We’ve overcorrected so hard on one side of sexual violence that we’re now misjudging victims who don’t fit the narrative.

A 35 year replication study (1984 > 2019) looked at how people perceive **male victims of sexual assault by female perpetrators**. The results are uncomfortable:

⭕ * Female participants became *more* likely (in this specific scenario) to:

* say the male victim “encouraged it”

* assume he “enjoyed it”

* view the experience as less harmful

⭕ * Male participants, however became *less* likely to blame male victims over time.

And overall, male victims assaulted by female perpetrators were still:

* seen as more responsible

* assumed to experience more pleasure

* taken less seriously than other victim–perpetrator combinations

---

So IMO this is not just random bias - it reflects how social narratives shape perception. When a system strongly reinforces: “male = perpetrator” & “female = victim”, then cases that don’t fit that pattern get mentally “corrected”:

* harm is minimized

* responsibility is shifted

* seriousness is reduced

We didn’t just raise awareness - we **optimized for one type of victim**. And like any system that over-optimizes - it creates blind spots, distorts judgment and quietly sidelines people who don’t fit the dominant frame

This doesn’t mean female victims’ issues aren’t real. They absolutely are. But It means **fairness isn’t divisible**. If your framework can’t recognize *all* victims accurately,

then it’s not justice it’s a selective lens.

⭕ And selective lenses always come with a cost.

---

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

DOI: [https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211062990](https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211062990)

Source: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34978934/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34978934/)

---