I've never been crucified. All I know about it is what I've been told. All most people know about any number of things is what they're told.
I don't think rape is funny no matter who is on the victim's end of it. Though a man is much more likely to be raped by another man. I suspect being penetrated is more psychologically damaging, but I'm not going to assume that a man, raped, simply isn't damaged by it or speculate on the degree or duration of the damage.
But then, I'm not trying to advance an irrational, emotional grudge, so don't let me stop you.
Why is what? Why is your undemonstrated assumption to set up another witless attack on women something worth considering? Why indeed.
It's an assumption with peculiar punctuation that happens so rarely it's not much discussed by anyone.
I think something is all too obvious. And here it comes.
Like most of what you say about women and rape, there's no reason for anyone, literally anyone to believe it.
I can pretty much annul everything you just stated by restating the same question I posed.
Why? Go ahead and attempt an answer so that I can fracture you all's nonsense, defending professional victimhood.