekrefte hans opplevelse at det ikke er greit at en jente har tatt ham i skrittet uten samtykke blir skuffet.

Spurte om han hadde en søster – det hadde han.

Javel, sa jeg. Du har nettopp bækka søstra di, venninnene dine, og til og med moren din, opp. Du har helt rett i det du sier, og vi trenger flere unge, kule gutter som deg, som stiller opp for oss jentene og gjør oss tryggere.

Overgrepet mot gutten kommer helt i skyggen av forfatterens glede over at gutten hadde sagt at det ikke var greit å gjøre slikt mot jenter. Et utsagn de andre guttene forøvrig var enig i. Hun berømmer ham for å stille opp for jenter og gjøre dem tryggere. Ikke et ord om jenta som forgrep seg på gutten, ikke et ord om at det gutten opplevde ikke var ok – ikke et ord om at det faktisk er ulovlig også for jenter å bare ta gutter i skrittet uten deres samtykke.

Jeg er redd hun endte opp med å bekrefte kameratenes bagatellisering av overgrepet gutten opplevde, endte opp med å bekrefte at selv om det ikke greit å gjøre noe slikt mot en jente så er det annerledes og mindre alvorlig å gjøre det mot en gutt.

Dagen etter kom det en oppdatering til innlegget der forfatteren henviser til noe av kritikken som var kommet i kommentarfeltene. Oppdateringen begynner bra med å si at hun tar selvkritikk for ikke å inkludere begge kjønn – og gutten selv i hennes tilnærming til dem. Dessverre så fortsetter oppdateringen med følgende:

Jeg opplevde ikke på noe tidspunkt at denne gutten var redd eller traumatisert av hendelsen. Han gikk ut av bussen med et kjempestort smil. Når alle parter forlater situasjonen med en så positiv innstilling, er det på sin plass med et glis.

Etter min erfaring så er det faktum at gutten faktisk tok opp hendelsen med kameratene sine og at han forsøkte å overbevise dem om at det ikke var ok på tross av deres bagatellisering en klar indikasjon på at han hadde opplevd hendelsen som traumatisk. Dette evner ikke artikkelforfatter å se og så lenge gutten gikk av bussen med et smil og en positiv instilling så er det i følge henne på sin plass å glise.

Jeg derimot så en gutt som forsøkte å åpne seg opp og fortelle om noe ugreit som skjedde ham. Han viste i høyeste grad sin sårbarhet. Kameratene bagatelliserte det. Artikkelforfatteren bekreftet og forsterket den dominante sosiale oppfatningen om at dette er noe som kun betyr noe når det rammer jenter. Jeg så også en gutt som tok på seg masken igjen og pakket sin sårbarhet bort bak et smil når ingen bekreftet hans opplevelse som noe uakseptabelt.

Jeg blir trist.

Archived ((10th of May 2018) version of the article: https://web.archive.org/web/20180510015009/https://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/debatt/i/KvRQp4/Jeg-gikk-av-bussen-med-tidenes-storste-glis–Charlotte-Vigdisdatter-Vogel

Sentio Research gjennomførte en undersøkelse i april 2017 for Norsk Studentorganisasjon og Universitas. Undersøkelsen dekket flere områder og uønsket seksuell oppmerksomhet var ett av dem. Flere artikler på Universitas refererer denne delen av undersøkelsen og de oppgir at 12% av studentene sier at de har opplevd uønsket seksuell oppmerksomhet. Alle artiklene jeg har sett i Universitas refererer kun til kvinnelige studenter utsatt for dette og kun til menn som utøvere av denne uønskede oppmerksomheten. Men så kom jeg over denne artikkelen på Khrono hvor de skriver at undersøkelsen fra Sentio Research fant at det er størst andel mannlige studenter som opplever uønsket seksuell oppmerksomhet fra medstudenter eller ansatte ved lærestedet:

14 prosent av mannlige studenter at de har opplevd uønsket seksuell oppmerksomhet fra medstudenter eller tilsatte, mot 11 prosent av kvinnene.

Dette aspektet var tydeligvis ikke interessant for Universitas.

Denne undersøkelsen dukker også opp i Stortinget i Representantsforslag 75 S (2017-2018) hvor totaltallet 12% blir nevnt.  Her blir også en undersøkelse utført av NTNU ved skoler i Sør-Trøndelag referert. Følgende funn fra den undersøkelsen blir fremhevet i representatsforslaget:

63 pst. av jentene og 62 pst. av guttene rapporterte om minst én form for seksuell trakassering det siste året. Minst én form for seksuell tvang ble rapportert av 35 pst. av jentene og 25 pst. av guttene.

Det blir ikke nevnt i representantforslaget av 40% av guttene rapporterte seksuell trakassering fra jevnaldrende jente og heller ikke at 15% av guttene rapporterte seksuell tvang fra jevnaldrende jente. Det blir heller ikke nevnt hvilken andel av de utsatte jentene som rapporterte at en jevnaldrende jente var utøver (43% og 5%).

Forslagsstillerne  har endel gode forslag som bedre kartlegging av seksuell trakassering som også omfatter skoleelever, program for forebygging av seksuell trakassering i skolen, tidlig og alderstilpasset opplæring om kjønn, kropp, seksualitet og grensesetting, at arbeidet mot seksuell trakassering forankres i opplæringsjobben og at man gjennom forskrift ansvarliggjør rektor i saker om seksuell trakassering på lik linje med saker om mobbing.

Men det er når forslagene blir konkrete at forslagsstillerne feiler. Etter at de har referert tallene for både gutter og jenter fra undersøkelsen utført av NTNU så fremhever de følgende:

Tiltak som gir jenter verktøyene for å sette egne grenser, er derfor nødvendig.

Dette blir formulert slik i ett konkret forslag (pkt. 6):

Stortinget ber regjeringen innføre selvforsvarskurs for jenter på ungdomsskolen eller videregående skole med fokus på grensesetting. En modell for dette, inkludert opplæring av instruktører og et parallelt opplegg for gutter om respekt for grenser, må utvikles i samarbeid med relevante fagmiljøer.

De 62% og 25% av guttene som hadde opplevd seksuell trakassering og seksuelle overgrep er tydeligvis allerede glemt, feiet under teppet, ikke ansett som relevante. De trenger tydeligvis ingen konkrete rettede tiltak. Hadde forslagsstillerne bare referert til undersøkelser som kun undersøker omfang blant jenter så kunne man ha skyldt utelatelsen på uvitenhet om omfanget blant gutter. Men forslagsstillerne kan ikke skjule seg bak sin uvitenhet her.

Det gjør meg forbannet.

I et intervju med Aftenposten i 2013 sa daværende stortingsrepresentat André Oktay Dahl følgende:

Det er svært få av de 169 stortingsrepresentantene som husker at menn også utsettes for overgrep og vold.

Etter tolv år på Stortinget må jeg fortsatt dra politikere etter håret for å få dem til å si «kvinner og menn» når de snakker om seksuelle overgrep.

Politikerne har tydeligvis ikke lært siden dengang og André Oktay Dahl har trukket seg fra rikspolitikken.

Finnes det i dag noen på Stortingen som kan påse at utsatte gutter og menn blir inkludert?

Tillegg: Jeg ser at Reform har fremført noe av den samme kritikken jeg kommer med i høringsinnspill: https://reform.no/gode-anslag-forslag-seksuell-trakassering/

[English summary: Despite citing statistics showing that a large number of male pupils experiences sexual harassment (62%) and sexual abuse (25%) and that more male students than female students reported unwanted sexual attention from co-students and staff the Sosialistic Left party put forth a motion to the parliament to enact procedures aimed at protecting female pupils and students and none aimed at protecting male pupils and students. Suggestions included teaching boys to respect other’s boundaries, and giving girls the tools to set their own boundaries.]

In 2001 they added the question

Have you ever been physically forced to have sexual intercourse when you did not want to?

to the survey.

Below is a chart showing the results of that questions since 2001 and up to the latest available data which is from 2015:

Some other charts:

One can explore the data here.

CDC have recently published a fact sheet about sexual victimization among boys and girls under 18. The data is stated that is from the NISVS 2012 and are the first indication I’ve seen that the CDC continued with the NISVS after the one surveyed in 2011 (results were published in 2014).

The Fact Sheet is titled “Sexual Violence in Youth – Findings from the 2012 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey“.

The Fact Sheet listed a table containing key findings from the NISVS 2012:

Here is another US study using a nationally representative sample of adolescents and young adults which found that more males reported exchanging sex than females.

Ulloa, E.; Salazar, M.; & Monjaras, L. (2016). Prevalence and Correlates of Sex Exchange Among a Nationally Representative Sample of Adolescents and Young Adults. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 25(5), 524-537.

It used data from The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health.

I recently became aware that last December the CDC have published a new version of the document, “Sexual Violence Surveillance: Uniform Definitions and Recommended Data Elements” (UD2014), on their website. A panel of 11 experts which received comments from seven leaders in the field wrote this document. The panel started its work in October 2010 with this stated agenda:

The key issues discussed and considered by the in-person expert panel that were directly relevant to the SV definitions document were the following: 1) how and if to include unwanted non-physically pressured sex, 2) how and if to include sexual harassment, 3) whether or not to expand the meaning of “completed sex act” to identify who penetrates whom, and 4) how and if to update the Recommended Data Elements.

There is something strange with the timeline here. The CDC collected the survey data for the NISVS 2010 throughout the year 2010 and the survey included questions about penetration which identified who penetrated whom. Hence the panel started when the NISVS surveying was almost done.

It appears the team designing the NISVS had already decided to expand the meaning of “completed sex act” (from the 2002 and 2009 Uniform Definitions) into “victim being penetrated” and “victim being made to penetrate,” but where the 2002 and 2009 Uniform Definitions stated that all non-consenting “completed sex acts” were rape, the NISVS 2010 authors decided that “victim being penetrated” would be categorized as rape while “being made to penetrate” would not.

The new uniform definitions document (UD2014) acknowledges this by presenting the following findings from the NISVS 2011 in its introduction:

• 1 in 5 women and nearly 1 in 59 men have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime, defined as penetrating a victim by use of force or through alcohol/drug facilitation;

• Approximately 1 in 15 men (6.7%) reported that they were made to penetrate someone else during their lifetime;

This is how the NISVS presented its findings with its categorization of “being penetrated” as rape and “being made to penetrate” as not rape.

The Good

The documents define these terms:

•  Consent: Words or overt actions by a person who is legally or functionally competent to give informed approval, indicating a freely given agreement to have sexual intercourse or sexual contact.
• Inabillity to Consent: A freely given agreement to have sexual intercourse or sexual contact could not occur because of the victim’s age, illness, mental or physical disabillity, being asleeep or unconscious, or being too intoxicated (e.g., incapacitation, lack of consciousness, or lack of awareness) through their voluntary or involuntary use of alcohol or drugs.
• Inabillity to Refuse: Disagreement to engage in a sexual act was precluded because of the use or posession of guns or other non-bodily weapons, or due to physical violence, threats of physical violence, intimidation or pressure, or misuse of authority.

In my view these definitions are pretty sound. The definition of “inabillity to consent” goes a long way in disarming some of the more common MRA arguments against the alcohol-facilitated categories. Being intoxicated is in itself not enough to make one unable to give proper consent — one has to be too intoxicated to the extent of being incapacitated, being unconscious or lacking awareness.

The Maybe

Sexual violence is divided into the following types:

• Completed or attempted forced penetration of a victim
• Completed or attempted alcohol/drug-facilitated penetration of a victim
• Completed or attempted forced acts in which a victim is made to penetrate a perpetrator or someone else
• Completed or attempted alcohol/drug-facilitated acts in which a victim is made to penetrate a perpetrator or someone else
• Non-physical forced penetration which occurs after a person is pressured verbally or through intimidation or misuse of authority to consent or acquiesce
• Unwanted sexual contact
• Non-contact unwanted sexual experiences

The document states that the ordering of these types is not intended to suggest a hierarchy of resulting trauma. Yet I’d argue that the NISVS categorization of which acts are considered rape and which aren’t in effect does exactly that. This document (UD2014) does not state which acts are rape and which are not. In fact the word ‘rape’ is largely absent from the document. It only occurs in the listed findings from the NSIVS and when it’s part of an organization’s name (e.g., Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape).

Perhaps that is a good sign in that “made to penetrate” won’t be obscured by inclusion in the much wider supercategory “Other sexual violence” in future NISVS … although I have to say based on the response I’ve received earlier from the CDC on NISVS I suspect they will continue using the category ‘rape’ and continue to exclude a large number of male victims who’ve been made to have sex with a perpetrator.

The Really Bad

However, there was something which made me pause. And that is the change in the definition of coerced sex.

In NISVS it’s defined as this:

Sexual coercion is defined as unwanted sexual penetration that occurs after a person is pressured in a nonphysical way. In NISVS, sexual coercion refers to unwanted vaginal, oral, or anal sex after being pressured in ways that included being worn down by someone who repeatedly asked for sex or showed they were unhappy; feeling pressured by being lied to, being told promises that were untrue, having someone threaten to end a relationship or spread rumors; and sexual pressure due to someone using their influence or authority.

Although there is some ambiguity whether it includes men made to penetrate someone else by non-physical pressure when the definition uses the term “unwanted sexual penetration” it goes on to state “unwanted vaginal, oral, or anal sex”. In addition the actual question asked in the NISVS says:

Sometimes unwanted sexual contact happens after a person is pressured in a non-physical way.

How many people have you had vaginal, oral, or anal sex with after they pressured you by…

This gender-neutral language also resulted in 6% of men stating that they were a victim of sexual coercion and 83.6% of these male victims reported a female perpetrator.

The name and definition of this type in UD2014 however says this (italics are mine):

Nonphysically Pressured Unwanted Penetration
Victim was pressured verbally or through intimidation or misuse of authority to consent or acquiesce to being penetrated. Examples include being worn down by someone who repeatedly asked for sex or showed they were unhappy; feeling pressured by being lied to, or being told promises that were untrue; having someone threaten to end a relationship or spread rumors; and sexual pressure due to someone using their influence or authority (this is not an exhaustive list).

Here it explicitly constrains the definition to only include victims who are penetrated. There is no corresponding item for men who do not want to penetrate someone else, but who are nonphysically pressured to do so. With ‘how to include unwanted non-physically pressured sex’ being one of the four specific points up for consideration by the panel, I have a hard time believing that this omission was made by ignorance or ineptitude.

If future NISVS is implementing these new Uniform Definitions then CDC will erase as many as 6,806,000 male victims of sexual coercion from the statistics.

I have mailed the CDC with my concerns where I ask them what is the rationale behind this omission. I also ask whether they will amend their uniform definitions to include men who are nonphysically pressured to penetrate when they didn’t want to. If I receive any reply I’ll either update this post or make a new one.

This post has also been published on FeministCritics

My impression from the email exchange I had with the project team leader at Rutgers University were that they took my concerns about male victims not being measured by some of the recommended methodologies seriously and they assured me that they would be using gender neutral questions.They also said they would include my concerns in the pilot project’s feedback to the White House and the Office on Violence against Women.

The 2nd of September Rutgers University published a report with the findings from their Campus Climate survey. Which is an opportunity for me to examine to what extent my concerns were considered.

Rutgers University’s Findings

When looking at the key findings section of the report one immediately sees that while it mentions women, the general student population and LGBT students, men are not. It states that 1 in 5 women have experienced unwanted sexual contact and that LGB experiences unwanted sexual contact 2-3 times as often as the other students.

In fact when one take a look at the different tables in the report one notices a peculiar choice of categorization of respondents:

• All (n=10,794)
• Graduate Students (n=2,198)
• Undergraduates (n=8,596)
• Undergraduate women (n=5,403)

Respondents who stated they identified as something else (transgender male, transgender woman, other) than man or woman made up less than 1% of the sample.

This effectively obscures the rate of victimization of male students.

Also of note is the fact that female respondents are overrepresented in the sample.

Here is a re-production of table 14 page 25 combined with table 15 on page 26 in the report:

Page 11 gives this reason for not including male victimization rates:

Table 3, as well as several tables in subsequent sections, show results for four groups of respondents
who took the survey: all respondents, graduate students, undergraduates, and undergraduate women.
Subgroup analysis for undergraduate women was conducted because members of this group are
consistently shown to have a disproportionally high risk of experiencing sexual violence. However, men
can experience sexual violence too, and members of other groups also have elevated risk. Future
analyses will explore these and other related issues, examining victimization among LGB students,
transgender and non-cisgender students, and men.

Frankly, that’s not good enough.

The analysis effort of including columns for male and transgender respondents is trivial – at least for the prevalence numbers (table 14 and 15). This choice to exclude male victims from the first report from this Campus Climate Survey will only serve to cement the impression that sexual violence on campus is an issue that only affects women. All the articles in the media will talk about female victims while male victims will continue to be overlooked. Discussion on prevention efforts will be focused on female victims and male perpetrators.

So, What is The Male Victimization Rate?

I will attempt to calculate an estimate of the victimization rate among undergraduate male students using the following information and assumptions:

• Assuming that all 62 respondents (15 transgender men, 4 (less than 5) transgender women, 18 other and 25 missing) who did not identify as either man or women (p. 9) weren’t excluded from the results.
• By using the information from the summary section (p. 5) to extrapolate that transgendered, other-gendered has  victimization rate three times that of the overall student population. To err on the safe side I am going to postulate that the respondents not giving their gender also are victimized three times as often as well:
  

  Consistent with national research on sexual violence rates among lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) populations, students who did not identify as 100 percent heterosexual had two to three times higher odds of experiencing sexual violence both before coming to Rutgers–New Brunswick and since becoming a college students, as compared to their counterparts.

• By using the information in table 14 and 15 where both n and % for the different categories and victimization types are given.
• For each entry I calculated the N Undergraduate transgender, other or missing by multiplying the undergraduate victimization rate for each victimization category by 3 and multiplying that rate with the 62 respondents who had selected transgender, other or missing as their gender. N of male victims was then calculated by N Undergraduates – N Undergraduate Women – N Undergraduate transgender, other or missing.

I then get this resulting table:

According to this Rutgers University has 50.4% female and 49.6% male undergraduates. So every 6th person who is a victim of unwanted sexual contact while studying at Rutgers University is completely overlooked by this report and it’s recommendations.

Every 6th victim swept under the rug with a vague promise that they will be considered later.

Not.

Good.

Enough.

Rutgers University’s Questionnaire

Rutgers Univeristy also said they would base their questionnaire on the one developed by Krebs et al in their CSA – The Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) study. At the time I didn’t have access to the questionnaire used in the CSA study, but I have since obtained the questionnaire from the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. The CSA study did indeed ask respondents if they had been made to have sexual intercourse without their consent, but it only asked women this question – thus excluding any male victims which were made to have sexual intercourse with a woman without his consent (see page 12 and 14 in the CSA questionnaire for examples).

Earlier this month Rutgers University published the results of their Campus Climate Survey. I’ll address their questionnaire first.

When it comes to questions regarding victimization Rutgers have basically kept the definition of sexual assault/sexual violence from Krebs et al while excluding most questions about specific types of victimization and replacing it questions asking about unwanted sexual contact or attempts thereof by physical force, coercion or threats or when the victim was unable to consent or stop what was happening due to being passed out, drugged, drunk, incapacitated or asleep.

As far as I can see Rutgers does not exclude male respondents from any of these questions.

Unwanted sexual contact is not explicitly defined, but directly preceeding the questions are a definition of sexual assault and sexual violence:

“Sexual assault” and “sexual violence” refer to a range of behaviors that are unwanted by the recipient and include remarks about physical appearance, persistent sexual advances that are undesired by the recipient, threats of force to get someone to engage in sexual behavior, as well as unwanted touching and unwanted oral, anal or vaginal penetration or attempted penetration.

This change to replace more specific question with a much smaller set of questions regarding “unwanted sexual contact” was done to shorten the survey in order to increase response rates. This goes against the recommendation in the project’s Lesson Learned document:

It is also recommended that each section of questions is introduced with a very clear definition of the behaviors, including:
• non-contact unwanted sexual experiences,
• unwanted sexual contact,
• sexual penetration,
• sexual contact,
• completed and attempted sexual violence,
• physically forced sexual violence,
• threatened sexual violence, and
• coerced sexual violence.

So it seems they sacrificed some accuracy for a higher response rate. Unfortunately they also sacrificed the possibility to examine what type of sexual victimization students are most at risk for experiencing. Not even properly defining such as vague term as sexual contact further reduced the informational value of the results. Information which I would think would be very important when considering different strategies to reduce unwanted sexual contact on campus.

I would find the recommendation better if they would’ve used the term sexual intercourse rather than sexual penetration.

Rutgers’ response

I have been in contact with the same person at Rutgers relaying much of the criticism I’ve voiced above in this post. Again she would share my feedback with her team. She noted that they after their analysis weren’t satisfied with the choice to use just one victimization category (unwanted sexual contact) and that is why they recommend a more specific approach in their lessons learned document. She also stated that they had done some analysis on male victimization and they provided those numbers to some reporters who called. They are also looking in analyzing victimization for men, lgbt and ethnic groups and are discussing how to convey these results when they’re done.

All in all I am sorely disappointed given the email exchange I had with Rutgers University a year ago.

I’ve spent some time reading the new questionnaire and although I am pleased that they did include questions about being made to penetrate I have to wonder why they treated it so differently than the other questions for severe sexual violence. The differences are (as Daran pointed out in his comment):

Made to penetrate questions do not ask about attempts. The Sexual Offences Act Section 4 covering made to penetrate does not include attempts, but neither does Section 1 about rape. This is disappointing.

Made to penetrate questions do not ask about who the perpetrator is. The other severe sexual violence questions differentiate between perpetrators who are partners/ex-partners, family members and anyone.

Given that it doesn’t include attempts and considering findings like the ones from the STIRitUP project I wrote about in another blogpost¹ I suspect that we won’t see such a startling number for male victimization as we did in the NISVS reports where just as many men reported having been made to penetrate in the last 12 months as women reported having been raped in the last 12 months (both including attempts).

1. STIRitUP found that UK had the highest rate of sexual violence against teenaged girls from their partner and the lowest rate of sexual violence against teenaged boys from their partners compared to four other european countries.