Also, what is with describing the details of the story as "surreal and sexy"? I think that was the most disturbing and telling part of the article for me.

The daily mail has a similar take on the story. They use the term rape, but put it in quotes since apparently is wasn't really "rape".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1042506/A-cloned-dog-Mormon-mink-lined-handcuffs-tantalising-mystery.html

despite being six foot four and 240 lbs. (110 kg), had never resisted.

seems like some serious shaming of someone who was kidnapped by two people at what he assumed to be gunpoint and then raped. wow.

Dear god, that made me sick. "Surreal and sexy"? What the hell?

My letter to TIME has been sent.

I'd expect better from Time. What a horribly sexist and unprofessional story. Rape is sexy? Disgusting.

i can't really say i would expect better from time, actually, but it's certainly disgusting.

i'm writing in.

djhop -- jesus, that link is really really bad :( What is *wrong* with people???

Here's my letter in case anyone needs inspiration:

I first heard about the McKinney rape scandal at a family dinner - my family was horrified to discover what this young man went through and our hearts went out to him.

I was interested to read the details of the story, but was outraged by the way they were presented in Time.

When a person goes across the world to escape someone, who is then "stalked" by that person, "kidnapped at gunpoint", "chained to a bed" and "forced to have sex" - that's rape, it's sexual assault. For journalistic integrity it can be 'alleged', but that does not change what the act should be called.

I am outraged that a Times' writer would think these events were "surreal and sexy". Raping someone isn't sexy. This entire article perpetuated the false ideas that a rape victim secretly wants to be raped and secretly enjoys it.

I expect this kind of sensational sexifying of rape in a tabloid, not in a magazine that is supposed to have integrity.

Appalling. I just gave Time a piece of my mind.

I read this on yahoo news the other day. I think it was in the news of the weird (over the cloned dog thing).

What gives them the right to judge this guy? What is with the victim blaming here? He was outpowered, outnumbered, and attacked. He had no choice, he was raped by this woman. She needs to be in jail right now, and they need to let this man go on with his life. Printing his name was bullshit, the last thing he needs is judgment from every person he knows, having to have the argument every five minutes about what happened.

They have used truly vile language in this article, and I have a feeling it's because there is still this horrible notion of titillation when a woman forces herself on a man. We see the same sort of flippancy when we read about female teachers preying on their male students. And you're completely right -- the gender of the victim and assailant do not matter. Rape is rape. Period. And this victim deserves his privacy. Releasing his name is crap.

"despite being six foot four and 240 lbs. (110 kg), had never resisted"
not only that, puckalish,

[For his part, Anderson claimed that he'd been kidnapped at gunpoint (albeit a replica), forced to have sex while chained to the bed (and twice more unchained)...]

and this

["I had made a plan for my release," Anderson testified, "but it wasn't through running away. I was going to cooperate." Even after his ordeal, when McKinney and May drove him back to London and a long lunch in Trafalgar Square, he still cooperated.]

Victim blaming, big time as well here. Why can't the representation of the victim's statements stand on their own? Couldn't they have put the rebuttal information in another paragraph? The way it's written it serves to immediately discredit the victim's story.

And were the perps even charged with rape? All I could see was a kidnapping charge! I imagine 1977 not being the most enlightened time but this is obscene.

The media has treated his assault like it was some kind of joke. This is largely due with the fact that he is male and we have this presumption in our society that men are always desirous of sex. There is a difference between sex and rape. No means no and that is something that socially men are able to say with any kind of credibility.

Ann, thank you and Renee for taking female on male rape seriously when so many men AND women seem to think it is cute, funny, sexy or a joke when men speak out about personal experience.

It is not a joke. It is not a "sex scandal." It is not funny.

It is rape - without the frakking condescending quote marks. The shaming and re-victimization directed at all rape survivors who speak out is disgusting, inhumane and quite telling about the true nature of the individual participating in such. And I know firsthand just how hard it can be to read it. The mixture of pain, shame, anger, rage and embarrassment at being ridiculed, emasculated, laughed at and told you "must have wanted it" was overpowering when I first told my story. It is still hard to read the hateful remarks a month later.

So, from a male rape survivor of a female rapist, thanks again. You got it right and I'm grateful that at least one more person has not bought into the sexist programming that labels all men as walking penises, incapable of offering consent or feeling violation.

Thank you, James, for having the courage to come forward. Perhaps by telling these stories, we can place the shame where it belongs- with the rapists and those who excuse them. Bravo, James.

This is an example of why I so enjoy following the discourse here at Feministing! I think many men would never believe feminists would call this rape. Some may think that feminists would claim that a man cannot be raped by a female, and therefore the man deserves no sympathy as he must have been asking for it. (Now why does that sound familiar?)

Some men (key word being some) profess the same thing, that a man cannot be raped by a female because he wants to have sex with her. As if the man could never be in any situation where he is not in control. While also discounting the possibility of violent rape because men would actually have to submit voluntarily to be raped. These same men often profess that a male minor cannot be sexually abused by an older female because it is good for him and will only empower him.

Of course the idea that men actually think this way is mostly a stereotype. But I have heard some men give voice to these ideas.

Overall I think more and more men are accepting the concepts of feminism. This would not have been possible without the efforts of feminists everywhere - and this site deserves particular attention in my mind - to educate not only women, but also men.

Sincerely,
Miles

This is truly disgusting, even if it isn't shocking. One of the most telling (and disturbing) moments in the article is the description of the things McKinney used during the assault:"chains, fur-lined manacles, rope, chloroform and wedding trousseau..." Did he really just slip *chloroform* into the list along with furry handcuffs and sexy lingerie? Anyone else hearing "one of these things is not like the other" playing in the background?

I also think Brunton's smug observation that the gun was fake is an especially low blow.

My letter to _Time_:

Did I really just read an article that describes someone being kidnapped and raped for 72 hours as "sexy and surreal?" Your coverage of this case is unprofessional and appalling--from the obviously titillated tone you take in setting up the realization of a decade-old rape charge (“…the story gets even better…”) to the way you describe the charge against McKinney using the awkward phrase “…forcibly having sex with him.” Why would you use a 24-word phrase when there is a four-letter word that means the same thing?

The sentence, in which you interrupt Anderson’s description of his ordeal with parenthetical rebuttals, is perhaps the most disgusting of all: “For his part, Anderson claimed that he'd been kidnapped at gunpoint (albeit a replica), forced to have sex while chained to the bed (and twice more unchained), and that, despite being six foot four and 240 lbs. (110 kg), had never resisted.” Why wouldn’t you allow Anderson’s statement to stand uninterrupted? Your smug parenthetical comments perpetuate the myth that rape victims somehow ask to be assaulted. I would expect better from a well-respected publication such as Time.

I realize that, for the sake of journalistic integrity, you must make it clear that the rape is alleged. For the sake of journalistic integrity, please remember that an alleged rape is not a “sex scandal.” It is not titillating. It is not funny. And the victim is not the one who should have to prove his/her innocence.

spike, seriously. i guess that one stuck out to me, but the article is rife with ridiculous victim-blaming assertions.

james, not only is it incredibly brave to share your story, but to do so without even using some silly moniker (like, say, 'puckalish') is really the mark of courage. i think it's on all of us to bring light to that (a) rape happens to men and (b) men who've survived rape deserve justice, not shame... and by sharing your story, you're taking a bigger step there than i ever could. so thank YOU.

miles, i think you're absolutely right. the more men grow to understand how patriarchy and its construction of masculinity oppresses men, the more we can join together with our siblings to take that aspect of the system apart. in the same way, the ways in which systems of inequality circumscribe the experiences of other privileged groups, if properly engaged, can help to dismantle those systems (sedative-hypnotic dependency is so prevalent among upper-middle- and upper-class individuals for a reason).

I cannot believe they would use the victim's name in the article. Leaving out a rape victim's name is supposed to be a part of the media's "ethics". This article completely perpetuates the myth that a man cannot be raped by a woman, and it will further silence survivors who have not come forward.

The Daily Mail was even worse (surprise, surprise). The article claimed that all men would envy the rape victim.

The Guardian article is pretty bad, too. If you're writing to Time, might be worth dropping them a line as well.

On one hand, they do a decent job of (accurately) presenting McKinney as aggressor and Anderson as victim; on the other, they paint her as a pop culture hero and offer older coverage of the kidnapping and rape, such as the following, sans commentary:

"It was a tabloid dream. Mormon Sex Slave Case, screeched the Daily Mail. McKinney and the Manacled Mormon, yelled the Mirror. Even the Guardian got in on the act with the only-slightly more coy: Missionary was 'shackled for sex'. McKinney's counsel told the magistrates that 'methinks the Mormon do protest too much'."

The Guardian also blithely reports,

"There were to be a few more scrapes with the law. In 1984 she was arrested after Anderson spotted her loitering near his place of work in Salt Lake City. When the police searched the boot of her car they found a length of rope and a pair of handcuffs, but charges against her were dropped after she once again jumped bail."

And actually bloody follows it up with,

"And by and large, McKinney has also led a blameless life over the past three decades."

Good god.