Why don't feminists in the United States not combat the flawed definition of rape that the FBI currently has?

The FBI states that in order to be a rape victim you must be the one who was penetrated. I believe this is flawed since a person who is doing the penetrating may not be doing so on their own free will.

6 Answer(s)

Like male rape? I agree that if you have to be the one penetrating it is unfair to those who have been forced to penetrate the rapist. They probably would still charge rape with evidence but I do think it shouldn't be so generalized. I believe it is because a lot of feminists are more towards women's issues. They'd rather prioritize solving women's rape before giving everyone the chance to report it.

I'm not sure what's flawed about it, since the FBI definition is “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” That is a broader definition than some states have, since it includes any orifice and not just the vagina (so male and trans victims are included) as well as rape by any foreign object and not just a penis (so a recognized rapist can be any gender).

If you are somehow being coerced into committing rape or sexual assault, that doesn't mean the victim isn't still being raped. They are. But if such a case went to court, the assault victim would likely testify against the person who forced the assault, not the person who committed it on fear for their life. If feminists aren't "combatting" this issue, it's because there's not really anything to combat. The vast majority of rapists are not under coercion, they are acting of their own free will.

"Why don't feminists in the United States not combat the flawed definition of rape that the FBI currently has?"

Feminists can be seen accepting whatever methods will show a higher incidence of rape from anywhere, while discarding anything that does the opposite. All for political reasons and not for the good of any female rape victims.

Second wave feminists were successful at redefining rape away from the violent stranger hiding in the bushes, and moving it into an act of consent. Then after that, the Mary Koss study took that even further, only to redefine rape again in order to tell women that never claimed they were raped, that they were raped.
http://aspiringeconomist.com/index.php/2...

From the link:
"Only 27 percent of the women Koss counted as having been raped identified themselves as rape victims. Moreover, 42 percent of labeled rape victims, went on to have sex with their attackers at a later date. Clearly, something is wrong."

This is where the famous, and often repeated 1 in 4 rape statistic comes from.

We are lucky today that the third wave feminist ideals that state men can never be rape victims because "women lack the power" to rape them nonsense has not been fully accepted (yet). Although this FBI definition pretty much neuters the statistics for any male rape in society .... at least a raped man can (maybe) seek out justice under a different code.
.

Feminists have often defined rape in biased ways to suit their agenda. Mary Koss' survey concluding one in four college women are raped defined rape to include any consensual sex after drinking. Feminists don't want an equal, fair definition of sex because that would not suit their agenda.

Because feminists are sexist and want everything to be about women.

In my personal case? Because I do not have even the dimmest clue as to *how* to do this.

I agree that rape should be defined by who is the involuntary partner, rather than just by who's doing the penetrating. I agree that rape with male victims is not treated anywhere near as seriously as it should be, and not even as seriously as we treat rape with female victims, especially male victims raped by a woman.

But, other than saying "Yeah, this is wrong", I have no real idea what to do about it.