Talk:Spousal rape

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] From VfD:

Hrm... I debated listing this on 'cleanup' or here. I think we'd all be served best if this were merged into rape or statutory rape or acquaintance rape. I could be wrong, though. - UtherSRG 16:33, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. List on cleanup. The topic has a specific legal history that could easily justify a separate article. Joyous 16:40, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Sad to say, Joyous is right. There are enough separate legal and cultural issues to deserve a separate article. You could merge and redirect for now but I suspect it would eventually get broken out again. Rossami 16:53, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep but specific clean up: This is an enormous topic that would warrant a very long article. First, we have the concept, then the jurisdictions where it has been made criminal (in the US alone, this is a long and vexatious list), then we have whether it is sex-blind or not, any prosecutions..... This is a case where we almost need to make this a Featured Article of the Week or whatever it's called where Wikipedians band together to make something. Geogre 17:37, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. -Sean Curtin 00:31, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Valid topic, but I'm sure we can improve on the article. Andrewa 05:28, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I was going to say keep, but it turns out statutory rape and acquaintance rape and date rape are not in fact separate articles, they're all redirects to rape. They've been merged, and appear as paragraphs within the rape article, meaning that there is only one actual article, covering all the kinds of rape. This means that if Spousal rape is kept as a separate article after cleanup, we would be in the, ahem, taxonomically inappropriate situation of having the subject of rape covered by these two articles: 1) "Rape" and 2)"Spousal Rape". In order that there may be one rather than two, I vote merge and redirect.
    • Well, masked man, whoever you are, you're right. (Oh, it's bishonen, ok.) You're right. This puts me in an odd position. I think it should be fleshed out and cleaned up and then I'd vote merge and redirect. So it's Clean up, merge, redirect, and delete. Weird vote. Geogre 12:53, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • (Another acceptable way of making the information tree logical would be to break out statutory rape and date rape etc, and have them all separate little articles, but I'm a mergist rather than an atomist, and it's not the way I like.) --Bishonen 23:02, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is tripe. It's written from hearsay (Cosmopolitan? Give me a break...) and doesn't by any means merit its own article. I accuse the author of this trash of trying to stir up yet more controversy on an already overdone subject. Let's add a couple of lines to Rape — I'll even do it myself — and be done with it. Jeeves 02:11, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Certainly not a deletion candidate, the concept is distinct from other forms of rape and quite significant to feminist perspectives on marriage. Whether we merge different forms into a single article or have separate articles is something to be addressed by the people who choose to write the material. --Michael Snow 23:56, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Without passing on the merits of present content, it's certainly a legitimate topic for an article. The concept of spousal rape has a quite distinct legal history. In the U.S., clear into the 1970s, it was a legal impossibility for a man to be convicted of raping his wife (even if they were legally separated). I suspect that situation obtains in quite a few countries today. Definitely deserves an article, so at most this should be a candidate for cleanup. -- Jmabel 06:35, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Jmabel and Michael Snow. Regardless of the specific content of this article, the subject merits an article. Spousal rape is a special kind of rape, because of the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. It could be expanded to include views on spousal rape in various cultures (some cultures/religions hold the belief that in agreeing to marry, the wife permanently consents sexually so that there can exist no spousal rape), famous cases of spousal rape, jurisprudence, cases of women raping their husbands, or things like that. This article belongs on wikipedia, and therefore shouldn't be deleted. Aecis 23:20, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

  • KEEP, as separate article. 'Marital/spousal rape' is a political issue, a debated crime, and a socialogical event. This comment was placed here February 8, 2004, and was not part of the moved discussion.

[edit] "or ex-spouse"

Someone added "or ex-spouse" in the phrase "...when the perpetrator is the spouse or ex-spouse of the victim." I do not believe this is correct, especially insofar as this is a legal term. If a man rapes a woman who once was, but no longer is, legally his wife, I believe that (at least in the U.S.) is exactly the same in the eyes of the law as if they had never been married. I am removing this phrase; if you are restoring, please explain here. -- Jmabel 05:25, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] cite sources

Diana Russell and the National Victim Center sound, offhand like good sources, but we really should have actual citations, either to their publications in which they make these claims or at least to a web page from a well-known individual or organization that attributes these findings to them. -- Jmabel 05:25, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute?

There is an NPOV tag on this article from back when it was on VFD. I see no comments here documenting what the issues were, and the article has been almost completely rewritten. I am taking the liberty of deleting that tag. If someone wants to restore it, please explain here on the talk page the basis of your dispute. -- Jmabel 05:29, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] TotallyDisputed tag

I added the TotallyDisputed tag for several reasons:

  • No sources are cited for the statistics in the last paragraph.
  • POV phrases such as "curiously small amount of attention has been paid to the woman's sexual rights"
  • The article's tone is anti-male

Carrp | Talk 00:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And I see you not only added that tag, but User:Wordrider completely rewrote the article into more or less a defense of a man's "right" to have sex with an unwilling, even separated, wife. Charming. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:50, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A possibly useful reference

If someone wants to work heavily on this, [1], linked in the article, looks rather thorough for U.S. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:28, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 04/20/05

I made an initial attempt at cleanup, as requested on the Community Portal. I added some external links in the article including: the conjugal rights article from Malaysia (I couldn't find anything better that made the case for conjugal rights) & the UN links. I also removed the "totally disputed" and "cleanup" flags, as they were 2 months out of date. I'll be expanding the references section.--ghost 03:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • 04/22/05 - Whew. The IP edit got me inspired to cleanup the links. I chose not to revert the removal of the "man vs woman" sentence, since we could reinsert the links it contained without affecting the content. I hope that I followed the MoS properly on the references. Please let me know.--ghost 02:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gender

The following was recently cut from the lead paragraph: "As with most types of rape and sexual assault, the vast majority of cases are committed by a man against a woman." Clearly this is a true statement. It seems to me to be relevant to the topic. What is the rationale for removing it? -- 06:47, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

An IP edit removed the sentence. Rather than argue with a phantom, I moved the links that were included elsewhere in the article. I agree that the statement is true, but having known several victims of female vs male abuse, perhaps removing it is less POV. You are welcome to reinsert it, but please edit the links if you do.--ghost 15:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/p/o/Talk%7ESpousal_rape_7d65.html"