Judgments About Male Victims of Sexual Assault by Women: A 35-Year Replication Study

Abstract

Sexual assault of men by women has received increasing attention in recent years, as has research on rape myths about male victims. This study is a cross-generational replication of a 1984 study of college students’ judgments about male and female victims in a scenario involving a sexual assault carried out by male or female assailants. The 1984 data (n = 172) were compared with those of a 2019 cohort (n = 372) in a 2 (participant gender) x 2 (assailant gender) x 2 (victim gender) x 2 (cohort) factorial design to assess potential generational changes in perceptions of victims. Judgments by male participants of male victims of assaults carried out by women changed notably over time. The 2019 male cohort was less likely to judge that the victim initiated or encouraged the incident (40% in 1984 compared with 15% in 2019) and derived pleasure from it (47.4% in 1984 compared with 5.8% in 2019). In contrast, the 2019 female cohort was more likely to attribute victim encouragement (26.9% compared with 4.3% in 1984) and pleasure to the male victim (25% in 2019 compared with 5% in 1984). A similar gender pattern occurred in judgments of how stressful the event was for the male victim. Analysis of the 2019 data revealed that overall, despite scientific and cultural shifts that have occurred over the past three decades, participants continued to judge the male victim of assault by a female to have been more encouraging and to have experienced more pleasure and less stress than in any other assailant/victim gender combination. Results are discussed in relation to gendered stereotypical beliefs and male rape myths, as well as possible sensitization to power differentials inspired by the #MeToo movement. We emphasize the need for greater awareness and empirical attention to abuse that runs counter to preconceived notions about sexual victimization.

Keywords

rape sexual assault rape myths male victimization gender

The past 50 years have witnessed significant advances in societal and scientific understanding of sexual assault, including changes in legal statutes and proliferation of services for victims (Lowe & Rogers, 2017; Moylan et al., 2020). A surge in research over the past decade and simultaneous cultural movements such as #MeToo not only increased awareness of the pervasiveness and impact of sexual assault but also highlighted stereotypical perceptions of victims and perpetrators (Bates et al., 2019; Boyle, 2019).

Traditionally, “rape,” defined as forcible penetrative sexual assault, has been viewed as a crime committed by men (Cortoni, 2015). Legal and scientific attention has focused primarily on assaults by men on women or on other men, particularly in penal settings. It is now recognized, however, that the perpetrator-victim relationship may consist of any possible gender combination and may involve acts not involving penetration. As such, most legal jurisdictions now have gender-neutral rape laws that also involve forcible oral sex (Stemple et al., 2017). In this article, we will use the term sexual assault or sexual victimization to refer to nonconsensual sexual contact or behavior (Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, 2020) including, but not limited to, rape. We primarily address cultural norm shifts in legal and social perceptions of sexual assault in the United States, although and we will draw on research from the United Kingdom (e.g., Anderson, 2007; Javaid, 2014; 2016; 2017; Gill & Orgad, 2018) while similar shifts have occurred globally at different rates (Nicholas & Agius, 2017; Regulska, 2018).

Prevalence of Male Victimization by Women

The sexual victimization of men by women is understudied and often misunderstood (Bates et al., 2019; Fisher & Pina, 2013). Although provocative anecdotal reports of men being forced to engage in sexual acts with women under threat of bodily harm appeared occasionally (e.g., Delano, 1979; Lehfeldt, 1952), the first systematic report of such events appeared in the early 1980s, where 11 cases were presented in a qualitative study by Sarrel and Masters (1982). In four of the cases included in that study, unwilling men were subjected to physical restraints and threats of physical violence. In all of the cases, men viewed the experience as traumatic. Orman (1982), based on interviews and written reports by more than two dozen male victims of whom 12 were assaulted by two or more women who brandished a gun and other weapons, reported similar negative sequalae.

There is increasing evidence that male victimization is more widespread than previously assumed in the United States. Using a broadened definition of sexual assault that included unwanted sexual contact in addition to forced penetration, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) carried out a supplementary additional analysis of the National Incidence-Based Reporting System data for 2010 and reported that men and women reported very similar prevalence of nonconsensual sex in that year. Moreover, the majority of male victims in that sample reported female assailants, challenging many stereotypical assumptions about the assailant–victim relationship (Stemple & Meyer, 2014). Congruent with that finding, anonymous reports from female perpetrators suggest that as many as 45% of their assaults involved a male victim. Sexual assaults by women involve oral sex as well as anal and vaginal penetration using force and coercion such as drug and alcohol intoxication, verbal persuasion or threats, application of physical force, or use of a weapon (Fisher & Pina, 2013; Muehlenhard & Cook, 1988; Struckman-Johnson et al., 2003; Weiss, 2010). Sex differences in physical strength are often compensated for by threats involving a weapon. A fine-grained analysis of data on 2155 cases of male sexual victimization from the 2011–2015 American Community Survey and the 2011–2015 National Incidence-Based Reporting System revealed that females, who comprised 10% of the offenders, used a weapon in 71% of the incidents compared with 68% of the male assailants (Dierenfeldt & Balemba, 2018). This is most likely to occur when there is more than one assailant who can brandish a gun, knife, or tool while another commits the actual assault, and such incidents have been described in victim reports. (e.g., Orman, 1982).

Rape Myths About Male Victims

Stereotypical and often unfounded beliefs about victims of sexual assault are known in sexual assault literature as “rape myths” (Brownmiller, 1993; Schwendinger & Schwendinger, 1974; Turchik & Edwards, 2012). A primary stereotype is victim blame, which is a term for ideas that suggest that the victim initiated or was at least partially responsible for their assault, that victims overstate their distress, and that sexual assault is a trivial event (Carmody & Washington, 2001; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). Such beliefs are widely accepted and, in some studies, as many as 66% of respondents endorse rape myths (Edwards et al., 2011; Fisher & Pina, 2013). While the rape myth literature originally involved only female victims, the study of rape myths specific to male victims has grown in recent years.

Studies in the United States and United Kingdom have shown that “mythical” beliefs about sexual assaults of men are widely held, that rape myths about women and men are significantly correlated, and that such beliefs help mediate judgments about male assault victims (Javaid, 2017; Reitz-Krueger et al., 2017; Turchik & Edwards, 2012). Rape myths about men include the following: (a) It is impossible for a woman to sexually assault a man; (b) A man is incapable of functioning sexually unless sexually aroused; (c) If a man achieves an erection or has an orgasm, it means he wanted to have consensual sex; (d) Men are less affected by sexual assault than women; and (e) men who were sexually assaulted by a woman are responsible because they did not escape or fight them off (Chapleau et al., 2008; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1992). Further, the perception that men are more sexually preoccupied than women (Endendijk et al., 2019; Young et al., 2016) reduces the likelihood that a male victim of female perpetrators would be regarded as an unwilling victim (Russell & Oswald, 2016). Instead, these myths might well increase the extent to which responsibility and sexual enjoyment are attributed to male victims (Delano, 1979; Sarrel & Masters, 1982). In studies assessing judgments of vignette examples of sexual assaults, men are seen as more culpable for the abuse if the assailant is female rather than male (Davies & Rogers, 2006), highlighting an overall cultural perception that men are not victims of sexual assault.

All of the beliefs cited above are of dubious validity. For example, it is entirely possible for men to have an erection and ejaculate in response to a variety of affective states, including extreme fear, as well as in response to manual or anal stimulation (Bullock & Beckson, 2011). Yet, cases have been thrown out of court because of this erroneous belief in both the United States and United Kingdom. Adherence to this belief may not only influences judges’ decisions and perceivers’ attributions, but also the victim’s self-perception, sense of masculinity, and gender identity (Javaid, 2016; Reitz-Krueger et al., 2017; Turchik & Edwards, 2012). Such widespread judgments about male victims are also thought to contribute to underreporting of assaults (Donne et al., 2018). Reasons for this connection include men’s embarrassment and shame that the event occurred, unsympathetic responses by authorities, and gender-biased sexual assault laws, as both victims and third-party evaluators (e.g., first-responders, juries, and social-support networks) are often influenced by rape myths (Department of Justice, 2019; Javaid, 2017; Turchik & Edwards, 2012). The cycle of underreporting and underrepresentation of male victims due to cultural gendered expectations of assault thus impacts all aspects of the victim experience.

Judgments About Male Victims of Sexual Assault by Women

By the early 1980s, there was growing awareness of mythical beliefs about male sexual physiology and motivation and their possible role in judgments about male sexual victimization (e.g., Allgeier & McCormick, 1983; Bancroft, 1980; Burt & Albin, 1981; Hatfield, 1983; Orman, 1982; Sarrel & Masters, 1982), but there was limited empirical attention to the potentially influential role of rape myths on judgments made about male victimization by women. Smith et al. (1988) conducted an experimental study in 1984 to assess judgments about sexual assault victims. In a 2 (assailant gender) × 2 (victim gender) × 2 (participant gender) research design, college undergraduates participating in a study of judicial decision making were asked to put themselves in the role of juror and make a series of judgments about a sexual assault vignette in which a man or a woman was forced at gunpoint to engage in oral sex with two male or female assailants.

The most striking finding of that study concerned the judgments made, particularly by men, about the male victim of the assault by women. Compared to the other three assailant-gender conditions, the male victim of sexual assault at gunpoint by female perpetrators was judged more likely to have initiated or encouraged the sexual interaction, to have experienced more pleasure from the sexual interaction, and to have found the experience less stressful. Regarding sexual pleasure experienced by the victim, 47.4% of the participants who were men made ratings within the “pleasurable” portion of the 6-point scale, compared with fewer than 5% of female participants. One man wrote on his protocol, “Some guys have all the luck” (Smith et al., 1988, p. 105). Considering the severity of the scenario presented, including use of a lethal weapon, and the almost unanimous guilty verdict rendered by participants, these findings suggest that even in the most distressing experiences of sexual assault, male victims may nonetheless be discounted.

Aims and Rationale of the Present Study

Do today’s American “Generation Z” students have different views of sexual assault victims than did the “Generation X” students of 1984? There is reason to believe that a shift in judgments has occurred, particularly among men. Since the 1980s, increased awareness of the realities of sexual assault have served to make the topic more salient than it was four decades ago in both the United States and United Kingdom (Boyle, 2019; Gill & Orgad, 2018; National Sexual Violence Resource Center, 2020a, National Sexual Violence Resource Center, 2020b). Further, sexual assault prevention efforts have evolved in myriad ways, with such legislation as the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act that mandates all universities receiving aid from the federal government have transparent assault policy statements and offer sexual assault awareness and prevention programs. As college students are increasingly exposed to education, campus-wide alerts, and crime statistics reports, it is important to understand how students interpret and judge scenarios of sexual violence.

While rape myths about both male and female victims remain prevalent, there is evidence to suggest that public beliefs about sexual assault may have shifted (Beshers & DiVita, 2019). Studies using standardized scales and implicit measures of rape myth adherence suggest that rape myth acceptance among undergraduates decreased in recent years. Carroll et al.(2019) found a notable increase in awareness of sexual coercion tactics by female perpetrators of male victims in comparison with an earlier study in the United Kingdom using the same methodology (Anderson, 2007). This is consistent with a decrease from 22 to 8% over a 16-year period in the number of college-aged men who endorsed the belief that “a man cannot be raped by a woman” (Chapleau et al., 2008).

However, previous studies of rape myth changes show a “male lag” such that rape myth acceptance about male victims remains years behind those involving female victims (Chapleau et al., 2008; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1992). Carroll et al. (2019) found that written rape scenarios involving male victims contained more mythical elements than did scenarios of assaults of women and that participants endorsed more negative and stereotypical attitudes toward male rape victims than they did toward female victims (Carroll et al., 2019). Likewise, while the #MeToo movement has certainly increased the visibility of male perpetrators of sexual violence and the disproportionate power of men, far less emphasis has been allocated to male victims of female perpetrators (Boyle, 2019). This growing gap in visibility may well do a disservice to perceptions of male victims of assault as well as victims of assault by strangers (Povoledo, 2018). Because beliefs, stereotypes, and attitudes can have far-ranging consequences on reactions of victims, judges and juries, and health care providers (Bahji, 2018; Donne, et al., 2018), it is important to identify and track the effects of such changes.

The present study is designed to directly compare results from 1984 (Smith et al., 1988) with those of a 2019 cohort at the same university. The recent studies cited above inspired several hypotheses under the assumption that the 2019 male cohort would hold more informed and less stereotyped perceptions of sexual assault victims. First, we hypothesized that the 2019 male participants would attribute less encouragement or initiation of the sexual episode to the male victim of the assault by women, as well as lower responsibility for the assault than the 1984 male cohort. Second, we hypothesized that the 2019 male cohort would attribute less pleasure and greater stress to the male victim than did the 1984 cohort. We did not predict significant changes in women’s judgments of the male victim because we expected that they would maintain their low ratings of encouragement, responsibility, and pleasure and greater ratings of stress by the victims.

Method

Participants

Participants consisted of 544 college students enrolled in the introductory psychology course at the University of Washington in 1984 (n = 172) and 2019 (n = 372), respectively. The 1984 cohort consisted of 172 (79 self-identified male and 93 self-identified female) students. The 2019 cohort contained 372 undergraduates (153 self-identified male and 219 self-identified females). The two cohorts both volunteered to participate in a study approved by the university’s institutional review board. The stimulus materials and procedure were judged by the review committee as involving minimal risk.

The cohorts were similar demographically in age (males = 19.07 and females = 18.76). Although racial identity data were not collected, comparison of student enrollment data from 1985 and 2019 from the university in question indicated that the cohorts were highly similar, with approximately 40% White, 27% Asian American, 9% Hispanic, 15% International, 4% Black Americans, and 5% “other.” Departmental statistics indicate that student ethnic representation in the psychology course has remained consistent with overall University demographics over the years.

Procedure

The 2019 replication study was designed to be as similar as possible to the design and protocol of Smith et al. (1988). One procedural difference was that the 1984 data were collected in large group sessions of approximately 50 participants held outside of class, whereas the 2019 data were collected in a class setting. In both studies, data were collected anonymously as researchers did not collect any identifying information from students (e.g., name and student ID) during the data collection. To satisfy the principle that research participation should have an educational benefit, after the 1984 experiment was completed and the data analyzed, all participants were sent a written report providing feedback on the research method, the results of the experiment, and the topic of rape myths that was very similar to that received by the 2019 cohort during a post-experimental class debriefing.

Participants in both cohorts volunteered for a study of “judicial decision making” and received extra course credit for their participation. Participants were warned in advance of meeting attendance that this study would involve distressing content including depictions of violence. The same instructions, procedures, stimulus materials, and rating scales were used in both cohorts, with the experimenter in both instances introducing himself as a Law School researcher.

Participants were told that they would read several criminal case studies and be asked to render anonymous judgments on the cases. In the interest of informed consent, participants were also told again that some cases might involve depictions of violent or sexual crimes that would be described in detail. The 2019 participants were informed that their group data would be analyzed and presented in class by a forensic psychologist who has done research with colleagues in the Law School (true) and that the results would be relevant to future course topics. They were told that they could elect not to participate or could discontinue the exercise at any point anonymously without penalty. Consent form signatures were used to assign extra course credit for participation.

On the day of consent form completion and data collection, each participant was given a booklet containing two case descriptions and rating forms. The booklets were prearranged and passed out in an order that would ensure that the number of participants in each experimental condition would be as similar as possible. The instructions on the first page of the booklet stated that participants would be asked to read and make a series of judgments about two randomly selected cases. Participants were told that one aspect of the project concerned the question of whether participants who were given written descriptions of the evidence presented at trials would arrive at judgments similar to those made by the actual jurors in those trials. They were asked to “put yourself in the shoes of a juror at the trial, carefully consider the evidence, and render the judgments you would make given the evidence presented.” This procedure was designed to conceal the purpose of the experiment and reduce potential demand characteristics.

Less than 1 month later, after the data were analyzed, the forensic psychologist made a 50-minute results presentation to the class. The researcher discussed the use of the simulated juror method in psychological and legal research, presented the study’s findings, and discussed the topic of rape myths and their impact on the judicial system and on victims of sexual assault. This presentation was video-recorded and made available to participants who may not have been able to attend. All participants were given resources to counselling services from their class instructors should they experience distress given the content of the research.

Stimulus Materials

On the face page of the protocol, participants reported their age, gender, and whether they had ever served on a jury (none had). Self-identified men and women were randomly assigned via order of distributed protocols to the four experimental conditions in which the gender of the victim and gender of the assailants were systematically varied in a 2 × 2 design by modifying the first name of the assailants and the victim. Participants were given two cases to judge. The first involved an armed robbery, which was intended to help mask the purpose of the study. The focal sexual assault case description was the second vignette. The stimulus materials were inspired by two case histories provided by Orman (1982) in which a male victim was forced at gunpoint by two female assailants to engage in sexual acts. It was entitled “State of Washington, Wenatchee District Court, Case #351525-02,” with the following description:

On Tuesday, May 27, 2016, John (or Joan) Drucker, a 20-year-old college student, was traveling on United States. Route 2 west of Leavenworth, Washington. On a relatively deserted stretch of highway without cell service (“telephone service” in 1984), Mr. (Ms.) Drucker’s auto overheated as the result of a broken fan belt. He (she) was offered and accepted a ride to a service station in the next town by the defendants, Mary (Mark) Barnett and Theresa (Thomas) Dandridge. According to Mr. (Ms.) Drucker, the defendants suddenly pulled off the highway onto a deserted dirt road and confronted him (her) with a gun. Mr. (Ms.) Drucker stated that he (she) was forced to disrobe and the defendants did likewise. Mr. (Ms.) Drucker was then told by Ms. (Mr.) Dandridge that he (she) and the defendants were going to “‘play a little game called ‘69.’” For the next 30 min, Mr. (Ms.) Drucker stated that he (she) was forced to engage with the two women (men) in mutual oral-genital sexual activity. He (she) stated that he (she) was left in the deserted field with his (her) clothes as the defendants drove off. He (she) made his (her) way to the highway and was eventually picked up by the State Patrol, to whom he (she) reported the incident.

The defendants were apprehended later that day in Skykomish, Washington. They were positively identified by Mr. (Ms.) Drucker. A gun was found in their possession and identified by Mr. (Ms.) Drucker as the weapon used in the episode.

Mr. (Ms.) Drucker preferred charges and, under Washington law, the defendants were charged with rape, an offense punishable by a prison term of 5–20 years.

Statement by the defendants: At the trial held in Wenatchee, Washington, the defendants acknowledged that the alleged sexual acts had occurred, but they denied that they had forced Mr. (Ms.) Drucker to engage in them. They claimed, instead, that the sexual incident occurred at the suggestion of Mr. (Ms.) Drucker.

Dependent Variable Measures

On the pages following the case descriptions was a “Juror Questionnaire” designed to measure degree of responsibility and affective responses attributed to the victim. The rating scales for the rape case, which did not have a neutral point, were designed to require an extremity-based directional binary judgment by participants. It contained the following items:

What is your judgment of the innocence or guilt of the defendants? (Answered on a 6-point Likert format ranging from 1: “I am certain that the defendants are innocent” to 6: “I am certain that the defendants are guilty,” with 2 and 4 labeled “somewhat” and 3 and 5 labeled “fairly” uncertain/certain).

The crime of which the defendants are accused is punishable by a term up to 20 years in prison. If found guilty, how many years would you recommend? (Participants wrote the number of recommended years, from 0 to 20)

What is your judgment of the likelihood that Mr. (Ms.) Drucker was forced by the defendants to engage in the sex acts? (6-point scale ranging from “extremely unlikely” to “extremely likely,” with 2 and 4 indicating “somewhat” and 3 and 5 “very” unlikely/likely)

What is your judgment of the likelihood that, as the defendants claim, Drucker encouraged or initiated the sex acts? (6-point scale from “extremely unlikely” to “extremely likely,” as for Item 3)

How sexually pleasurable do you feel the incident was for the two defendants? (6-point scale from “extremely unpleasurable” to “extremely pleasurable,” with two and four indicating “very” and three and five labeled “slightly” pleasurable/unpleasurable)

How sexually pleasurable do you feel the incident was for Mr. (Ms.) Drucker? (Same scale as Item 5)

How stressful do you feel the incident was for Mr. (Ms.) Drucker? (6-point unipolar scale ranging from 1, “not at all stressful” to 6, “extremely stressful,” with 2 through 5 labeled as “slightly,” “somewhat,” “fairly,” and “very” stressful)

How personally responsible do you feel Mr. (Ms.) Drucker was for the sexual acts that occurred? (6-point scale from “not at all responsible” to “completely responsible,” 2 through 5 labeled as “slightly,” “somewhat,” “fairly,” and “very” responsible).

Because the focus of this study was on judgments made about the victim, the present report will focus on participants’ responses to Items 4, 6, 7, and 8, but will refer to other data as relevant to our discussion of the findings.

Data Analyses

The item-level raw data from the 1984 cohort had been archived, and they were retrieved and combined with the 2019 data set. Using the SPSS Version 21 MANOVA program, a 2 (participant gender; PGEN) × 2 (assailant gender; AGEN) × 2 (victim gender; VGEN) × 2 (Cohort) multivariate analysis of variance followed by between-subject univariate analyses was used to identify significant main and interaction effects among the independent variables. Where significant effects emerged, differences between cell means were assessed. Given unequal cell sizes and evidence of heterogeneity of error variance provided by Levene’s tests of inequality for the victim pleasure and victim stress variables, post hoc follow-up analyses of cell mean differences at p < .05 were conducted using the Games-Howell HSD procedure, which does not require equal cell numbers or homogeneity of variance while also providing tight control over Type 1 error (Howell, 2007).

Results

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and correlations among the variables for the two cohorts. Correlations were highly similar for men and women in both cohorts and gender data were therefore aggregated. The pattern of correlations suggests satisfactory participant immersion in the judgment task. Given the strength of evidence, most of the participants judged the defendants as guilty of the assault, with more than 96% of both cohorts rendering a guilty verdict. However, all participants were included in the analyses, as in the 1984 study. Of the six pairs of correlations, the only significant difference in coefficients was the stronger relationship between victim responsibility and victim pleasure observed in the 1984 cohort (z = 2.30, p = .02). Statistically, this difference may be attributable to increased range restriction on both variables in the 2019 male cohort compared with the 1984 males.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among the Dependent Variables for the 1984 and 2019 Cohorts.

				1984	2019
Victim Variable	2	3	4	M (SD)	M (SD)
1. Responsibility	.34/.23	.37/.17^*	−.21/−.25	1.90 (1.06)	1.75 (1.01)
2. Encouragement		.50/.49	−.43/−.43	2.28 (1.00)	2.36 (.86)
3. Pleasure			−.59/−.57	1.83 (1.04)	1.78 (.98)
4. Stress				5.03 (1.05)	4.51 (.73)

Note. First correlation coefficient in each pair is from the 1984 cohort (n = 172); the second is from the 2019 cohort (n = 372). All correlations are significant at p <.01. No participant gender differences were significant for any of the 12 coefficients shown above.

^*Responsibility-pleasure cohort coefficients differ significantly at p = .02.

To assess possible multicollinearity among the dependent variables, a variance inflation coefficient (VIF) was computed for each variable using the Regression procedure in SPSS Version 21. The VIF coefficients ranged from 1.01 to 1.45, far below conventional VIF collinearity criteria that would violate assumptions underlying the MANOVA analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2014). Consequently, the dependent variable measures were considered to be measures of logically related but distinct constructs and were therefore analyzed separately.

Table 2 presents descriptive statistics and significance tests among the 16 conditions created by the combinations of the four predictor variables. MANOVA results indicated significant effects within the matrix of victim variables. Wilks lambda revealed a significant overall model effect, F (4, 524) = 9961.87, p < .001. Main effects were found for PGEN, F (4, 524) = 6.38, p < .001, AGEN, F (4, 524) = 5.87, p < .001, VGEN, F (4, 524) = 6.61, p < .001, and Cohort, F (4, 524) = 20.66, p < .001. A significant interaction effect was also found for the focal AGEN x VGEN interaction, F (4, 524) = 9.24, p < .001 and for AGEN x Cohort, F (4, 524) = 2.56, p = .038. These main and interaction effects were qualified by a significant 4-way PGEN x AGEN x VGEV x Cohort interaction, F (4, 524) = 2.96, p = .019, indicating that all four independent variables contributed in combination to judgments.

Table 2.

Judgments Concerning Male and Female Sexual Assault Victims as a Function of Participant Gender, Assailant Gender, and 1984 or 2019 Cohort.

	Participant Ratings
Condition	n	Victim	Victim	Victim	Victim
Condition	n	Responsibility	Encouragement	Pleasure	Stress
MA/MV		M (SD) [95% CI]	M (SD) [95% CI]	M (SD) [95% CI]	M (SD) [95% CI]
Males, 1984	20	1.65 (1.14) [1.19, 2.11] _a	2.25 (1.12) [1.87, 2.63] _a	1.35 (.49) [.942, 1.76] _a	5.20 (1.24) [4.85, 5.55] _a
Males, 2019	34	1.97 (1.11) [1.62, 2.32] _a	2.41 (.93) [2.12, 2.70] _a	1.76 (.96) [1.45, 2.08] _abd	4.44 (.66) [4.17, 4.71] _c
Females, 1984	21	1.92 (1.25) [1.50, 2.33] _a	2.00 (.98) [1.66, 2.34] _a	1.54 (.88) [1.17, 1.91] _abd	5.29 (.69) [4.97, 5.61] _a
Females, 2019	59	1.71 (1.04) [1,45, 1.98] _a	2.17 (.91) [1.95, 2.39] _a	1.53 (.87) [1.29, 1.76] _abd	4.59 (.67) [4.39, 4.80] _b
FA/MV
Males, 1984	20	2.45 (1.57) [1.99, 2.91] _a	3.45 (.94) [3.07, 3.83] _c	3.37 (1.17) [2.95, 3.79] _c	3.85 (1.35) [3.50, 4.20] _c
Males, 2019	38	1.87 (1.10) [1.54, 2.20] _a	2.68 (.77) [2.41, 2.96] _b	2.16 (.86) [1.86, 2.45] _b	4.32 (.87) [4.06, 4.57] _c
Females, 1984	24	1.70 (.64) [1.27, 2.12] _a	2.26 (.81) [1.91, 2.61] _a	1.87 (.82) [1.49, 2.25] _abd	4.70 (1.11) [4.37, 5.02] _b
Females, 2019	52	1.65 (.91) [1.37, 1.94] _a	2.75 (.93) [2.52, 2.98] _b	2.25 (1.25) [2.00, 2.50] _bc	4.37 (.87) [4.15, 4.58] _bc
MA/FV
Males, 1984	20	2.10 (1.29) [1.64, 2.56] _a	2.15 (.74) [1.77, 2.53] _a	2.00 (1.12) [1.59, 2.41] _abd	5.20 (.83) [4.85, 5.55] _a
Males, 2019	40	1.85 (.89) [1.53, 2.17] _a	2.37 (.77) [2.11, 2.64] _a	1.90 (1.11) [1.61, 2.19] _abd	4.38 (.74) [4.13, 4.62] _c
Females, 1984	23	1.77 (.87) [1.34, 2.21] _a	2.14 (.89) [1.78, 2.50] _a	1.45 (.74) [1.06, 1.84] _abd	5.45 (.80) [5.12, 5.79] _ad
Females, 2019	56	1.66 (.98) [1.39, 1.93] _a	2.26 (.92) [2.04, 2.49] _a	1.59 (.95) [1.35, 1.83] _abd	4.64 (.65) [4,43, 4.85] _b
FA/FV
Males, 1984	19	2.00 (1.00) [1.53, 2.47] _a	2.26 (.93) [1.88, 2.65] _a	1.79 (.79) [1.37, 2.21] _abd	5.05 (.78) [4.69, 5,41] _a
Males, 2019	41	1.90 (1.09) [1.58, 2.22] _a	2.31 (.52) [2.05, 2.58] _a	1.78 (.85) [1.50, 2.07] _abd	4.46 (78) [4.22, 4.71] _c
Females, 1984	25	1.71 (.86) [1.29, 2.13] _a	1.87 (.85) [1.53, 2.22] _a	1.50 (.83) [1.13, 1.87] _abd	5.42 (.65) [5.10, 5.74] _d
Females, 2019	52	1.65 (1.03) [1.37, 1.94] _a	2.02 (.73) [1.79, 2.25] _a	1.46 (1.00) [1.21, 1.72] _abd	4.77 (.47) [4.55, 4.99] _b

Note. Conditions: MA/MV = male assailants, male victim; FA/MV = female assailants, male victim; MV/FV = male assailants, female victim; FA/FV = Female assailants, female victim.

Means with common subscripts in the 16 cells for each variable do not differ significantly by the Games-Holmes HSD post hoc test.

To identify the specific dependent variables to which these significant multivariate effects applied, follow-up univariate analyses of variance provided by the MANOVA program were examined and Games-Howell post hoc comparisons of cell means were conducted to identify significant differences while maintaining an alpha level of <.05 for multiple tests.

Figure 1 presents the female assailant–male victim condition as a function of participant gender and cohort. Means are presented for perceived victim encouragement, responsibility, and pleasurableness and stressfulness of the assault for both 1984 and 2019 cohorts.

Figure 1.

Mean judgments about the male victim of female assailants (FA/MV) made by male and female participants in the 1984 and 2019 cohorts.

Victim Encouragement

Victim encouragement ratings yielded two interactions relating to the hypotheses. The first was a significant AGEN x VGEN interaction, F (1, 527) = 17.79, p < .001. The second was a significant PGEN x VGEN x COHORT interaction, F (1, 527) = 8.56, p < .005. As shown in Table 2, the highest ratings of victim encouragement in the FA/MV condition were made by the 1984 men, who differed significantly from all other 1984 and 2019 conditions and whose mean is primarily responsible for the AGEN x VGEN interaction. However, the second, three-way, interaction reflected notable and contrasting cohort changes in men and women. In men, the mean rating of the 2019 cohort decreased into the “somewhat unlikely” scale range and did not differ significantly from the means of either the 1984 or the 2019 women. Notably, and consistent with our first hypothesis, the percentage of men who rated the male victim as having initiated or encouraged the female assailants (response alternatives 4, 5, or 6) decreased from 42.1% in 1984 to 16.2% in 2019, and their mean did not differ from either the 1984 or 2019 female cohorts. However, in contrast to our hypothesis that women’s judgments would remain relatively stable across cohorts, the percentage of women who rated the male victim as having initiated or encouraged the female assailants increased from 4.3% in 1984 to 26.9% in 2019, and the 2019 women no longer differed significantly from the 1984 men in their encouragement ratings of the male victim.

Victim Responsibility

Victim responsibility ratings were correlated to those of victim encouragement, r = .27, p < .001. The independent variables exerted little influence on participant judgments of responsibility for the event, the only significant effect being a main effect for participant gender, where men judged victims as more likely to have initiated or encouraged the sexual encounter regardless of gender of the assailant or victim, F (1, 527) = 6.23, p = .013.

Victim Pleasure

Univariate analysis of variance revealed a significant 4-way interaction involving the independent variables, F (1, 527) = 10.89, p = 001. As shown in Table 2, men in the 1984 FA/MV condition yielded the only mean within the pleasurable range of the scale. This mean was significantly higher than the corresponding pleasure mean obtained for men in the 2019 cohort, p = .027, and was also higher than that of women in the 1984 cohort, p = .036, but did not differ from that of women in the 2019 cohort.

A notable and contrasting cohort effect occurred for both the male and female participants. Whereas 47.4% of the 1984 men endorsed that male victim of sexual assault by a woman experienced the event as “somewhat pleasurable” (26.3%) or “very pleasurable” (21.1%), only 5.3% of the men in the 2019 cohort rated the episode as “somewhat pleasurable” and none rated the event as “very pleasurable.” However, in results that paralleled the contrasting participant gender pattern previously described for initiation-encouragement, 23% of the 2019 women rated the event as pleasurable for the male victim, compared with 4.5% of the women who had rated the event as pleasurable in 1984. Moreover, their mean pleasure rating, though lower than that of the 1984 men, did not differ significantly from that group.

A supplementary analysis of the 2019 data alone revealed that although the pleasure ratings of both men and women were markedly lower than the 1984 men’s ratings, a significant AGEN x VGEN interaction was still evident, F (1, 368) = 11.87, p < .001, with both the men (M = 2.16) and the women (M = 2.25) rating the female assailant-male victim condition as less “unpleasurable” than the other three assailant–victim conditions, which ranged from 1.60 to 1.72. The 1984 male cohort attributed significantly lower pleasure to the male victim of male assailants than did any other condition or cohort. By 2019, this difference was no longer evident.

Victim Stress

Univariate analysis of variance of the amount of stress attributed to the victim yielded a significant AGEN x VGEN x Cohort effect that reflected differences in how men and women responded to opposite-gender and same-gender assailant–victim conditions. In both 1984 and 2019 cohorts, men (whose ratings did not differ significantly over time), attributed significantly less stress to the male victim of assault by women than to female victim of assault by men, p’s = .04. Nonetheless, the distribution of ratings differed across cohorts. In the 1984 cohort, 21% of the men rated the FA/MV incident as “not at all stressful,” compared with only 2.6% of the 2019 men. None of the women in either cohort rated the episode as “not at all stressful.”

Discussion

Although the bulk of research on rape and sexual assault in the United States continues to focus on female victims and male assailants, in the past decade it has become increasingly clear that a significant number of men are victimized by women (Stemple et al., 2017). Estimates suggest that up to 45% of sexual assault and harassment of men may be perpetrated by women (Hines et al., 2012; Stemple et al., 2017; Weiss, 2010). This high number exists despite the fact that men are even less likely than women to report sexual assaults because of embarrassment, fear of stigmatization, and anticipation that the negative impact of the experience will not be taken seriously (Donne et al., 2018; Hlavka, 2017; Reitz-Krueger et al., 2017).

In the United States and United Kingdom, judgments of male victims of sexual assault are influenced by rape myths that are held not only by the general public but also by law enforcement officials, members of the legal profession, medical practitioners, and college students (Javaid, 2017; Reitz-Krueger et al., 2017; Turchik & Edwards, 2012). The widespread acceptance of stereotypical rape myths regarding masculinity and male sexuality was reflected in the results of the experimental study by Smith et al., (1988). The most striking finding of that study was that American college men judged the male victim as more likely to have initiated or encouraged their assault by the female assailants, to have enjoyed the assault more, and to have experienced less stress than in any other assailant-victim condition. Nearly half of the 1984 men judged the male victim to have found the assault at least “somewhat pleasurable.” These findings are reflected in a long tradition of studies that have suggested that men are more likely than women to endorse rape myths about male and female victims (Chapleau et al., 2008; Reitz-Krueger et al., 2017; Walfield, 2018).

What Has Changed?

The results of this 35-year transgenerational study indicate that significant changes have occurred over the past four decades in judgments about male victims of sexual assault by women. As predicted, men in 2019 less frequently hold stereotyped perceptions of male victims of female sexual assault. The percentage of 2019 men who believed that the male victim initiated or encouraged the sexual interaction decreased markedly compared with the 1984 cohort, as did the percentage who viewed the event as “pleasurable” (47 vs. 5%) and “not at all stressful” (21 vs. 2%). One interpretation of this shift is a greater appreciation by men of the gravity of the offense and negative impact of the event for a man assaulted by women. Another may be tied to critical generational shifts away from the binarization of gender and conflation with sex to an understanding of gender as a fundamentally social category (Goh et al., 2022). That said, the same overall structure of interactions involving assailant–victim gender existed in 1984 and 2019 such that participants judged the male victim of assault by females to have been more encouraging and to have experienced more pleasure and less stress than in any other gender combination. Thus, the pattern of more stereotypical social cognitions about these victims continues to exist, though less starkly, as it did three generations ago. Further, the pattern in the current study is driven by the stereotyped judgments made by both male and female participants.

Specifically, the findings for female participants in 2019 represent a notable and contrary shift in judgments made about male victims of female assailants. Whereas men attributed less encouragement and pleasure to the male victim than did the 1984 male cohort, the 2019 women exhibited a reverse pattern of attributions. Compared to the 1984 female cohort, the 2019 women were far more likely to attribute encouragement of the assault to the male victim than were the women in the 1984 study. Likewise, nearly one in four women in the 2019 cohort attributed pleasure to the male victim, compared with fewer than 5% who did so in 1984.

At first glance, these results are surprising given that Turchik and Edwards (2012) found that fewer women endorsed rape myths about men in 2008 than in 1992 and Breshers and DeVita (2019) found similar decreases between 2010 and 2017. However, since these studies, widely publicized examples of sexual assault by powerful men during the #MeToo movement may have served to reinforce stereotypes about sexual assault victims. Such attitudes may help account for the gender-based generational shifts found in this study. First, only a very small number of high-profile stories during the #MeToo Movement have featured alleged female perpetrators of male victims (Boyle, 2019; Stemple et al., 2017). Nodeland and Craig (2019) found women are more likely than men to be aware of cases of sexual assault by prominent male perpetrators and more likely to attribute guilt to those men. Moreover, recent media representations of male victims of both female and male perpetrators during years of the #MeToo movement may have advanced rape myths regarding masculinity, emphasizing victims as “small” and “slender” and disproportionately featuring prison examples (DiBennardo, 2018). Further, stories featuring female assailants of male victims were widely interpreted as controversial and potential qualifiers to the legitimacy of the #MeToo movement (Povoledo, 2018; Schroeder, 2018). In fact, prominent feminist activists came to the defense of certain female perpetrators and even highlighted the sexual proclivity of their victims (Greenberg, 2018; O’Connell, 2018). The #MeToo movement and the push to increase college campus safety are primarily targeted at harassment and assault by acquaintances. As “stranger-rape” by women departs further from typical depiction of assault, perceptions of male victims of these experiences may be resistant to increased education that focuses on the modal types of assault and harassment (Anderson, 2007). The rise in awareness to the pervasive assault of women by male acquaintances may thus function to serve an unintended disservice to the believability of men who are victims of heinous sexual assault crimes by acquaintances and strangers (Dierenfeldt & Balemba, 2018).

In addition to the low visibility of male victims in the current cultural moment, empirical studies suggest that women today may harbor higher rates of hostile sexism towards men than previous generations (Russell & Oswald, 2016). Hostile sexism is defined as a resentment based on perceptions of men’s greater power and use of force (Glick & Fiske, 1996) and may predict tolerance for the sexual harassment of men (Russell & Oswald, 2016). Further, studies have shown that increased benevolent sex-role egalitarian beliefs (i.e., to not discriminate against nontraditional gender role behavior) predicted decreased female perpetrator-blaming (Sleath & Bull, 2010). Thus, with an increase in visibility of men’s disproportionate power and exploitation of women, women’s tolerance for the sexual assault and harassment of men may have increased. All of these factors combine with the endurance of gendered sexual stereotypes that men are always ready or wanting sex (Endendijk et al., 2019; Young et al., 2016), posited to underlie the myth that men are more likely to enjoy sexual assault (Anderson, 2007). The preliminary findings of these studies, coupled with the findings of this study, suggest the need for more research to better understand mediators of the apparent increase in women’s potential adherence to rape myths about male victims of sexual violence by women.

In sum, gendered power differentials are key predictors of sexual assault perpetration and its consequences (Anderson, 2007). When sexual abuse of a man by a woman is reported, law enforcement officers believe that intervention is less warranted than if the perpetrator is a male. Female offenders are less likely to be prosecuted and, if they are, they receive more lenient sentences (Starr, 2015). Gender beliefs not only reinforce stereotypes that downplay the degree of agency and power that women can rightfully have, but in this case, they may function as a two-edged sword by relieving female perpetrators of blame and putting male victims at heightened risk for stigma and psychological morbidity. Thus, not only may male victims less likely to be believed due to increased awareness of cultural power dynamics, but subsequent invalidation may also increase psychological burden after assault (Tewksbury, 2007).

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

Very few studies have been conducted exploring change in rape myth acceptance over time using the same measures (Turchik & Edwards, 2012), making it difficult to compare shifts in these beliefs across time (McMahon, 2010; Peterson et al., 2011). Further, this study contributes important nuance to the only other recent study of change in college-student rape myth acceptance conducted in 2010 and 2017 (Beshers & DiVita, 2019) as it includes male victims, spans the greatest number of years, and uses an implicit measure of myth acceptance.

While the vast majority of research on rape myths today concerns sexual assault by a male acquaintance (i.e., “date rape”) due to its high incidence, Smith et al., (1988) used a “stranger rape” scenario in response to emerging initial accounts of rape of men by female strangers using physical force (e.g., Orman, 1982). We posited above that perceptions of male victims of “stranger-rape” by women may be resistant to increased education regarding sexual assault and harassment due to the fact that these assaults depart from typical depictions of assault. Thus, a strength of this design lies in its use of a vignette that features a violent assault by women brandishing a weapon for several reasons: First, the use of this vignette, based on actual case studies, allows for the exact replication of the Smith et al. (1988) investigation. Second, the event featured in the vignette, which involves strangers using a weapon to force compliance, is not as atypical as it might first appear, as female perpetrators appear to be as likely as males to use a weapon (Dierenfeldt & Balemba, 2018). Assaults of males by females may be particularly likely to involve a weapon because perpetrators expect males to more physically resistant (Dierenfeldt & Balemba, 2018; Mezey & King, 2000; Pino & Meier, 1999). While rape by female strangers using lethal force is not the modal representative of assault, it nonetheless occurs and is predictive of morbid psychological outcomes (Tewksbury, 2007), making it an important understudied construct in the literature. Third, Smith et al. (1988) used this event to control for uncertainty regarding the guilt of the perpetrators. It is notable that while both cohorts overwhelmingly endorsed a guilty verdict for the female assailants, they nevertheless had differential perceptions of blame and distress concerning the victim.

The extent to which this study’s results generalize to perceptions of male victims of sexual assault under other circumstances is an empirical question that invites the study of potential moderator variables. Research using representative samples that vary characteristics of assailants and victim, such as assailant and victim age, ethnicity, sexual orientation; the nature of the victim/assailant relationship, number of perpetrators, use of a weapon; application to other participant populations (e.g., law enforcement and medical fields) and other potentially relevant variables may begin to elucidate the ongoing disputes regarding these effects. Further, given cultural shifts in defining gender and gender categories, novel research should seek to better understand the impact of other non-binarized gender identities on victim, assailant, and perceiver interactions.

Sampling issues should also be noted. Using a college sample in an overwhelmingly liberal state raises questions of generalization to other academic settings and to other groups that may be more adherent to male rape myths, such as older and less educated men (Walfield, 2018). However, although this study was based on a college sample, it is the case that college-aged men report higher rates of sexual victimization than the general population, making them an important population in their own right (Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, 2020). Undergraduates also may be likely to be in an important position to offer social support to peer victims (National Sexual Violence Resource Center, 2020a, National Sexual Violence Resource Center, 2020b). Second, this study did not include a standardized measure of rape myths and instead used a hypothetical legal scenario, assuming that mythical beliefs mediated the judgments making it an indirect indicant of underlying rape myths. This may help mitigate reservations about the psychometric properties of explicit measures (Peterson et al., 2011; Reitz-Krueger et al., 2017; Turchik & Edwards, 2012). In future studies, both explicit and implicit rape myth measures could be utilized, enabling mediational analyses. Finally, future studies could use qualitative data collection (e.g., Kramer & Bowman, 2021) to provide a more nuanced understanding of participants’ potentially gendered perceptions of victims of assault.

Conclusion

Sexual attitudes and mores are constantly evolving, spurred by social discourse and formal educational experiences. It is therefore important to track sexual attitudes and beliefs over time. The results of this replication study suggest that the tendency to judge male victims of sexual assault by women as different from female victims in terms of attributions of encouragement and affective reactions persists today, though less pronounced than in 1984.

Increased understanding of assaults of men by women could have important implications for the incidence of reporting, as endorsement of rape myths predicts the likelihood of disclosure of victimization (Heath et al., 2011; LeMaire et al., 2016). Further, both men and women who endorse rape myths may be less likely than those who do not to be proactive bystanders in situations where their actions could prevent a rape (McMahon, 2010; Powers et al., 2015). Finally, rape myths may compound the detrimental consequences of an assault (Anderson, 2007; Reitz-Krueger et al., 2017), as victims have been found to draw extensively on myths when defining their own experience. The notion that “real men” should be able to defend themselves against the “weaker sex” impacts both victims’ self-perceptions and responses of the legal system to them (Fisher & Pina, 2013; Javaid, 2014). Male victims often fail to seek the psychological treatment they deserve despite increased vulnerability to negative consequences on mental health and disruptions in social and sexual functioning (Fisher & Pina, 2013; Peterson et al., 2011; Reitz-Krueger et al., 2017; Tewksbury, 2007). Given the findings of this study that stereotypical judgments of male rape victims of women may be increasing, male victims of such assaults may be at growing risk for stigma and mental health burden. Thus, far from being a rare and trivial event, assaults of men by women are not only deserving of increased empirical attention, but cultural and political attention as well.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Emma PeConga

Author Biographies

Emma K. PeConga is a doctoral graduate student in Clinical Psychology at the University of Washington. Her research centers on how cognitive mechanisms contribute to the maintenance and etiology of PTSD in populations that have experienced trauma, particularly survivors of sexual assault.

Jacqueline E. Spector, PhD is currently a Lecturer in the Department of Psychology at the University of Washington, where she also serves as Director of the Psychology Writing Center. Her primary research position was at the UW School of Dentistry. Her work in memory and memory distortion lead her to help develop a cognitive intervention to decrease young children fear of dentistry as well as virtual environment games designed to develop oral health care in preteen children.

Ronald E. Smith, PhD is Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Washington, where he has served as Director of Clinical Psychology Training and as head of the Social Psychology and Personality program, He has published widely in the areas of anxiety, stress, and coping, behavior therapy research and intervention, psychological assessment, and human performance enhancement.

References

Allgeier

E. R.

McCormick

N. B.

(Eds.), (1983). Changing boundaries: Gender roles and sexual behavior. Mayfield.

Anderson

(2007). What is a typical rape? Effects of victim and participant gender in female and male rape perception. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(1), 225–245. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466606X101780

Bahji

(2018). The emerging epidemic of male #Me-Too: Response to men’s mental health: Beyond victim blaming. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 63(12), 852. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/0706743718805751

Bancroft

(1980). Psychophysiology of sexual dysfunction. In Van Praag

(Ed.), Handbook of biological psychiatry (pp. 359–392). Marcel Dekker.

Bates

E. A.

Klement

K. R.

Kaye

L. K.

Pennington

C. R.

(2019). The impact of gendered stereotypes on perceptions of violence: A commentary. Sex Roles, 81(1–2), 34–43. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/s11199-019-01029-9

Beshers

DiVita

(2019). Changes in rape myth acceptance among undergraduates: 2010 to 2017. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(8), 088626051986715. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519867153

Boyle

(Eds.), (2019). # MeToo, Weinstein and Feminism (pp. 1–20). Palgrave Pivot.

Brownmiller

(1993). Against our will: Men, women, and rape. Ballantine Books.

Bullock

C. M.

Beckson

(2011). Male victims of sexual assault: Phenomenology, psychology, physiology. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 39(2), 197–205.

10.

Burt

M. R.

Albin

R. S.

(1981). Rape myths, rape definitions, and probability of conviction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11(3), 212–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1981.tb00739.x

11.

Carmody

D. C.

Washington

L. M.

(2001). Rape myth acceptance among college women: The impact of race and prior victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(5), 424–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626001016005003

12.

Carroll

M. H.

Korenman

L. M.

Rosenstein

J. E.

(2019). Does sex of the victim matter? A comparison of rape scripts involving a male or female victim. Violence and Gender, 6(3), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2018.0040

13.

Chapleau

K. M.

Oswald

D. L.

Russell

B. L.

(2008). Male rape myths: The role of gender, violence, and sexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(5), 600–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507313529

14.

Cortoni

(2015). What is so special about female sexual offenders? Introduction to the special issue of female sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27(3), 232–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214564392

15.

Davies

Rogers

(2006). Perceptions of male victims in depicted sexual assaults: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(4), 367–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2006.01.002

16.

Delano

(1979). The case of the manacled Mormon (pp. 13–22). Endeavour Press Ltd.

17.

Department of Justice (2019). National crime victimization Survey, 2018. Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf

18.

DiBennardo

R. A.

(2018). Ideal victims and monstrous offenders: How the news media represent sexual predators. Socius, 4. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023118802512

19.

Dierenfeldt

Balemba

(2018). Male sexual victimization: Examining variation in the probability of weapon use and victim injury. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(11–12), NP5892–NP5920. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518811437

20.

Donne

M. D.

DeLuca

Pleskach

Bromson

Mosley

M. P.

Perez

E. T.

Mathews

S. G.

Stephenson

Frye

(2018). Barriers to and facilitators of help-seeking behavior among men who experience sexual violence. American Journal of Men’s Health, 12(2), 189–201. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/1557988317740665

21.

Edwards

K. M.

Turchik

J. A.

Dardis

C. M.

Reynolds

Gidycz

C. A.

(2011). Rape myths: History, individual and institutional-level presence, and implications for change. Sex Roles, 65(11–12), 761–773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9943-2

22.

Endendijk

J. J.

van Baar

A. L.

Deković

(2019). He is a stud, she is a slut! A meta-analysis on the continued existence of sexual double standards. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(2), 163–190. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/1088868319891310

23.

Fisher

N. L.

Pina

(2013). An overview of the literature on female-perpetrated adult male sexual victimization. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(1), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.10.001

24.

Gill

Orgad

(2018). The shifting terrain of sex and power: From the ‘sexualization of culture’ to #MeToo. Sexualities, 21(8), 1313–1324. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/1363460718794647

25.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491

26.

Goh

J. X.

Bandt-Law

Cheek

N. N.

Sinclair

Kaiser

C. R.

(2022). Narrow prototypes and neglected victims: Understanding perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(5), 873–893. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000260

27.

Greenberg

(2018, August 13). What happens to #MeToo when a feminist is the accused? The New York Times. http://nytimes.com.

28.

Hatfield

(1983). What do men and women want from love and sex? In Allgeier

E. R.

McCormick

N. B.

(Eds.), Changing boundaries: Gender roles and sexual behavior (pp. 143–167). Mayfield.

29.

Heath

N. M.

Lunch

S. M.

Fritch

A. M.

McArthur

L. N.

Smith

S. L.

(2011). Silent survivors: Rape myth acceptance in incarcerated women’s narratives of disclosure and reporting of rape. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(4), 596–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684311407870

30.

Hines

D. A.

Armstrong

J. L.

Reed

K. P.

Cameron

A. Y.

(2012). Gender differences in sexual assault victimization among college students. Violence and Victims, 27(6), 922–940. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.27.6.922

31.

Hlavka

(2017). Speaking of stigma and the silence of shame: Young men and sexual victimization. Men and Masculinities, 20(4), 482–505. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X16652656

32.

Howell

D. C.

(2007). Statistical methods for psychology (6th ed.). Belmont, California: Duxbury Press.

33.

Javaid

(2014). Male rape in law and the courtroom. European Journal of Current Legal Issues, 20(2). http://webjcli.org/index.php/webjcli/article/view/340.

34.

Javaid

(2016). Male rape, stereotypes, and unmet needs: Hindering recovery, perpetuating silence. Violence and Gender, 3(1), 7–13. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1089/vio.2015.0039

35.

Javaid

(2017). Can’t hear or won’t hear: Gender, sexualities and reporting male rape. InterAlia: A Journal of Queer Studies, (13), 31-53.

36.

Kramer

Bowman

(2021). The making of male victimhood in South African female-perpetrated sexual abuse. Gender, Place & Culture, 28(6), 829–852. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369x.2020.1835831

37.

Lehfeldt

(1952). Unusual “sex crime”. Journal of Sex Education, 4, 176.

38.

LeMaire

K. L.

Oswald

D. L.

Russell

B. L.

(2016). Labeling sexual victimization experiences: The role of sexism, rape myth acceptance, and tolerance for sexual harassment. Violence and Victims, 31(2), 332–346. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-13-00148

39.

Lonsway

K. A.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(2), 133–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb00448.x

40.

Lowe

Rogers

(2017). The scope of male rape: A selective review of research, policy and practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 35, 38-43. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.avb.2017.06.007.

41.

McMahon

(2010). Rape myth beliefs and bystander attitudes among incoming college students. Journal of American College Health, 59(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2010.483715

42.

Mezey

G. C.

King

M. B.

(2000). Treatment for male victims of sexual assault. Male Victims of Sexual Assault, 35-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/002580248702700211.

43.

Moylan

C. A.

Hammock

Carlson

M. L.

(2020). In the eye of the reformer: Higher education personnel perspectives on campus sexual assault policy implementation. Journal of School Violence, 19(4), 1–13. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/15388220.2020.1728285

44.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

Cook

S. W.

(1988). Men’s self‐reports of unwanted sexual activity. Journal of Sex Research, 24(1), 58–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498809551398

45.

National Sexual Violence Resource Center (2020a). Statistics. https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics.

46.

National Sexual Violence Resource Center (2020b). History of sexual assault awareness month. https://www.nsvrc.org/saam/history.

47.

Nicholas

Agius

(2017). The persistence of global masculinism: Discourse, gender and neo-colonial re-articulations of violence. Springer.

48.

Nodeland

Craig

(2019). Perceptions of legal and extralegal punishments for sexual harassment in the ‘MeToo’ Era. Deviant Behavior, 42(7), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2019.1702615

49.

O’Connell

(2018, August 25) HimToo: what happens if the aggressor is a woman (25). Irish Times. https://www.irishtimes.com.

50.

Orman

(1982). Can women rape men? It happen. It hurts (pp. 89–93). Fox.

51.

Peterson

Z. D.

Voller

E. K.

Polusny

M. A.

Murdoch

(2011). Prevalence and consequences of adult sexual assault of men: Review of empirical findings and state of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.08.006

52.

Pino

N. W.

Meier

R. F.

(1999). Gender differences in rape reporting. Sex Roles, 40(11), 979–990. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1018837524712

53.

Povoledo

(2018, August 21). Asia Argento scandal makes for open season on #MeToo in Italy. The New York Times. http://nytimes.com.

54.

Powers

R. A.

Leili

Hagman

Cohn

(2015). The impact of college education on rape myth acceptance, alcohol expectancies, and bystander attitudes. Deviant Behavior, 36(12), 956–973. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2014.982747

55.

Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (2020). Victims of sexual violence: Statistics. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence.

56.

Regulska

(2018). The# MeToo movement as a global learning moment. International Higher Education, 94, 5-6. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2018.94.10514.

57.

Reitz-Krueger

C. L.

Mummert

S. J.

Troupe

S. M.

(2017). Real men can’t get raped: An examination of gendered rape myths and sexual assault among undergraduates. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 9(4), 314–323. https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-06-2017-0303

58.

Russell

B. L.

Oswald

(2016). When sexism cuts both ways: Predictors of tolerance of sexual harassment of men. Men and Masculinities, 19(5), 524–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X15602745

59.

Sarrel

P. M.

Masters

W. H.

(1982). Sexual molestation of men by women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 11(2), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01541979

60.

Schroeder

(2018) Yes, men can be sexually assaulted. Gender stereotypes make it hard to talk about (13). http://vox.com.

61.

Schwendinger

J. R.

Schwendinger

(1974). Rape myths: In legal, theoretical, and everyday practice. Crime and Social Justice, (1), 18-26.

62.

Sleath

Bull

(2010). Male rape victim and perpetrator blaming. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(6), 969–988. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509340534

63.

Smith

R. E.

Pine

C. J.

Hawley

M. E.

(1988). Social cognitions about adult male victims of female sexual assault. Journal of Sex Research, 24(1), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498809551401

64.

Starr

S. B.

(2015). Estimating gender disparities in federal criminal cases. American Law and Economics Review, 17(1), 127–159. https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahu010

65.

Stemple

Meyer

I. H.

(2014). The sexual victimization of men in America: New data challenge old assumptions. American Journal of Public Health, 104(6), e19–e26. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2014.301946

66.

Stemple

Flores

Meyer

I. H.

(2017). Sexual victimization perpetrated by women: Federal data reveal surprising prevalence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 302-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.09.007.

67.

Struckman‐Johnson

Anderson

P. B.

(2003). Tactics of sexual coercion: When men and women won’t take no for an answer. Journal of Sex Research, 40(1), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552168.

68.

Struckman-Johnson

(1992). Acceptance of male rape myths among college men and women. Sex Roles, 27(3–4), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00290011

69.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2014). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.

70.

Tewksbury

(2007). Physical, mental and sexual consequences. International Journal of Men's Health, 6(1), 22–35. https://doi.org/10.3149/jmh.0601.22

71.

Turchik

J. A.

Edwards

K. M.

(2012). Myths about male rape: A literature review. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13(2), 211. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023207

72.

Walfield

S. M.

(2018). “Men cannot be raped”: Correlates of male rape myth acceptance. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(13–14), 6391–6417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518817777

73.

Weiss

K. G.

(2010). Male sexual victimization: Examining men’s experiences of rape and sexual assault. Men and Masculinities, 12(3), 275–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X08322632

74.

Young

Cardenas

Donnelly

Kittleson

J. M.

(2016). Perceptions of peer sexual behavior: Do adolescents believe in a sexual double standard? Journal of School Health, 86(12), 855–863. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1111/josh.12455