Click for larger image

In remarks both here and on my other blog I've made snarky references to what I've been calling "The Goldberg Spectrum of Sexual Violence Denial."  I'd like to explain what I mean with this chart.

The big, big problem is that most people seem to believe that the entire spectrum of sexual violence extends from ex-Senate candidate Todd Aikin's indefensible standard of "Legitimate Rape" to Whoopi Goldberg's equally indefensible standard of "rape-rape."In other words they see it as somewhere between attacks so violent that organ failure, a.k.a. "shutdown," results (Aikin) to something evidently worse than what Roman Polanski was convicted of (Goldberg.)

For Aikin, Goldberg, and evidently too many others, anything less than the most brutal forms of assault by stranger doesn't count as sexual violence at all.

There are many, many ramafications of this.  The big one being that virtually all victims to the left of Goldberg in the graph, above, are women and girls.  And while there are certainly exceptions, virtually none are men or boys.  Furthermore, perpetrators of sexual violence to the left of Goldberg on the spectrum are almost exclusively men and boys.  And because most people seem to believe the entire range extends only from Aikin to Goldberg it really seems as if all the stereotypes about gender, from the bitterest anti-feminist to the bitterest feminist, must be true.

 And if all that was to it then the stereotypes would be true.

However it's not true.  Aikin and Goldberg's standards are squeezed waaaaay over to the left of the spectrum.  There's substantially more.  In fact I'm pretty sure even Goldberg (though probably not Aikin) understands this.  But as I suggest in the chart, that public understanding still fades pretty quickly to a point that there can be bafflement or confusion (or calculated sexual-violence denial) about the so-called "gray area."  

Somewhat further to the right mainstream sexual-violence advocates understand that there's no "gray area," and understands as well that workplace and street or social sexual harassment is sexual violence and.  There's general (though not yet complete) agreement that young men and boys can be victims and even that for the most part, that "stolen kisses" and unwanted hugs count.  Although somewhere around that point understanding fades out and sexual-violence denial begins to creep back in.

I'd like to suggest, however, that the spectrum extends quite a bit further into terrain where almost everybody will deny there's sexual violence.  Although, I'd like to argue, that like the microwave background it's still there.  And that perhaps, like the microwave background, the extreme right end represents the faintest traces of original sexual violence.  But I digress.

I'd further like to suggest that as one begins to recognize the scope of the Goldberg spectrum the less easy it is to make tidy assertions about what is or isn't sexual violence or who the victims and perpetrators really are.

Head's Up: This post discusses specific forms of sexual violence in order to indicate how narrowly such violence is typically defined.  I use the word "rape" as a specific legal and social term.

So in comments Jacob Taylor took issue with my fairly routine assertion that if men want male victims of sexual violence to be taken seriously we to take women victims seriously.

You demand a quid pro quo condition that male survivors and their advocates must meet before anyone should support them.

You're really not going to find anything in this blog that says men have to make sacrifices to "earn" anything from women. And if I ever, ever say men need to make sacrifices or otherwise pay women before "anyone should support them" it'll either be a serious typo or I'll need medical attention.  And so it's unlikely that I'm ever going to say that if men earn enough cookies we'll get taken seriously.

Instead I'm saying that as long as there are jerks out there like Todd Aikin saying it's only rape if an assault is so brutal the female victims organs of reproduction go into failure then society isn't going to take seriously what happens to men. And I'm saying as long as there jerks like Whoopi Goldberg saying it's not "rape rape" if all the attacker does is drug a minor girl, chase her screaming through the house when the drugs weren't strong enough, subdue her and anally penetrate her" then society isn't going to take seriously what happens to men. And I'm saying that as long as all the other smug dirtbags who say violence less than Aikin's or Goldberg's definitions -- stuff like threats, intoxication, "date rape," etc., is all a just a big misunderstanding or malicious "crying rape" go unchallenged then society isn't going to take seriously what happens to male victims.

So when I say men should take female victims seriously I mean we need to be landing like a ton of bricks on the likes of Aikin and Goldberg when claim that for all intents and purposes not even women can be raped. Because as you've probably noticed, the people who define the universe of sexual violence that narrowly aren't even going to register what happens to men until it's so bad that authorities (again,overwhelmingly male) simply have no way left to deny it.  Sure, that (finally) happens in cases like Mary Letourno, and Penn State (and all state pens!), and pedophile priests where it's so overwhelmingly obvious even the newspapers start to pay attention.  But for the most part?  They've never heard of it and aren't interested finding out.

Helping them get their heads out of their butts about <em>all</em> victims of non-Aikin/Goldberg violence -- the kind society doesn't even take seriously when it happens to women! -- therefore helps everybody.  Which is why I say it's important to for advocates for ,a;e victims of violence to take seriously female victims of violence.

If you look at it that way, the way I look at it, then it probably won't look so much like "quid pro quo." And if you see it that way then if someone claimed I'm just saying men have to somehow "pay" women to take our problem seriously then you'd probably be as annoyed and frustrated as I get.

Instead what I'm saying is that society is completely bound up with the deep, historical, and completely gender-defined idea that "rape" is something that can only happen to women -- "good" women at that!  It can happen at the hands of strangers.  Under the most horrifically violent circumstances. And it says that anything and maybe everything else is lies, avoidance, or even consensual "cuckoldry."

For this reason I don't think taking assault against women seriously is some kind of "quid pro quo" to getting men taken seriously. Nor do I endorse doing it to "earn" respect or cookies or any of the rest of that patriarchy-inspired crap the way "Good Men" Galahads do it.

Instead I'm saying men who care about male victims should take female victims seriously because until society starts taking them seriously it's not going to take male victims seriously either.

This would be so whether or not the Feminist Illuminati Conspiracy ever gets on board. Because for all the squalling feminism is obviously not the problem. Not unless you think the abuse-condoning Joe Paterno was a radical feminist. Not unless you think the entire abuse-condoning Catholic hierarchy is radically feminist. Not unless you think Scott (Dilbert) Adams is a raging feminist. And so on. Those guys are a much bigger obstacle, and their kind has been around thousands of years longer than feminism. So blaming feminism for anything is, as I've said repeatedly, like the bull charging the cape instead of the matador.