I can't say it was entirely fun in the last few days to see that most of my notes come from some reblog of my (not showing my best self) exasperated rejoinder from many weeks ago to spitting-fanatic anti-feminist Brazenautomaton, pointing to my slip-up about assuming that rates of victimhood of made-to-penetrate rape largely come from the context of prisons as just a typical sign of the usual despicable feminist brainwashing into the evil feminist memeplex that's controlling society.
I mean, I'm mostly pleading to the choir here I suppose, but given that males of our species have the protruding organ that they have sexual urges to poke inside of other humans and are biologically granted the higher sex drive and are also more prone (culturally and biologically) to physical violence and are also (culturally and biologically) put into the role of actively pursuing sex (and typically, anti-feminists proudly refuse to shy away from acknowledging the biological element!), am I brainwashed into male self-loathing by feminists if I imagine the common-sense default outcome is that a solid majority of the raping within humanity is done by men? (Not that this overrides actual data or excuses my misreading of data.)
I'd be curious if those in my audience who aren't anti-feminist fanatics devoted to interpreting everything to do with feminism and individual feminists in as damning a light as possible have a take on what to make of the rape gendered perpetrator/victim data being discussed in the above-linked long thread, given the common-sense backdrop I described above.
I would simply be very cautious of accepting or reasoning from any "common sense" notion of how things are with men and women and the differences between them, given that we are stewing in so much acculturation and propaganda and polarisation-driven or trauma-/ego-driven bias about the subject.
I'd also be hesitant to make inferences from reported figures given that (and this assumption is re-enacted in your very framing of this issue! why does it matter who has protruding genitalia? did we not begin this by talking about rape in which that very specifically isn't relevant in the expected way?) there's a strong sociocultural and, in some places, legal bias towards defining rape in a way that necessarily produces the outcome "it is mostly committed by people with protruding sexual organs" since without penetration (by the perpetrator of the victim) a lot of folk won't see (and therefore won't report or record) something as "really" being rape!
Being-made-to-penetrate rape and female-on-male rape of any kind are both things which we have good cause to think underreported, and ofc when things are underreported it's hard to know by how much.
Also, and I'm open to correction about people more informed on the history of these things, historically rape was not really seen as much as a traumatic violation of an individual. It was a loss of a womens virtue (albeit tragically against her will) and therefore, her value. That's why marital rape didn't "exist" until fairly recently.
So it's not "common sense" that most rape that occurs is male on female. That's a cultural assumption based on the fact that for a long time, the only rape society at large cared about was this one narrow category of it which neccessarily was male on female. Because of, you know, patriarchy. If we are divorcing our understanding of rape from patriachal concepts (which we should), there is really no reason to assume that men are not being subjected to non-consensual sex acts (from women or otherwise) at a rate comparable to women sans data.
