>

Not in the last 4 comments.
I agree that sexual assault, female on male, should be treated just as seriously as the reverse, and I agree that there are double standards. However, I do not accept the premise that male sexual violence against women is treated as harshly as you imply. Everybody hates a hypothetical rapist, but people often turn a blind eye or make excuses when it turns out to be their friends or family, and actual conviction rates are pitiful. >

Even if that’s true society as a whole would demolish that person. Women can be found to actually have assaulted someone and no one really talks about it >

Hey, so this isn’t as true as we’d like it to be.  The guy who was convicted of violently raping me served six months house arrest during which he was able to leave the house for work and limited recreation.  He hasn’t been shunned or ostracized.  I actually did lose friends because I reported him, and lost my job because I was missing work for the trial.
I won’t go into lots of detail about what he did, but it took me six months to physically recover.
His life is just fine. >

I don’t think this one example can trump numerous other ones. And by what measure do you say his life is fine? >

You've got this a bit reversed.  
The cases of a man sexually harrassing/assaulting a women are more likely to have very few consequences for the aggressor than otherwise.  
Most women have experienced/will experience such a thing in their life, and their aggressor won't be convicted of anything because it will not be reported, dismissed, or have barely any punishment for it. >

But we aren’t compare victims justice to abusers consequences. We’re comparing male victims to female victims and the outcomes.