Lead needs to meet MOS standards 

As it stands, the lead breaks MOS in several major ways:

 MOS:INTRO#Introductory text - In that is does not "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article".
 MOS:INTRO#Relative emphasis - In that it gives WP:UNDUE emphasis to male rape in the UK, yet section in "Prevalence" covers 6 countries from which other examples could have been given. To quote MOS, "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject" – male rape in the UK is no more important that in any other country in the world, therefore it should not be used as a singular example because this does not represent a worldwide view, particularly as anything related to anal sex differs per culture, religion and by law.
 The examples break the MOS:INTRO#Provide an accessible overview guideline which states: "Do not hint at startling facts without describing them." The UK percentages are quoted without sufficient background to explain their relevancy this early in the article, there is no context because the lead is very short and uninformative.
 MOS:INTRO#Relative emphasis - "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article" – the stated UK <3% and <5% figures are not mentioned in Male rape#United Kingdom, which would be a more appropriate place to account for these percentages, than in the lead in this disconnected manner.

The lead needs rewriting be someone who has contributed to this article and knows the sources well, it should be much longer based on the article's current length, it should be balanced and not given to undue examples from cherry-picked county data, per WP:NPOV. It needs to give a concise overview of the topic, rather than focusing on too many examples, to avoid clutter. 82.8.252.13