17 ms·
The rape of men: a dark secret of war (2011)
- mirimir 7y agoI gather that it's much worse than TFA reports. In that these are just the men who survived.
- rndgermandude 7y agoAnd talked about it.
- bitL 7y agoNewspapers routinely skip mentioning e.g. 5,000 young adult males massacred by Boko Haram but ring alarm bells when 100 young women are kidnapped. I guess it sells better?
- DarthGhandi 7y agoIt's what journos want to write about as much as what editors see in their A/B testing of headlines.
- ohithereyou 7y agoWe, as a society, have decided that men are largely disposable.
- odiroot 7y agoMaybe it's to make the future better?
- Infinitesimus 7y agoCould you explain that some more? How does deciding men are disposable make the future better?
- odiroot 7y agoQuite the opposite! Time to do something about this terrible situation.
- celeritascelery 7y ago> “There's a fear among them that this is a zero-sum game; that there's a pre-defined cake and if you start talking about men, you're going to somehow eat a chunk of this cake that's taken them a long time to bake [for women]. I know for a fact that the people behind the report insisted the definition of rape be restricted to women," he says That seems to be as much the source of the problem as the stigma itself. The relief agencies don’t want to acknowledge male rape because it goes against the narrative they have created.
- rectang 7y ago> That seems to be as much the source of the problem as the sigma itself. No. The original rape is worse than anything the relief agency does.
- kijin 7y agoThe parent said stigma (misspelled as sigma), not the original rape. Rape > social stigma == neglect by relief agencies
- rectang 7y ago> social stigma == neglect by relief agencies Still a resounding "no". Demonizing relief agencies as being as bad as societal homophobia? You honestly think relief agencies are in it for the money and are minimizing male rape?
- hulahoof 7y agoI personally believe that some charities / relief services in almost all areas are in it for the money. Of course, my beliefs don't amount to anything other than researching who I personally give money to, but I do not find it far-fetched to believe that some agencies act in bad faith; I have a hard time aligning with the false memory syndrome foundation for example.
- 7y ago
- commandlinefan 7y agoIt’s considered part of the punishment of being jailed.
- m0zg 7y ago>> A study of 6,000 concentration-camp inmates in Sarajevo found that 80% of men reported having been raped I find this in particular hard to believe. Eastern Europe is notoriously homophobic, and was even more so back in the 90s. Genital torture is far more believable in this case. Outright rape (as in involuntary sexual act by another male or female) is not really believable at all, unless the definition of the act is extended to include torture.
- goda90 7y agoRape isn't necessarily an act of sexual desire for the rapist. In their mind, they wouldn't see themselves as homosexual, and a homophobic culture would really only see the victim as the one that's been made a homosexual by the act.
- CountSessine 7y ago...or, the offenders know this and understand the deep emotional scar that will be left by raping these men precisely because of their homophobia?
- m0zg 7y agoYou don't understand. The very act of having sex with a man is so revolting to them, they would never do it. They do have prison male rape between inmates (same as the US), but that's about it. Remember: in a wartime situation like this, the perpetrators would have no shortage of targets of the opposite sex, and they do partake quite abundantly. A homophobe in particular is not going to rape a male in this situation, even if this inflicts an emotional scar. Africa and other places, I don't know. But I'm pretty sure this would not happen in Yugoslavia.
- fatboy 7y agoAfrican countries are generally extremely homophobic too. Politicians in Uganda are currently trying to introduce a bill known as "kill the gays". https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/15/ugandan-mps-press-for-death-penalty-for-homosexual-acts https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/15/ugandan-mps-pr...
- pontus 7y agoThis article made me sick. Terrible.
- zyxzevn 7y agoAs additional info: The same is going on in some of the CIA's secret prisons, according to whistleblowers and images. And many other kinds of torture. Also stuff going on in Saudi Arabia. Of course the CIA used "national security" to forbid any publicity on it. But you can find it on wikileaks or similar uncensored sites. The only way to bring this into the open, is by revoking the "national security" in cases of crimes and war-crimes. I have also seen problems for women (and some men) in the US military. But that is a whole different chapter.
- iudqnolq 7y agoThe CIA did a lot of "rectal rehydration" and "rectal feeding", and you can find reports of it in the mainstream media. For example, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-worst-findings-waterboard-rectal https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-... While you aren't wrong that the Saudi Arabian government tortures prisoners, you're phrasing implies that they are unique when in fact most authoritarian governments around the world torture people in their prisons.
- spats1990 7y ago>While you aren't wrong that the Saudi Arabian government tortures prisoners, you're phrasing implies that they are unique when in fact most authoritarian governments around the world torture people in their prisons. Could you expand a bit on the significance of this? This seems like the kind of response that would be met with scorn if Saudi Arabia were substituted for certain other authoritarian governments in this sentence. I've been grappling with it a bit myself, lately. When we are thinking about the human rights violations of a particular government or organization, is it important to consider them in context (similar to your statement, if I'm reading it correctly--i.e. such violations are not unique)? But then such attempts to place things in context are often met with accusations of whataboutism (which is sometimes the case in that "provision of context" is actually "attempt to deflect the conversation"). In other cases I'm not so sure.
- iudqnolq 7y ago
- DC-3 7y agoHorrific. Without wishing to in any way minimize the experience of women who are raped, it must be noted that at least the vagina is designed to be penetrated, while the anus is not. I would not be surprised therefore if men are therefore more easily injured and are potentially more likely to suffer long term health problems than women who experienced similar abuse.
- mirimir 7y agoThat's an odd argument. But in any case, women also get anally raped.
- leroy_masochist 7y agoThis was perpetually going on within the Shia-Sunni turf war that happened during the US occupation of Iraq. We as a species are capable of some pretty horrible things.
- mean_gene_1976 7y agoI'm sorry, but are you saying the US sodomized local nationals or something?
- pietroglyph 7y agoThey may not be saying that, but the US absolutely has sodomized people during the so-called “War on Terror”. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-worst-findings-waterboard-rectal https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-... Here’s one about the army that’s more graphic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisone... No one has been prosecuted for the war crimes the CIA commited. Although some low-level army personnel were court martialed for the Abu-Gharib torture, none of the clearly complicit higher-ups were even indicted. In the case of the CIA’s torture program, it is clear that those at the highest levels of government sanctioned these war crimes. Bush, and those around him, should be in prison for their disgusting, shameful actions.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- mean_gene_1976 7y agoYea, it was hard to pick up. Thanks for the pics! War is bad. No one can control the CIA. I mean why should Bush be tried for war crimes? He wasn’t boos on the ground. Mine as well throw Obama in there too. I mean if a soldier commits a crime, you want to arrest the president? I mean 9/11 happened. But that was fake right? Fake like the guardian?
- afroboy 7y ago
- jacobwilliamroy 7y agoIs it true that Bush Jr. can't leave the U.S. because he'd be arrested and tried for war crimes?
- everdev 7y agoNo, where did you hear that?
- jacobwilliamroy 7y agoBack in 2011 he cancelled a trip to switzerland after some human rights groups had threatened to have him arrested and tried if he ever set foot there.
- masonic 7y agosome human rights groups had threatened to have him arrested I wasn't aware that random groups had arrest powers in Switzerland.
- jacobwilliamroy 7y agoWell they don't. Not sure if the swiss legal system is set up to prosecute criminals in universal jurisdiction. In germany around 2006, a private citizen, Wolfgang Kaleck filed a lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld and other criminals who perpetrated abu ghraib and guantamo, which the German government only barely managed to ignore because none of the targets of the lawsuit were actually on german soil at the time the suit was filed. I'm also curious to know if that ever went anywhere.
- afroboy 7y agoActually they did one time when one of the ruthless generals of Algeria was got arrested in Switzerland because of two human rights peoples. but it was released.
- zamadatix 7y agoI'd assume not considering he has left the US multiple times since his presidency and does not seem to be under arrest. There was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur_War_Crimes_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur_War_Crimes_Commis... but if you read about that the connection to the questioned claim (and the claims of the linked commission) have dubious basis at best. When you hear something that makes you ask whether or not it's true it's best to try to validate or invalidate it quickly rather than hold onto it. In this case a simple Google search saves a lot of assumption.
- anongraddebt 7y agoMaybe this is as good a place as any to mention a weird and confused use of the term 'homophobic'. I don't understand its use in certain places, so that's why I'm bringing it up. It will often be used to describe aspects of a culture or belief system. Half the time it makes sense (i.e. throwing gays off roof tops) and the other half the time it doesn't make sense but still comports with the accepted definition (i.e. non-bigoted traditional gender role value systems). If I google "phobic define", I get something about an extreme aversion or irrational fear. If I google "homophobic define", I get something about a mere dislike OR a prejudice. To have a dislike for something is not sufficient for having an irrational fear or extreme aversion to something.
- 7952 7y agoI don't think it matters particularly. But there is a tendancy for people to treat their negative attitude towards homosexually as an intellectual or moral position. This completey side steps their own behaviour which could be rude, bullying, abusive, invasive etc. There is simply no moral or intellectual justification for that behaviour regardless of what you feel or think. And using words like phobia reinforces that impression. It's a position that should be incomprehensible like being hostile to people with particular hair colour.
- anongraddebt 7y agoI agree that irrational fear, extreme aversion, discrimination not rooted in sincere religious/moral beliefs, and dislike simply for the sake of dislike should be incomprehensible. This, however, is compatible with the uncontroversially true belief that disagreement outside of the conditions stated above exists. Obviously, there is absolutely no sense in revising definitions such that they fail to account for the actual use of the terms. So, I get your point.
- 7952 7y agoMy point was rather that discrimination should be incomprehensible regardless of the moral or religious sincerity. To borrow from Christianity we should love and forgive our neighbor. Or from a secular point of view we should respect the rights and dignity of individuals. Of course that is a somewhat contraversial political opinion. And the way we speak and the words we us is also political motivated. But then why should our use of words or their definitions need to be politically neutral? The uncharitable nature of words can be a feature. And really it is amazing how forgiving society has been of homophobes.
- cryptozeus 7y agoJust reading of this is brutal..can’t imagine someone going through this and have a will to live