Begging the question. Who is saying they aren't?
Farther along, readers of the article find out, "The final outrage in Stemple and Meyer’s paper involves inmates, who aren’t counted in the general statistics at all. In the last few years, the BJS did two studies in adult prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities. The surveys were excellent because they afforded lots of privacy and asked questions using very specific, informal, and graphic language. ('Did another inmate use physical force to make you give or receive a blow job?') Those surveys turned up the opposite of what we generally think is true. Women were more likely to be abused by fellow female inmates, and men by guards, and many of those guards were female. For example, of juveniles reporting staff sexual misconduct, 89 percent were boys reporting abuse by a female staff member. In total, inmates reported an astronomical 900,000 incidents of sexual abuse."
The experience of men and women is 'a lot closer than any of us would expect,' she says.
Stemple concluded that we need to 'completely rethink our assumptions about sexual victimization,' and especially our fallback model that men are always the perpetrators and women the victims."
Those surveys turned up the opposite of what we generally think is true.
That even the points you call out are buried, neither of which answer the question I brought up, sets off my spidey-sense. "What does the author want to be true?"
The headline said sexual assault, not rape, so presumably they are aware of this definition and chose not to invoke it. But this definition precludes the possibility of men being raped by women who force themselves onto the men.
[1]: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/January/12-ag-018.html
I'm not so sure about that. It says "penetration...without the consent of the victim" and it doesn't specify that the victim must be penetrated. It defines the act that must happen, and it specifies that it must happen without the consent of the victim. But it doesn't specify if the victim is penetrating or being penetrated.
It does take a careful reading to parse correctly though, so your point largely stands.
A person (A) commits an offence if he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis
There's no clause which limits applicability to females.
It's true that there is no offence in the UK of female-on-male rape. That's because the definition of rape in the UK is deliberately quite narrow, and specifically applies only to forcible penetration with a penis. Other sexual assault is defined by e.g. "assault by penetration".
Someone who believes something or another about women's rights, and is statistically more likely to dismiss or suppress any discussion of men's issues.