First I've heard of this...warning - gruesome

[delalluvia]

Didn't know quite where to put this as it's not a current event -  perhaps we discussed this before?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/newsom.asp

This is the first time I've ever read about a heterosexual man being raped and murdered along with his girlfriend.  Makes me wonder if it has happened before to straight men but just not been reported.

[RouxB]

Didn't know quite where to put this as it's not a current event -  perhaps we discussed this before?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/newsom.asp

This is the first time I've ever read about a heterosexual man being raped and murdered along with his girlfriend.  Makes me wonder if it has happened before to straight men but just not been reported.

I didn't read the article but, yes, straight men are also raped. They rarely report because the stigma, bad enough for women, is far worse for me. I work for our local rape crisis center and we rarely get calls from men who are willing to report to police.

[louisev]

the latest statistics I have heard is the 2 out of 10, i.e. 20% of all rape is against males.  And of course, all of those schoolteacher cases have been adult women teachers having sex with young male students - that is also rape.  I have seen about 4 of those just this year.

[delalluvia]

I didn't read the article but, yes, straight men are also raped. They rarely report because the stigma, bad enough for women, is far worse for me. I work for our local rape crisis center and we rarely get calls from men who are willing to report to police.

I was thinking not so much reported as in 'a straight man was raped and he reported it to police' but more like newpapers and media reporting it.  Whenever I read or hear about some poor woman getting murdered, the media always adds whether she was sexually assaulted on top of the murder if the info is available to them.  You don't hear/read that about men - ever.  This was the first time for me.  I read a blurb about this in a book I was reading, did a double take and actually Googled the crime to make sure they weren't a lesbian couple or a woman who had a man's name.

[RouxB]

I was thinking not so much reported as in 'a straight man was raped and he reported it to police' but more like newpapers and media reporting it.  Whenever I read or hear about some poor woman getting murdered, the media always adds whether she was sexually assaulted on top of the murder if the info is available to them.  You don't hear/read that about men - ever.  This was the first time for me.  I read a blurb about this in a book I was reading, did a double take and actually Googled the crime to make sure they weren't a lesbian couple or a woman who had a man's name.

Yeah, they don't report it because it doesn't make it that far. If the man doesn't report to the police, it doesn't make it to the news. I can't remember the last time a read about a male victim rape-though I hear about it all the time through the rape crisis center.

[delalluvia]

Yeah, they don't report it because it doesn't make it that far. If the man doesn't report to the police, it doesn't make it to the news. I can't remember the last time a read about a male victim rape-though I hear about it all the time through the rape crisis center.

But if a man has been murdered, he's not there to 'not report it'.  Why wouldn't his injuries be reported as a woman's are?

[injest]

But if a man has been murdered, he's not there to 'not report it'.  Why wouldn't his injuries be reported as a woman's are?

good point. to 'protect' the family? as if the 'taint' is worse?

[RouxB]

But if a man has been murdered, he's not there to 'not report it'.  Why wouldn't his injuries be reported as a woman's are?

But someone else is generally around to report it. Either a person goes missing and family reports it causing the police to begin a search. Or a body is found. With rape, since it is generally not committed with an audience present, only the victim (survivor) and the perpetrator are aware of the crime. The perpetrator certainly isn't going to report it so unless the survivor reports it or tells someone else (unlikely) who reports it, it remains a secret between the involved parties. It doesn't hit the news if it stays private. 

[injest]

But someone else is generally around to report it. Either a person goes missing and family reports it causing the police to begin a search. Or a body is found. With rape, since it is generally not committed with an audience present, only the victim (survivor) and the perpetrator are aware of the crime. The perpetrator certainly isn't going to report it so unless the survivor reports it or tells someone else (unlikely) who reports it, it remains a secret between the involved parties. It doesn't hit the news if it stays private. 

so how do they know when a woman was raped? there is evidence on the body. and clues such as nudity, placing of the body...

the same autopsy techniques that show a woman has been assaulted would show a man was assaulted...so there is no reason why they wouldn't know.

[RouxB]

so how do they know when a woman was raped? there is evidence on the body. and clues such as nudity, placing of the body...

the same autopsy techniques that show a woman has been assaulted would show a man was assaulted...so there is no reason why they wouldn't know.

I'm not talking about instances where the victim was murdered. I am talking about sexual assaults of men who survive the attack. Very very few rapes result in murder. Criminals pretty much stick to their crime of choice so rapists pretty much just commit rape.

[injest]

I'm not talking about instances where the victim was murdered. I am talking about sexual assaults of men who survive the attack. Very very few rapes result in murder. Criminals pretty much stick to their crime of choice so rapists pretty much just commit rape.

I disagree. It is too common to hear of a crime with multiple aspects to it. A robbery with an assault, a child abduction with a murder, etc. In fact I would say that the incident of a criminal only committing one particular crime is the exception rather than the rule.

The mindset of thinking it is ok to commit a crime indicates to me that 'rules' dont mean much to them.

[RouxB]

I disagree. It is too common to hear of a crime with multiple aspects to it. A robbery with an assault, a child abduction with a murder, etc. In fact I would say that the incident of a criminal only committing one particular crime is the exception rather than the rule.

The mindset of thinking it is ok to commit a crime indicates to me that 'rules' dont mean much to them.

It isn't opinion-FBI stats. It isn't about rules, it's about motive. The everyday crimes that you don't hear about in the national news are because they are far less sensational and you don't get the degree of media coverage.  Criminals commit the type of crime that fits their motivation. Petty thieves are petty thieves, burgalars are burgalars and rapists are rapists (something I know a bit about). Both by brother and his wife are L.A.P.D. and will be the first to tell you we don't hear about a fraction of the crime that occurs.

[delalluvia]

It isn't opinion-FBI stats. It isn't about rules, it's about motive. The everyday crimes that you don't hear about in the national news are because they are far less sensational and you don't get the degree of media coverage.  Criminals commit the type of crime that fits their motivation. Petty thieves are petty thieves, burgalars are burgalars and rapists are rapists (something I know a bit about). Both by brother and his wife are L.A.P.D. and will be the first to tell you we don't hear about a fraction of the crime that occurs.

I think we don't hear about the majority of property crimes and white-collar crimes.  We hear more - but not all - about domestic and sensational crimes that involve injury to the other person.  And I think multiple aspect crimes are common, they are more common than one might think because the subtleties can escape one.  For instance, is a burglar just a burglar?  Sure, sometimes.  But he's also guilty of breaking and entering, evading arrest and possibly selling stolen goods.  A woman's body is found at a crime scene.  What do cops look for?  Her ID.  And while they're looking at her purse, they're also looking to see if money/credit cards/jewelry was stolen - and why?  Because they too, are looking for motive and multiple aspect crimes.  What was the criminal's main intent?  Was he a murdering rapist who became a robber because of opportunity or was he a mugger that became a rapist murderer because of opportunity and circumstance? (because she wouldn't stop screaming, got scared/angry and killed her?).  Even something as simple as a person guilty of running a red light can become a multiple offender if he decides to run from the cops - suddenly the charges start mounting - moving violation for running the red light, evading police, reckless driving, hitting and running, possibly endangerment of other people's lives on the street, resisting arrest and if he tries to hit the cop cars - attempted assault/murder of a police officer.  He's not just a bad driver any more.

As for

I'm not talking about instances where the victim was murdered. I am talking about sexual assaults of men who survive the attack. Very very few rapes result in murder. Criminals pretty much stick to their crime of choice so rapists pretty much just commit rape.

OK, but I am talking about where the victim was murdered.  What is stopping the media from reporting a man was murdered after being raped?  The media reports this for women victims all the time.

[serious crayons]

OK, but I am talking about where the victim was murdered.  What is stopping the media from reporting a man was murdered after being raped?  The media reports this for women victims all the time.

When I was a newspaper reporter, I don't remember ever seeing breaking news news about an adult male being raped. Whether that means they weren't reported or I just didn't happen to see/hear about them when they were, I'm not sure. I can pretty much guarantee there is no media conspiracy to hush up cases of male rape. I did once write a feature story about male rape, in which I interviewed a couple of survivors, without using their names.

The media generally do not, of course, identify rape survivors by name, unlike every other class of victim. This is controversial both from the perspective of defendants' rights -- because it hides the identity of an accuser but not the accused, who is presumed innocent -- but also from the perspective of some rape survivors and activists. I once interviewed a woman who'd been raped some time earlier. She specifically wanted her name in the story because she felt that concealing her name reinforces the idea that there's something shameful in being a victim of rape. I had to get special dispensation from the top editor to use her name, even though she wanted it used!

[delalluvia]

When I was a newspaper reporter, I don't remember ever seeing breaking news news about an adult male being raped. Whether that means they weren't reported or I just didn't happen to see/hear about them when they were, I'm not sure. I can pretty much guarantee there is no media conspiracy to hush up cases of male rape. I did once write a feature story about male rape, in which I interviewed a couple of survivors, without using their names.

The media generally do not, of course, identify rape survivors by name, unlike every other class of victim.

OK, but again, we're not talking about survivors.  Who reports information of a murdered body to the media?  Who releases it?  I can understand that the cops might keep info on a murdered male rape victim underwraps, on the assumption that it's something only the killer would know and they could nab the perp for knowing this.  But that's also assuming a man would brag about raping another man.  Unlikely except in some circles, I would imagine.

[Monika]

OK, but again, we're not talking about survivors.  Who reports information of a murdered body to the media?  Who releases it? 

I would assume the reporters read the case files (when they are public) themselves.

[Monika]

.  And I think multiple aspect crimes are common, they are more common than one might think because the subtleties can escape one.  For instance, is a burglar just a burglar?  Sure, sometimes.  But he's also guilty of breaking and entering, evading arrest and possibly selling stolen goods. 

Roux was speaking of the criminal´s motif, you are speaking of the legal aspect of it. Two different things.

[delalluvia]

Roux was speaking of the criminal´s motif, you are speaking of the legal aspect of it. Two different things.

Yes but obviously the criminal knows they're breaking more than one law - they have more than one motif.  They don't think they're only just burglars or they just  ran a red light.

[Monika]

Yes but obviously the criminal knows they're breaking more than one law - they have more than one motif.  They don't think they're only just burglars or they just  ran a red light.

I don´t quite follow you there, Del. IMO the motif is the same no matter the number of laws they happen they break. They need money. That´s their motif.

[delalluvia]

I don´t quite follow you there, Del. IMO the motif is the same no matter the number of laws they happen they break. They need money. That´s their motif.

enja was saying burglars are burglars, you say that they need money is their single motif.  But I disagree, rapists can also rob.  Burglars can also murder.  They don't have a single motif.

[serious crayons]

I would assume the reporters read the case files (when they are public) themselves.

Criminal files are always public. Reporters generally do read the files themselves if they are going to write about them. It's not always practical for reporters to go through every single criminal case that ever gets filed. So they depend, sometimes, on the police to tell them about newsworthy cases. But once that happens, the reporters read the file. And police don't normally try to hide newsworthy cases from the reporters.

I can't imagine either the police or the news media deliberately conspiring to hush up cases of male rape. Why would they? What would be the motive? If this were ever to happen, there'd be a Pulitzer in it for anybody who uncovered it.

The only explanations that make sense to me are 1) it doesn't happen that often 2) when it does happen, the victims, if they're living, often don't report it, 3) when they do report it, it doesn't get a lot of attention. Even rapes of women only get a lot of media attention when the case is already high profile because the victim mysteriously disappeared, or because the rapist is related to the Kennedys, or something like that.

[RouxB]

Criminal files are always public. Reporters generally do read the files themselves if they are going to write about them. It's not always practical for reporters to go through every single criminal case that ever gets filed. So they depend, sometimes, on the police to tell them about newsworthy cases. But once that happens, the reporters read the file. And police don't normally try to hide newsworthy cases from the reporters.

I can't imagine either the police or the news media deliberately conspiring to hush up cases of male rape. Why would they? What would be the motive? If this were ever to happen, there'd be a Pulitzer in it for anybody who uncovered it.

The only explanations that make sense to me are 1) it doesn't happen that often 2) when it does happen, the victims, if they're living, often don't report it, 3) when they do report it, it doesn't get a lot of attention. Even rapes of women only get a lot of media attention when the case is already high profile because the victim mysteriously disappeared, or because the rapist is related to the Kennedys, or something like that.

Only about 10% of rapes (of women) are reported to law enforcement so even if all reported cases hit the media (which they don't), it would still not be representative of the number of assaults that occur.

[serious crayons]

Only about 10% of rapes (of women) are reported to law enforcement so even if all reported cases hit the media (which they don't), it would still not be representative of the number of assaults that occur.

And if the figure for women is 10 percent, you can imagine for men it must be much, much lower.

[RouxB]

enja was saying burglars are burglars, you say that they need money is their single motif.  But I disagree, rapists can also rob.  Burglars can also murder.  They don't have a single motif.

I think I am being a bit broader than you are perhaps. Monika is correctly interpreting my meaning when I say burglars are burglers etc... Property crimes are motivated by the need for money. Breaking and entry/theft/conversion or property are all different counts but the basic crime is the burglary.

in 75% of cases, the rapist and the survivor are acquainted in some way and the majority of assaults happen in the survivors home. It is rape mythology that rapist and victim are unacquainted and that the assault is not planned. This is where the single crime figures in. The majority of rape cases do not involve any other crime non-assault related crime. I review rape stats on a quarterly basis from crisis centers all over the country. 

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2008prelim/index.html

[delalluvia]

I think I am being a bit broader than you are perhaps. Monika is correctly interpreting my meaning when I say burglars are burglers etc... Property crimes are motivated by the need for money. Breaking and entry/theft/conversion or property are all different counts but the basic crime is the burglary.

in 75% of cases, the rapist and the survivor are acquainted in some way and the majority of assaults happen in the survivors home. It is rape mythology that rapist and victim are unacquainted and that the assault is not planned. This is where the single crime figures in. The majority of rape cases do not involve any other crime non-assault related crime. I review rape stats on a quarterly basis from crisis centers all over the country. 

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2008prelim/index.html

I agree, but in the cases where they're not - serial killings, random killings and in the case that I started off this thread with - the couple was carjacked, robbed, raped and murdered.  Was this planned?  Or just random?  Did these guys need the money?  Obviously so, otherwise why are they carjacking and why did they rob the couple?  But that didn't stop them from continuing their violent activities.   What would you call this group of men?  Are they carjackers?  Are they thieves?  The couple did not know the people carjacking/assaulting them.  Serial killers and serial rapists don't know the women they attack.  These type of criminals can't be pigeonholed so easily.

he only explanations that make sense to me are 1) it doesn't happen that often 2) when it does happen, the victims, if they're living, often don't report it, 3) when they do report it, it doesn't get a lot of attention. Even rapes of women only get a lot of media attention when the case is already high profile because the victim mysteriously disappeared, or because the rapist is related to the Kennedys, or something like that.

I spoke w/ my friend the ex-newspaper reporter and she said that if men were raped and murdered, reporters likely wouldn't print the raped part because of the connotation of homosexuality implied might offend the victim's friends/family.  I was thinking reporting such a thing might also give some people negative ideas about the local gay community resulting in a witch hunt..

[serious crayons]

I spoke w/ my friend the ex-newspaper reporter and she said that if men were raped and murdered, reporters likely wouldn't print the raped part because of the connotation of homosexuality implied might offend the victim's friends/family.  I was thinking reporting such a thing might also give some people negative ideas about the local gay community resulting in a witch hunt..

As an ex-newspaper reporter myself, this is news to me. I've never heard of any decision made on the basis of political implications -- connotations of homosexuality, negative ideas about the local gay community, whatever. Nothing. Nohow. I'm not saying it's never happened, but in 15 years of working at small, medium and large daily papers, I never heard of it.

[ZK]

I didn't read the article but, yes, straight men are also raped. They rarely report because the stigma, bad enough for women, is far worse for me. I work for our local rape crisis center and we rarely get calls from men who are willing to report to police.

Hiya

IMO I would suggest that it doesn't matter whether or not a man is straight or gay that they would be less inclined to report it

Cheers

ZK

[injest]

interesting commentary on this issue:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/12/martin/index.html?iref=newssearch

CNN) -- When federal prosecutors in Virginia released details of the dogfighting charges against Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick, all hell broke loose.


Martin suggests the Vick case revealed the public and media care more about celebrity and animals than people.

 Folks were protesting, calling for him to be immediately kicked out of the league, and demanding long jail sentences for Vick and his co-defendants.

Many lawyers went on television and admitted that had Vick beat a girlfriend, shot or even murdered someone, he wouldn't have been slammed as hard as he was for the vicious acts committed against dogs.

I suppose those lawyers are right.

Just look at the case of Megan Williams. The 20-year-old West Virginia woman, Megan Williams, was kidnapped by six sadistic individuals and held in a mobile home.

They raped her, forced her to eat rat and dog feces, made her drink from a toilet, stabbed her multiple times, and called the black woman a "nigger" every time they beat her.

Thank God she lived, and may be released from the hospital in a few days.  Watch the alleged victim's mother talk about hearing the news »

But it still raises the question: What causes such outrage and fervor in one case involving dogs and not another?

The same thing was said about the shocking details surrounding the deaths of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. The two University of Tennessee students were on a date when they were carjacked by several men. They were taken to a house where they were held. Christopher was raped, doused with gasoline, shot and his body dumped on the side of a road.

Channon? She had a household cleaner poured down her throat and was later raped. She, too, was murdered.

Although the two were white and their alleged attackers black, police say race was not an element in this case.

These two cases are heinous and despicable. But why do we respond with speed to one case and not another? Is it celebrity? Or do we not have the same compassion for human beings as we do for dogs? Was the Vick case that more important?

Take, for example, the U.S. Senate floor speech of Robert Byrd, the senior senator from West Virginia.

Calling the allegations sadistic, Byrd thundered: "Barbaric! Let that word resound from hill to hill, and from mountain to mountain, from valley to valley, across this broad land. Barbaric! Barbaric! May God help those poor souls who'd be so cruel. Barbaric! Hear me! Barbaric!"

He later added: "I am confident the hottest places in hell are reserved for the souls of sick and brutal people who hold God's creatures in such brutal and cruel contempt."

So, Sen. Byrd, where is the floor speech for a woman from your own home state? Where is the outrage when a woman is viciously attacked?

This is when the media gets slammed. We've determined that Vick, Paris Hilton and the shenanigans of Lindsey Lohan are far more important than the viciousness of what took place in West Virginia and Tennessee.

But maybe the problem isn't just the media. Maybe the problem is you. The reader. The viewer. Maybe you've decided that you care more about discussing a celebrity than nobodies like Megan Williams, Channon Christian or Christopher Newsom.

[

[injest]

and to save someone the trouble...

Roland Sebastian Martin[1], born November 14, 1968, is an African-American journalist and syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate, radio talk show host, and author of the Speak, Brother! A Black Man's View of America.[2][3] He frequently appears on Campbell Brown's No Bias, No Bull and Anderson Coopers, AC360 on CNN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_S._Martin

[Monika]

Hiya

IMO I would suggest that it doesn't matter whether or not a man is straight or gay that they would be less inclined to report it

Cheers

ZK

I hope you´re right, ZK

[delalluvia]

As an ex-newspaper reporter myself, this is news to me. I've never heard of any decision made on the basis of political implications -- connotations of homosexuality, negative ideas about the local gay community, whatever. Nothing. Nohow. I'm not saying it's never happened, but in 15 years of working at small, medium and large daily papers, I never heard of it.

Guess it depends on what newspaper and what area you're working in.  My friend worked for both local community paper (a very wealthy area) and the largest daily paper in a city of over 4 million.  But of course, she was in Texas.

[delalluvia]

interesting commentary on this issue:

Hollywood has known this for years.  In a movie you can wipe out entire cities in Armageddon like disasters and machine-gun bad guys/security guards/police etc., but hurt one animal and the letters and protests come pouring in.

I've no idea why this is.  I suppose it's because animals are helpless.  They have no choice in their situations and so hurting and torturing helpless, unknowing creatures can seem worse, while humans are seen as having more control.

[injest]

Hollywood has known this for years.  In a movie you can wipe out entire cities in Armageddon like disasters and machine-gun bad guys/security guards/police etc., but hurt one animal and the letters and protests come pouring in.

I've no idea why this is.  I suppose it's because animals are helpless.  They have no choice in their situations and so hurting and torturing helpless, unknowing creatures can seem worse, while humans are seen as having more control.

yes, animals are 'innocent' whereas it is too easy to say the human victim did something to either provoke the attack, make the attack worse, or not done something right so as to avoid the attack.

I think maybe it is a form of self protection...if we acknowledge crimes against people too much we feel less safe...

[injest]

Hiya

IMO I would suggest that it doesn't matter whether or not a man is straight or gay that they would be less inclined to report it

Cheers

ZK

yes, there is a stigma attached to men being raped that isn't for women.

It is emasculating, and people have the attitude that men should be able to defend themselves, or not get an erection if they are being raped. People even today don't have a basic understanding of human physiology....

there was a movie a long time ago, I THINK it was "The Rape of Richard Beck"...about a police officer that was very insensitive to rape victims and women in general...

very progressive for its time.

[injest]

yep I was right! I can't believe it...my brain retained something!!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089882/plotsummary

"The Rape of Richard Beck" 1980s