CDC-Logo

Mary P. Koss, Feminist Rape Apologist

Koss influences a government entity to erase male victims of rape.

 

SUMMARY:

  • Mary P. Koss insists on a definition of rape that conceals the incidence of female-on-male rape;
  • The center for disease control (CDC) is a government entity charged with serving the entire public and all citizens of the United States equally;
  • There is an appearance that Mary P. Koss has by her association with the CDC influenced it to formulate findings in a way that favors one group of citizens over another, that in fact significantly disadvantages the second group of citizens;
  • Anyone in a position of public trust, including any position supported by public funds, has a responsibility to prevent her or his private opinions from compromising the mission of the organization she or he serves to serve all citizens equally;
  • There is an appearance that rather than preventing her personal opinions from compromising the mission of the organization she is associated with, she has allowed those personal opinions to influence the function of that public entity.

DISCUSSION:

Mary P. Koss is a widely-quoted feminist writer on the incidence of rape. Her methods and her claims have been controversial. In 2009 a controversy developed around a paper of hers – articles and threads here, here, and here.

She is an influential writer on the subject and her methods and results deserve scrutiny.

In a post earlier this year commenter Tamen noted a tendency in Koss to minimize the scope and incidence of rape of males, especially by women. He said at the time:

“However, Victory_Disease on Reddit made me aware of this paper by Mary P Koss: Detecting the Scope of Rape : A Review of Prevalence Research Methods which show that it’s not simply a matter of focusing on female victims, but rather a conscious effort to exclude male victims of rape from the term rape.”

He specifically noted a section in that paper where she says:

“Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman. p. 206”

He goes on to point how she chooses terms that emphasize or exaggerate male agency and minimize or trivialize female agency. He finishes by noting a paragraph in which she recommends a formulation of “rape” that is gynonormative, such that if the crime does not involve penetration of the victim, it is not rape. The effect if not the intent is to erase the crime of rape by envelopment.

Later Tamen noted a similarity between Koss’ position and the one reflected in the CDC’s formulation of rape in its NISVS 2010 Report. In the course of pursuing the matter with the CDC (the text of his correspondence with the CDC is at the end of this post.), and getting a dismissively tautological and circular answer, he stumbled across a piece of information that may bear on the similarity in positions he had noted.

This is the history of association between Mary P. Koss and the CDC he found:

1996: Expert Panel Member, “Definitions of Sexual Assault,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

2003- : Selected to direct the Sexual Violence Applied Research Advisory Group, VAWNET.org, the national online resource on violence against women funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

2003- : Member, team of expert advisors, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on teen partner violence

2003- : Panel of Experts, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control on scales to measure intimate partner violence, resulted in the publication of CDC Intimate Partner Violence compendium, 2005

2003-4: Consultant, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC Intimate Partner Violence compendium, 2005 IPV Compendium on assessment of sexual violence and inclusion as recommended standard assessments in the field of two Koss-authored assessments (Sexual Experiences Survey-victimization, and Sexual Experiences Survey-perpetration)

Again, Mary P. Koss is entitled to hold any personal opinions she chooses, however odious. She has, however, no right to use her position of trust to impose these personal and private opinions on public policy or results of research intended to form that public policy. Furthermore, public entities with which she or anyone is associated have a responsibility also to ensure that the barrier between private and personal opinion and public policy is maintained and safeguarded.

If this were simply an isolated instance of one person misusing her position, it would be a small matter and simple to correct. It is however part of a larger consensus and pattern of distortion of evidence and erasure when it concerns male victims of rape in general and especially male victims of female rapists.

The problem is quite structural and goes to the local level where evidence is distorted by either a failure or a refusal to report and record even quite clear cases of rape as rape, as in the case of this mother who sodomized her two-year-old son so forcibly with a vibrator that surgery was necessary to remove it. Note how the incident is being charged: as child abuse and sexual misconduct with a minor rather than child rape. If sodomizing an infant so severely that it requires surgery to remove the rape device is not child rape, then nothing is.

Absolutely vile.

Tamen’s correspondence with the CDC as posted on Reddit Men’s Rights:

CDC’s response to whether they will categorize “being made to penetrate someone else” in future reports (self.MensRights)

submitted 2 days ago* by Tamen_

I had a mail account failure and forgot/missed that I a year ago sent this mail to the CDC:

Hi,

One finding of the NISVS 2010 Report which was not reported anywhere in press releases and media (as far as I could see) was that 1.1% of men reported being made to penetrate someone else the last 12 months. That 1.1% of women reported being raped the last 12 months puts this into a perspective which goes very much against common beliefs about male victimization.

Was this finding not interesting or conclusive enough to at least mention in press releases?

The lifetime numbers differs more. Did CDC look into why there was such a difference in lifetime prevalency numbers and numbers for the last 12 months for male victims of “being made to penetrate someone else”?

Will future CDC Reports continue to keep “being made to penetrate someone else” as a category separate from rape or will they be put together/seen as the same as in the new FBI definition of rape?

Best regards, Xxxxxx Yyyyyy

A week later I got the response (my emphasis):

Mr. Yyyyyy,

Thank you for your interest in the NISVS Survey. The NISVS subject matters experts have provided the following information in response to your inquiry:

We understand your concern that the 12 month prevalence for Made to Penetrate was not included in the press release. Unfortunately, due to space limitation in a press release, we were not able to highlight many of the important findings. This information, however, was included in main summary report. In addition, we are currently working on preparing a number of more in-depth reports to follow our first summary report, including one that focuses specifically on sexual violence.

With regards to the definitional issues you mentioned, Made to Penetrate is a form of sexual violence that is distinguished from rape. Being made to penetrate represents times when the victim was made to, or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetrate someone else (i.e., the perpetrator) without the victim’s consent. In contrast, rape represents times when the victim, herself or himself, was sexually penetrated or there was an attempt to do so. In both rape and made to penetrate situations, this may have happened through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threats to physically harm; it also includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.

In summary, rape victimization constitutes times when the victim is penetrated. Made to penetrate are incidents where the victim is forced to penetrate their perpetrator, so does not meet the definition of rape.

Appendix C on page 106 of the report lists the victimization questions. As you will see, the questions were asked in such a way that the perpetrator was the one being penetrated by the victim in made to penetrate cases, not a third party. For example, “how many people have ever used physical force or threats of physical harm to make you have vaginal sex with them?” Or “how many people have ever used physical force or threats of physical harm to make you perform anal sex, meaning they made you put your penis into their anus?” Or “when you were drunk, high, drugged or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever made you receive oral sex, meaning that they put their mouth on your {if male: penis}?”

The FBI definition of rape does not apply here – made to penetrate as we have defined it is distinct from rape and should not be included in a definition of rape.

Until the special reports are available and/or the data set is ready for public use, if there are additional specific questions we can answer, we would be happy to do so. We appreciate your interest in these data.

Sincerely, CDC NISVS Team

Apparently they thought my question about whether “being made to penetrate someone else” would be categorized as rape as per the FBI definition which was revealed shortly after the NISVS 2010 Report was published was due to my inability to read the definitions of rape and “being amde to penetrate someone else” in the report itself.

Apparently it is self-evident for them that it’s not rape and hence they are perfectly aligned with Mary P Koss recommendations (“It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman” page 206 in the full article) also in future surveys and doesn’t plan to align the definition with the “new” FBI definition of rape – which can and in my view should be interpreted to include rape by envelopment.

I know that that paper on how to measure rape prevalency by Mary P Koss has been cited by CDC in other contexts (Reference 7).

I decided to look at Mary P. Koss’ CV:

1996: Expert Panel Member, “Definitions of Sexual Assault,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

2003- : Selected to direct the Sexual Violence Applied Research Advisory Group, VAWNET.org, the national online resource on violence against women funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

2003- : Member, team of expert advisors, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on teen partner violence

2003- : Panel of Experts, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control on scales to measure intimate partner violence, resulted in the publication of CDC Intimate Partner Violence compendium, 2005

2003-4: Consultant, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC Intimate Partner Violence compendium, 2005 IPV Compendium on assessment of sexual violence and inclusion as recommended standard assessments in the field of two Koss-authored assessments (Sexual Experiences Survey-victimization, and Sexual Experiences Survey-perpetration)

No wonder it’s self-evident for the CDC that it is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.

Edited for readability and quote-fixing

Edited again: The title of course should be: CDC’s response to whether they will categorize “being made to penetrate someone else” as rape in future reports

About Jim Doyle

Army veteran - 28 years, active, NG and Reserve; gay man, grandfather, avid gardener. I love languages. I speak five and am more or less familiar with several more.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • AVFM seeks app writer volunteer

    Are you an MHRA? Can you write apps for iPhone and Android? Are you willing to do that for AVFM on a special project? Please contact us.

    A Voice for Men seeks a volunteer with solid app writing experience to help us develop an app that will be linked to the AVFM brand. If you have the qualifications and are serious about following through, we would love to hear from you. Your efforts could be of great assistance to this website and to our cause. Please contact Paul Elam at paul@avoiceformen.com for more details...

  • Wikimasters, Editors, Translators, and Writers Wanted *Apply Now*

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! A Voice for Men and WikiMANNia are working to increase knowledge of men's issues through two wikis: the AVfM Reference Wiki for scholarly references, and WikiMANNia for general-interest men's issues. Volunteers needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing. Some knowledge of the German language will be helpful but *not* required.

    Please write to editorial_team@wikimannia.org...

  • http://feministlies.wordpress.com/ Theaverageman

    Nice to see a new writer on AVFM.Great article Jim!

  • tom b

    I agree … great information to boot

  • loseygosey

    So in a nutshell if your a woman, unless you wear a strap-on, feel free to rape it up? This is some world we live in.

    • The Real Peterman

      Looks that way to me.

  • http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com Mike Buchanan

    An impressive article on a subject that has had MHRAs on the defensive for too damned long. The more articles of this nature we can assemble and publicise, the more the idea that women collectively are on the moral high ground, and men collectively on the moral low ground, becomes utterly indefensible. And with ever more people recognising that reality, the relentless advantaging of women at the expense of men (by legislators and others) will become equally indefensible in time. Thank you. I look forward to future pieces.

    Mike Buchanan

    JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
    (and the women who love them)

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com

    • Rog

      i have been watching your channel on YT a while, nice to see you here posting, keep up the good fight, you make the feminists look like sexist fools on a regular basis (amazing work) and best of luck with your political goals
      R.

      • http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com Mike Buchanan

        Rog, thanks for the kind words. As the weeks go by, I keep asking myself, what’s stopping MHRAs establishing political parties in countries other than the UK? What’s the worst that can happen? A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

        Significant donations only started to arrive when I announced the establishment of the political party, and that got the media interested too (including 10 BBC radio interviews in three weeks). I wish I were as good on radio as Paul Elam was with the Toronto reporter not long ago, but hey, you do what you can with what you have, and when you have batshit crazy 20-something feminist harpies screeching and cackling…

        The important thing is to get the message out there. We’re threatening the livelihoods of politicians in the incumbent party in power, whichever one of the equally anti-male parties that is. The Conservative party – the leading party in the coalition – is David Cameron, a feminist. What dysfunctional times we live in.

        If you have an interest in forming a party outside the UK, and wants to exchange some thoughts on the matter, please feel free to email me at mb1957@hotmail.co.uk. Thank you.

        Mike Buchanan

        JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
        (and the women who love them)

        http://j4mb.wordpress.com

  • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

    Given the prevalence of gender feminist spawned, rape witch-hunting in American society today, is it statistically possible that “one out of one males” will be witch-hunted in some form in his lifetime – as shown in “Witch-Hunting Males” at Youtube. http://tinyurl.com/65dpzwu If the taxpayer funded, feminist toady CDC has its way, it appears likely, IMO. Put that in your gender feminized stats CDC. :-/

  • DeclanLyons

    Excellent article, Jim. That was epic FTSU.

  • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

    Welcome Jim Doyle, and thank you for this outstanding article.

  • donzaloog

    Excellent article.

    That’s a lot of dancing the CDC did to exclude rape by envelopment from the definition of rape. The successful narrative here is that the penis is the ultimate offender. Whoever’s got the dick is the rapist. It took a long time for feminism to take control of the public perception of rape and it will take even longer than that to dismantle it and show the world that men can be victims of rape by women too.

  • JinnBottle

    Thank you, Jim, and welcome to AVfM.

    ‘“It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman”.’

    Where O where, would houserats in ballroom clothing be without that loathsome term, “appropriate”? I’ve written about-and-against that prissy little fuckass word time and time again for 15 years now.

    What I found is that “appropriate” and its derivatives are the words of choice of those who have appropriated – as has Koss-cum-CDC, the definition of “rape”.

    Koss? Fuck you.

    • tallwheel

      Basically, ‘It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who was raped by a woman’.

      • Alex Cockell

        Originally written, or words to that effect, by Koss in 1984.

  • Mr. Sinatra

    Hey Koss?
    Yeah, as a man who was raped by a female (read she forcibly had me penetrate her) why don’t you go and fuck right off, m’kay?
    There’s no way I can be nice about something like this.

    “Mary P. Koss is entitled to hold any personal opinions she chooses, however odious. She has, however, no right to use her position of trust to impose these personal and private opinions on public policy or results of research intended to form that public policy.”

    Indeed. In-fucking-deed.

  • http://whyihatethehumans.blogspot.com/ Itchy Ike

    Has anyone challenged the reasoning for the different definitions? The CDC states flat-out “Made to penetrate…does not meet the definition of rape.” Has anyone ever given a reason why rape is defined so? If so, could someone provide a link or point me to where said justification is recorded?

    • http://pinterest.com/zetapersei/male-privilege/ Perseus

      The justification? Oh that’s easy- it’s “cuz fuck men and boys”.

  • http://commonmanmedia.blogspot.com TCM

    Why this woman is allowed to continue misleading the public is beyond me. She’s been doing it for over 20 years since the MS. study in the 80s.

  • Near Earth Object

    Thank you for this well researched article, Jim.

    And welcome to A Voice for Men—a place where men and women come to celebrate their divorce from feminist culture.

    I note your love for languages and that you have mastered bureaucrat-speak. Well done!

    • http://pinterest.com/zetapersei/male-privilege/ Perseus

      “And welcome to A Voice for Men—a place where men and women come to celebrate their divorce from feminist culture.”

      I see what you did there, very nice NEO :-)

      • Near Earth Object

        Thoughts akin to being caught with my hand in the cookie jar, your post put an ear-to-ear grin on this brother. Thanks Perseus!

        • http://pinterest.com/zetapersei/male-privilege/ Perseus

          LoL…

          :-) Agape my friend

  • Poester99

    So the march is on to codify separate more thoughtful and lenient laws, but only for women.

    So much for feminists and their big lies about being for equality.

  • Theseus

    So…….If I, through force or the threat of violence, make a woman take of her clothes and perform oral sex on her while fondling her breasts, that’s not rape right? What’s that? Oh, it is! Silly me, I forgot; since I’m a man there is a totally different set of standards that apply.

    Any unwanted kissing or “sexual touching” from little boys; that’s rape. A woman (or women) forcing a man to have sex with her under the threat of violence; that’s not rape. Got it!

    Yes,yes, feminists want rape to mean whatever they want it to, whenever they want it to, in any given situation. Apparently rape is a chameleon, a mutating gene that evolves and adapts at the drop of a hat, and the only criteria we need for rape is if a woman says it is or not.

  • onca747

    Thanks Jim for that illuminating article. The most insidious part is, if a woman forces a man to have sex against his will, then by Hitler P. Koss’ standard, it leaves the door open for *her* to accuse that *him* of rape.. and there ain’t shit he could do about it. Evil, vile woman.

  • http://vilo13.blogspot.com/ Lucian Vâlsan

    Yaaay – another polyglot amongst the contributors here. What languages do you speak, sir?

  • Grumpy Old Man

    Jim, this in my opinion is some of the most important work to be done and thank you for you for doing it. It is precisely these Feminists that undermine our institutions who do great damage and often do it under the radar. Salute!

    • Near Earth Object

      “…do great damage and often do it under the radar.”

      In my experience, more often than not…

      The Feminist Modus Operandi is sss…sss…sssneaky!

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/DannyboyCdnMRA Dan Perrins

    Nicely done Jim and welcome to the fold.
    I can not fathom how these women consider themselves to be moral or ethical.
    How they can turn a blind eye to a crime this heinous is beyond me.

    • Near Earth Object

      “I can not fathom how these women consider themselves to be moral or ethical.”

      I doubt very much if they do, Danny. I think it highly unlikely that they think in these terms—
      in a conventional sense—at all. Morals, ethics, the truth…all can be a great hindrance during a time of war.
      My sense is that they will utilize morals—ethics, to manipulate and shame, be it directed toward a male, or a female.
      Just my sense, given my experience.

      We error, when we project our cherished values onto feminists.
      We put our self at an extreme disadvantage if we expect decent behavior from feminists.

    • Near Earth Object

      “How they can turn a blind eye to a crime this heinous is beyond me.”

      Different eyes see different things
      Different hearts beat on different strings

      Neil Peart
      Great Canadian Philosopher

  • KeanoReeves

    Let me add another fact. If a man is raped and gets a kid, he is liable for child support!!! That is the current situation “for the good of the child”. The woman, being pregnant is given a pass – for the sake of the child.

    What if the raped man is a minor? Child support has to be given by his father or guardian till he is 18, after which he has to pay child support. Ofcourse, dad can recover child support he paid to his grandson, from his son, by filing a civil suit!!!

    This is FYI

  • http://www.genderratic.com/ Jim Doyle

    Thanks everyone who said nice things. Remember that it was a commenter of mine, Tamen, who did all the real work that constitutes the article.

    I hope this article is of actual concrete help. When you are trying to clean up a situation it’s important to identify who is causing problems. If we want th addres the rape situation – erasure of male victims, rape hysteria, misuse of female victims to destroy men – the first order of business is to get honest people in the discussion. and the first step in that is to identify who is honesty as opposed to who is working off some agneda, and what that agenda is, without any concern for where that inquiry leads.

    So if there are parallels between the rape hysteria we see today and the KKK’s use of rape accusations to terrorize balck men, we need to point those out and damn anyone who takes offense at the parallels or the criticism. And if acknoewledging male rapae victims threatens anyone’s sense of masculinity and need for a facade of invulnerability, damn them too.

  • MGTOW-man

    More proof on top of proof already that apparently women—at least the ones we have allowed to be in charge of new rules for everyone—operate from a emotional/feelings-skewed perspective on reality, which is bad and of course, unacceptable.

    If we are to really win this thing, how are we going to do so by refusing to call an ace of spades exactly what it is:

    Men’s and women’s brains are hardwired differently. Women’s are far more prone to be and exhibit emotionality. (This is on top of the social conditioning aspects for men and women). How is it that we see such huge examples of emotionality coming from women, but somehow miraculously think is has nothing to do with women being more emotional—and to be a leading cause for women to concoct such outrageoous claims as what this article conveys?

    How about all the laws that are so obviously unfair to men and serve to benefit women only in so many ways? Could it be that women are satisfied with a catawampus “balance” because it makes them FEEL better, thus tolerable, when their dormant, rational side absolutely says “no way”?

    How long are we going to ignore the elephant in the room? No one wins by ignoring the elephant. Period.

    Here is something we can do to circumvent and indeed head off the problem:
    Tell/teach the boys that women are not to be trusted until you are absoluteluy sure they can be trusted. Explain to them why? Use examples we see here everyday to inform. Heck, use examples from your own daily lives if the shoe fits. Once they make sure certain women can be trusted, then be alright with them.

    Boys must be taught to not let the feelings of women “blind” them to the real reality that exists completely free of opinions and feelings which can and does distort perceptions of reality, which in turn generates unfair/biased “resolves.” The proof is all around us! What else could be the culprit for women starting, supporting, tolerating so many goofy laws?

    Our boys are the key to slowing feminism to a slow crawl, then once in check, seek to disempower women who are just too emotional to lead and make group-rules.

    I truly believe this fair. We should leave no stone unturned. We did not start this fight, but we certainly have a right to win it.

    Tell boys they will be equally loved and thought of a real men if they do what smart boys will do and scrutinize women correctly. Look before they leap…and if they do not like what they see, then DUH, for crying out loud, DO NOT JUMP IN!..no matter what!

    It is better to have nothing than to have the wrong thing. It is better to be alone than to have someone you wish you hadn’t ( and who says a male that sees the truth about women HAS to be alone anyway?). It is better to be honest with oneself than it is to lie and do it anyway just to fit in, be liked, and thought of as a “man”. Besides, there really is more to manhood than deferring to women(others) to determine men’s worth.

    I do not have boys, but if I did, you can bet everything you own, that I would teach my boys to outsmart feminism even if they abstain from women altogether. Men are going to have to have a “suffrage” of their own. Winning without sacrifice isn’t possible.

    We need to quit pushing the boys to being unwitting accomplices for feministic destruction of all that we know.

    In a world where everything has changed, why should males be the only thing that hasn’t? Change males and you change the world.

    Too hard? Bull! Too late? Not yet! Too radical? OK, then cling to your losing!

  • AntZ

    Dear Jim Doyle,

    I dug and dug to find out how the gynocentric definition was initiated. It smelled of feminist hate, but they covered their tracks too well and I could not find the source.

    You sir are a true investigative reporter. Please remain active in this movement. We need that nose of yours to ferret out the track of the feminist enemy, as she skulks the halls of power, spreading her poison.

    Bravo, bravo, bravo.

    • http://www.genderratic.com/ Jim Doyle

      As I said above, the person who did the actual work was Tamen. That posot pulled together one based on some ealrier work of his and some research he did recently.

      He has a personal stake in this, and he is much more aggressive than I am in research.

  • shmiggen

    gynonormative

    Can’t wait to shove that word in a feminist’s face.

    • http://www.genderratic.com/ Jim Doyle

      So then here’s a new one for you – “gyronormative”. it menas ot spin and spin and shift the goalpsots and mischaractierize your opponents and thier positions and refuse to acknowledge your own statements made in the past. It is basically a Cluster B behavior.

  • Patrick DiSandro

    Something I’ve wondered for a bit…
    If feminists want a definition of rape where ‘rape by envelopment’ isn’t rape, well naturally that means a man raped by a woman isn’t rape, but it also means a few other things.
    It would mean a young boy who has his penis fondled by a man or woman isn’t raped. Still plus column for feminists.
    A woman who has her breasts or ass groped also isn’t raped. Afterall, a woman’s vagina isn’t her only erogenous zone. Groping can be considered sexual envelopment. Still wanna pass the law this way?

    Feminists want to demonize the penis. A cursory glance and psychology screams the term ‘penis envy’ for this, but that would be subjecting women to a shaming tactic, and we all know only men deserve to be shamed. Extremists will not be satisfied until any act that can be called ‘sex’ that in any way involves a ‘penis’ can and should be considered rape performed by the owner of said penis.

  • Bryan Scandrett

    “It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman. p. 206”
    Two people fucking.
    If she doesn’t welcome it, it’s rape.
    If he doesn’t welcome it, get over it bitch. And feminism is not a hate movement. Sure.

    • Alex Cockell

      I suicidally ate for 30 years due to this type of sexual abuse (fondling etc) from girls. Silenced by their threats to cry rape. I hold Mary Koss personally responsible.