Talk:Rape

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rape article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
To-do list for Rape: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh


Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Requests: The Effects and role of control sections need citations.
  • Cleanup: The role of control section
  • Expand: Prevalence and reports and Media attention need to expand beyond the U.S. and a few specific incidents.
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Rape, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Archive

Containing: *Trigger Warning* for sexual assault survivors, Vandalism in the Rape section, Mary Koss and the "One in four" statistic, The Anger-Excitation Rapist, Illustration possibility, "Trolling" accusation, Rape in marriage, legal peronae, The "Statutory rape" section, Text dump, Overreporting and false reporting, Victim blaming, Fighting the deliteralization of "rape", Changes to usage section by magicalspirits, Added SectNPOV to "Drugging", Quotes, History of the concept, Protection, More information on the Perth 2003 incident, Counter-arguments to sociobiological theories of rape, Fellating a man without his permission ..., Prison rape perceived as "just punishment", Images, "Metaphorical" use of the term, link spam, spam link, Gang Rape and mob rape

[edit] TRIGGER Warning

This page may be very triggering for rape or sexual assault survivors.

[edit] Sociological Justification?

Three paragraphs are given in the Sociological Analysis section that aim only to give an animalian underpinning of rape, whereas most causes of rape are in fact psychological. I was in a bit of a shock reading this section, which compares our rational species to less evolved species in an effort to justify rape as a means of procreation. This may be worth a sentence or two. As it is evident that the typical rapist is not considering procreation as a motive, I believe this section should be dispersed and relegated to the articles on the respective species it describes. That this section comprises the bulk of the article's content is equally ludicrous, when a separate article exists just for this viewpoint.

[edit] MORE PICTURES

This article needs to feature more pictures.

Disagree. The picture in use documents the most historically prominent work of art on the topic in the Western tradition. It is sufficient. Posting pictures of sexual violence serves no good purpose. --07:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Here.it.comes.again (talk • contribs).
While pictures of sexual violence might not serve an academic interest, an article of this length without pictures is graphically unappealing, and feels low quality. A few graphs of legitimate statistics, maps of legal definitions, or photos of advocacy organization events would go a long way. --Eyrian 08:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I support Eyrian's position. Hu Gadarn 14:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to see some rapes going on with different varieties in graphic detail.86.6.207.111 20:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Causes of rape section

I went through all the available references in my univ library and tried to show this complicated and politically loaded topic with NPOV balance. I will note here that politics have no business being included in a scientific section but as we all know politics seems to have ruled this research since Susan Brownmiller began her shameless 'research' on rape for political purposes in 1975 (please see The New Mythology of Rape: Politicizing Women's Pain). I welcome suggestions and feedback on this content but please don't make major changes before discussion so we can consense on some sort of complete, balanced NPOV content here.

I deleted content that had nothing directly to do with Causes and tried to balance research on victims with research on perps since both are significant. I also condensed some statements to aid flow. That said, there is still a glaring hole with respect to why women rape men/women and why men rape men here...which I would love to have other editors fill with some good content. Anacapa 05:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Anacapa, I know we've had differences of opinion on this before. I would rather you try to find peace or figure out why you are so angry at research on female rape victims.

Well, I must say that there are feminist scientists. It's not mutually exclusive. I enjoy searching the psychinfo article database and compile scientific bibliographies on survivor issues. I'm not sure why certain resources offend you and others do not. Some of the external links are not authoritative at all especially when pertaining to male survivor and csa subjects. I have no problem with that. I leave them in because it's a topic that is relevent to the subject of the page. The first rape crisis centers were built by the women's movement and feminists in the US in the 70's. If not for their ideas and theories this page might not exist.

--Survivor 20:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Survivor, I have no problem with differences here and welcome your comments. My issue with feminists is that they have used rape for FALSE political purposes rather than be genuine about the issue. I suggest you glance at the article in links Politics of Rape to see why I get so hot and bothered about the shameless use of slogans and false statistics by some feminists. Anacapa 06:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random italics and unneeded emphasis

This article fails to take a neutral tone on several subjects due to someone's choice to use lots of italics to press home a viewpoint. (Random italics added to the previous sentence to give a clear example of what I mean.) It should be reviewed and the italics removed; they serve no purpose other than to add unnecessary connotations to the words. Wingchild 22:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This entire article looks like it was written from the POV of a victim or a battered women's shelter or similar organization. I think it generally needs to be overhauled to be more NPOV. Hell, it even has sections dedicated to help hotlines, such as RAINN. It also contains about 8 references to RAINN in the article as well. This indicates that someone who is part of that organization has made POV edits to this article. Also, the presence of a large number of italicized words in this article seem to be placed to give emphasis to facts that support a specific POV.


response:


I agree the italics are distracting. I edit them out when I have time. I think it is the emphasis on male survivor resources that is creating the emotional tone of the page right now. However much I agree with exploring male survivor resources I disagree with the way it is being presented in this instance. On the other hand I think it is succeeding in drawing attention to the matter and making this page grow in a lot of ways (topic wise). I would never have investigated the vulnerability factors for rape victims if not for the section on causes of rape. I found it very enlightening. It also led me to multiple victimization causes which (scientific studies) have found it more likely for a victim to have more than one assault rather than the other way around. Rather than suspicion it should add validity.

what bothers me: I do find that my words are edited to include italics or POV comments that are very negative towards women at times. I have mentioned this before and appreciate the consideration shown towards those observations. I also think that if you start a section- you should also start a paragraph in that section instead of leaving it blank. I prefer not to write a whole section from scratch (as I am better at organizing than writing) but find myself trying to make the page presentable. Then once I have written the section my words are italicized and POV comments are added. I think if you are going to do that then you should write the section / or not be destructive to others words.

As to the RAINN references- it is the leading resource on this topic. That is the reason it is cited. Because it is a good resource. It would be negligent not to cite it. The CDC is also a good resource on this subject and is cited as well. If you would like to see a good example of an Encyclopedia article on rape try Groliers online Encyclopedia. It is subscription only but you can view it here: http://www.ncwiseowl.org/Groliers online Encyclopedia

Although I would welcome RAINN's input on this article I have reason to believe they in fact have not edited it. I actually emailed them and asked them to work on the female-male paragraph (bc I did not feel up to it at the time) and they were unable to. In fact it was empty for so long I finally wrote it. here is part of their mission statement: "RAINN is a frequent resource for television, radio and print news outlets — as well as local, state and national policymakers, law enforcement and rape treatment professionals — on the issues related to rape and sexual assault. RAINN was founded in 1994 by Scott Berkowitz, who continues as the organization’s president."

I did not start the sections on helplines but that is a valid part of an article on rape. When someone mentions the subject the first thing I would mention would be RAINN and their work with the national hotline. Just as the first rape crisis centers were established by NOW and the women's rights movement- RAINN is an integral part of the subject and recent history of rape.

I should also mention that when i found this article it was recommending (seriously) that all rape victims who cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their perpetrator is guilty should go to jail. As an example of this they cited a rape court case which had not yet ended. I was alarmed at the poor level of information being provided and presumably cited by readers. Seeing that according to the World Book Encyclopedia only 2% of accussed rapists are convicted- that would mean that 98% of women reporting their assault would go to jail. I have been reading and contributing to this page for 2 years and the improvement has been amazing.

--Survivor 20:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You make some good points. I guess I didn't realize what a large organization RAINN is at the time I made this comment. However, I still feel that there is a good deal of bias in this article. The other major issue I see is the heavy emphasis on psychology and the victimization aspect of rape because these sections seem to be trying to appeal to the reader's emotions in order to trigger a reaction. More concrete facts and less focus on the psychological effects of rape would make this article more objective. Most people would consider rape to be a horrible crime but this article shouldn't be fixated on that alone. Maybe the article should be split so that there would be a seperate article dealing with the proposed psychological effects of rape.


response:

I have given what you said some thought... I did an assignment on this topic and i had to read all the Encyclopedia articles I could on this topic so I looked at my notes. A typical entry (world book) had these topics covered:

   *  The definition of rape
   * The definition of statutory rape
   * The fact that most rapists are not convicted (only 2% mentioned by world book)
   * Explanations for why victims are intimidated into not reporting the crime.
   * The fact that in trials the issue becomes whether the woman consented to sex.
   * The psychological definition of rape as an antisocial act of power rather than sex.
   * The traumatic after effects suffered by the victim.

But if you are interested in starting a section that is not involved with victimology/advocacy then the encyclopedia of rape also covers these topics: concepts, social movements, offenders, high-profile cases, legislation, influential activists, landmark texts, and victimology to representations in literature and art.

I do find that this wiki article is much more detailed and thorough at this point than those encyclopedia entries (if less dependable at all edits). I think that listing high profile cases would not emphasize victim advocacy as that is a more legal, less psychological perspective. Literature and art is somewhat touched on already but would also be less about the effects of rape and more neutral.

The reason the effects of rape are emphasized is that so little is really understood about them. That is an area of research that is somewhat urgent. Because the effects and aftermath are extremely uncomfortable (self injury and eating disorders) there is a real need to get information out there and delve into it.

I am all for having a section that deals only with statistics, legal issues or even art with no psychology involved. I do think that as long as the psychology is well cited and comes from an authoritative/peer reviewed resource is really belongs on this page.

--Survivor 01:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, I have thrown out some chaff and removed the POV-tag. Maikel 20:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Children conceived by rape

How much counselling or other help is there for people who find that they were conceived by rape or incest? I once read in a women's magazine an article written by a young woman who found (to her great shock) that she had been conceived by father-daughter intercourse (incest). Anthony Appleyard 19:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know but this link was in the external links section http://www.stigmatized.org/

[edit] Self Blame

Just started this section. It is sort of a companion to the victim blame section.


There are two main types of self blame: undeserved blame based on character and undeserved blame based on actions. These are called Characterological and Behavioral.

Behavioral self blame refers to victims feeling they should have done something differently (therefore they feel it is their fault).

Characterological self blame is when victims feel there is something inherently wrong with them (causing them to deserve to be assaulted). This type of blame is associated with more psychological negative effects.

Self blame is an avoidance coping skill which inhibits the healing process. The type of thought involved in self blame of victims is illogical thinking (known as counterfactual thinking) which can be remedied by a therapeutic technique known as cognitive restructuring. The main problem for victims is that feeling shame (stigma with the self) produces more psychological problems than feeling guilt (actions). It's easier to change an action than the self. Guilt promotes resolving action and shame promotes pulling away or wanting to be invisible. Withdrawing prevents the victim from seeking help and reporting. Counseling responses found helpful in reducing self blame are supportive responses, psychoeducational responses (learning about rape trauma syndrome) and those responses addressing the issue of blame. (Matsushita-Arao, 1997 ) A helpful type of therapy for self blame is Cognitive restructuring or cognitive-behavioral therapy.--Survivor 21:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] moving drugging to the types of rape section?

I was making a page on my site on types of rape and the one missing here is drug facilitated rape. I realized it's listed under aspects of rape. I tried to move it but i think a rapid edit put it back. I will leave a 'copy' of it here in case. Do you think it's a good idea to move it? I don't feel that strongly about it- it just seemed a better category.

[edit] Drug Facilitated Rape

Hypnotic agents such as flunitrazepam (Rohypnol) and GHB, colloquially referred to as "date rape drugs," have been used by rapists to render their victims unconscious before raping them. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration:

"Victims may not be aware that they ingested a drug at all. GHB and its analogues are invisible when dissolved in water, and are odorless. They are somewhat saltish in taste, but are indiscernible when dissolved in beverages such as sodas, liquor, or beer."[1]

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse:

"Rohypnol can incapacitate victims and prevent them from resisting sexual assault. It can produce "anterograde amnesia," which means that individuals may not remember events they experienced while under the effects of the drug."[2]

The sedative effects of Rohypnol begin to appear approximately 15–20 minutes after the drug is ingested. The effects typically last from four to six hours after administration of the drug, but some cases have been reported in which the effects were experienced 12 or more hours after administration. In recent news it has been discovered that scientists can now detect flunitrazepam and related compounds in urine at least up to 5 days after administration of a single dose of Rohypnol and up to a month in hair.[3]

These drugs are extremely dangerous, and may kill or render the victim comatose. It is imperative that any investigation into the suspected use of date rape drugs involve the immediate carrying out of a blood test, as waiting too long to test for the presence of drugs may cause false negatives.

However, trying to deduce whether date rape drugs have been used from the symptoms is an approach that can cause false positives. In 2003, when the media were reporting a drink-spiking epidemic in Perth, Western Australia, 44 women had their blood tested because they believed they had been the victims of drink-spiking. The West Australian Chemistry Centre tested the blood samples and in these 44 cases, the only substance found in the victim's system was excessive alcohol. Police said that the blood-alcohol level of most of the subjects was significantly higher than what the women had themselves expected. Although this is irrelevent to the issue of whether an assault is rape or not authorities in some instances say:

"While we can't dismiss all cases, the results suggest that a fair proportion of drink spiking is just an urban myth ... It seems that a proportion of young women are getting incredibly intoxicated, and using drink spiking as an excuse to explain behaviour they are not happy with." [4]

However, the legal definition of rape in countries such as the USA also covers a lack of consent when the victim is unable to say "no" to intercourse, due to the effects of drugs or alcohol.[5] In large amounts, alcohol has the same effects as date rape drugs, and causes unconsciousness and memory loss.

Testing kits that claim to detect GHB, Ketamine and benzodiazepines such as Rohypnol in seconds are commercially available under names such as "The Drink Detective".


--Survivor 02:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


well, it edited it out of types AND the other section so i will try to add it again.

It looks okay thus far (2 secs later) so hopefully it will not be deleted. If you really feel it is better in the aspects area you can put it back there. I just thought it made more sense in the types.

[edit] "a cool ass crime"???

The first sentence of this entry is that rape is a "cool ass crime". WTF? I'm strictly a Wikipedia user & don't know how to edit but can someone take a look at this? Thanks. Misokitty 23:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Misokitty

I see someone fixed it. I saw this page yesterday and it did not say that then. It gets hacked regularly due to the sensitive subject matter. sorry if it upset you.

--74.130.65.25 23:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)survivor

  • Don't let vandalism get to you, it's just somebody trying to get attention. The more sensitive a subject is, the more likely somebody is to vandalize a topic about it. Most of the time this stuff is caught by people who watch the Special:Recentchanges page and is fixed in a matter of seconds, but sometimes something slips through the cracks. Koweja 22:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some issues

"Several widely publicized cases of female-male statutory rape in the United States involved school teachers raping their teenage male students. One infamous example involved elementary school teacher Mary Kay Letourneau, who had two children with one of her students, who was 13 when she began her repeated rapes."

"Repeated rapes" implies coercion to my ear. I'm not sure that was ever alleged in her case. I think we should be careful when dealing with statuory rape to make sure that we are only attributing coercion in cases where it has been alleged.

'Repeated rape' is fact in this case. She was caught, convicted, and paroled. Within about a month she was caught raping him again and taken away to serve her full sentence of seven? years by the female judge. There are many kinds of coercion both physical and psychological female rapists usually prefer the psychological and invisible forms (see discussion below) but I am not sure how repeated rapes implies coercion here. Would you have the same concern if the sexes were reversed? Anacapa 05:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Rape and war go hand in hand. Armies have throughout the ages consisted invariably from males only, and rapes have served a purpose. The rape is used as means of psychological warfare - humiliating the enemy soldiers and undermining their morale as giving them signal of being unable to protect what is valuable to them. Conversely, women as soldiers fight far harder and more cruelly than men and almost never surrender.

This has no citation whatsoever. No doubt there are important things to be said on the connections between rape and war, but this currently looks like original research. There has been much written on rape and war, but this paragraph shows no evidence of having been derived from scholarly literature.

Just two things I noticed while breezing through. --Fastfission 03:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Statuory rape does not require coercion -- and can be repeated. Why not call it "repeated rapes"? Goldfritha 23:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] f-m statutory rape rewording

"Several widely publicized cases of female-male statutory rape in the United States involved school teachers raping their teenage male students. One infamous example involved elementary school teacher Mary Kay Letourneau, who had two children with one of her students, who was 13 when she began her repeated rapes."

this makes the thing seem like she was physically raping him. as far as i have heard, they are still together after several years, which, although it was legally rape, means that this was consensual. hate to sound POV here, the wording i think should reflect this, as well as the controversy in other countries over her imprisonment. it makes it sound as though she was torturing him. Joeyramoney 00:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This is always at issue here because when women rape young men it seems as if the man is initiating it and that is it is in fact consensual. In fact, the female rapist initiates and is responsible for the rapes. She did in fact commit these repeated rapes. I ask that you contemplate this with the sexes reversed and note how male rape of young women is almost always reported. There is never the insinuation that the young woman began the affair with the male rapist or that statutory rape of a young woman by an older man is consensual. As for torture, yes rape is a form of torture although it will probably take decades for this young man to sort his shame out and fight free of this sexual predator as he was 'groomed' and raped repeatedly at too tender and age to know the nature of this crime. Please see [Women Who Seduce Teens: Who's the Seducer] for a better take on this than mine. Anacapa 05:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the event is inaccurately worded. Also, you might consider the high likelihood that the VAST majority of rapes throughout history are by men to women, and that the majority of these are entirely nonconsentual by definition, giving creedence to the assumption that male-to-female rape does not often involve any hint of consent.
Comment from different user: As for torture, yes rape is a form of torture although it will probably take decades for this young man to sort his shame out and fight free of this sexual predator as he was 'groomed' and raped repeatedly at too tender and age to know the nature of this crime. Anacapa, for your information, when Letourneau got out of prison, the boy married her. The state should never have been involved. 74.13.168.211 03:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Male rapist profiles

These profiles seem to be relating only to the kind of rapists who go outside and find random victims. This is despite the fact that most rapes are committed by a person familliar to the victim and in the home.

Could someone clarify this?? Silentium 13:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

FBI profilists created four categories of rapists. They left out the young, horny, raging-hormone, rapist and date-rapist for obvious reasons. This probably can be lumped into a category called crimes of opportunity. Police generally don't have to go looking for this type of rapist as the victim can generally identify him. FBI profilists came up with four rapist profiles to help law enforcement catch rapists.

The FBI limits rape to forcible rape of adult women by men in its statistics. Since there are many other types of rape I question how representative the FBI's profiles are. Is the spousal rapist (male or female) profiled by the FBI for example? Anacapa 05:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Edits- Over-italicized areas

I've gone through the article and weeded out what seemed to me as unnecessarily large amounts of italicized words in the male rape section and throughout the article. Italics are the visual equivalent of forceful talking, and too much of them adds entirely too much force to the words- in other words, the italics made it seem very non-neutral and foreceful on specific topics. (Not that these topics aren't important! I'm very pleased to see such information on here. I just think that adhering to a more neutral "tone of voice", so to speak, would help facilitate keeping the overall article neutral.) Also made a few quickie grammar edits- punctuation, mostly. Please feel free to let me know if anyone disagrees with the changes I've made. LilTigre 23:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Seconding; a number of italicized words didn't even need to be stressed. It's not good writing. Adoubleplusgood 02:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repressed memories

Psychologists seem to be divided as to whether repressed memories actually exist, so I made mention of that in the section dealing with incest. Adoubleplusgood 02:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It was found that most repressed memory cases were actually created by therapists suggesting memories that never occurred.


response:

I have to say that research on how memories are stored by ptsd victims does support repressed memories: http://www.psych.org/news_room/press_releases/ptsd11404.pdf

You also have to consider GHB victims (causes amnesia) and the overall widely accepted symptoms of PTSD.

http://www.ibiblio.org/rcip/commun.html

Zaidel DW. (1995). The case for a relationship between human memory, hippocampus and corpus callosum. Biol Res. 28(1):51-7.

Abstract:

"Unilateral brain damage which includes the hippocampus leads to memory impairments consistent with hemispheric specialization on the same side. Damage to the corpus callosum, the major connecting pathway between the left and right hemispheres, also leads to memory impairments. This suggests both hemispheric specialization on the hippocampal level and a critical role for the corpus callosum in memory functions. A complete hippocampal formation is present on either side of the brain but traditionally only one is studied. However, a comparison between the neuronal populations in the hippocampus on both sides revealed asymmetry in connectivity among hippocampal subfields. The profile of memory impairments of commissurotomy ('split-brain') patients is described. The results are discussed in terms of a relationship between hippocampus and corpus callosum in humans. As hemispheric specialization evolved, inter-hippocampal connections became less important and the corpus callosum became prominent in memory functions."--74.130.65.25 02:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)survivor

[edit] Rape of females by males

Looking at those RAINN statistics, I don't see anything about '1 in 3' women being raped, so I'm gonna delete that bit. If I'm wrong, just change it back. Adoubleplusgood 03:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That is an outdated stat. RAINN now states it is 1 in 6 though most studies cite 1 in 4. Many people say between 1 in 3 and 1 in 6 college aged women will be sexually assaulted within thier lifetimes.

--74.130.65.25 02:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)survivor

Where do RAIN statistics come from? There has been shameless manipulation of rape statistics for political and other purposes. We need to know the source of RAINN's statistics to be credible here. I mean no offense to RAIN. I just need to now where we source statistics.Anacapa 05:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In any way "sexually assaulted" and "actually raped" certainly don't mean the same thing. I wonder how well those statistics are differentiated. There certainly would be a LOT more attention if almost a quarter of all American women were raped in their life. --84.186.189.156 22:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable survivors

Has there been any discussions about Notable survivors? I think it is important that survivors know that there are people out there who are not only surviving but thriving, but there are a few issues surrounding the list of notable survivors --- like privacy and whether these bits of info are facts which victims can trust. On this front, If someone other than a celebrity could come out and say that was what happened and the perpetuators of crime do get punished, it would be helpful to victims --- victims of harassment, bullying, peer pressure, hate crimes, personal attacks... It is conceivably less prohibitive for a successful notable person to be open and take actions. Is there any male survivors who has 'come out' and spoken openly about matters that may still be considered taboo? Wklee 00:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you have good intentions and it might be a good idea. the only concern i would have with that is that wiki users would want to also cite stigmitized people who's lives would be endangered by being named. There are whole pages devoted to controversial subjects who have little or no protection from harm at wiki. It's despicable but people will do it here too. --74.130.65.25 02:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)survivor

[edit] No such special category as "gray rape."

There is no commonly refered to thing as "gray rape" If you do a google search for "gray rape" you only come up with the expression 5 original times. And two of these times are from this Wikipedia article. Do a google search for violent rape, and you will find over 300,000 hits. Yet, there is no need for an encyclopedic article about "rape" to explain "violent rape" any more than "gray rape." Both terms are self-explanatory. And futher comment is entirely subjective.

Many legal cases fall in a gray area of law. But just like there is no such thing as gray murder, there is no such thing as gray rape. There are gray rape cases and gray murder cases. The Kevorkian murder trials are examples of gray murder cases. If someone wants to explain what is the meaning of a gray area of law, they should do so in an article about American legal system, not about rape.

  • Seconded, but not exactly for the same reasons. Gray rape is not a precise term, it's an intuitive one. It doesn't need to be stated, just like one doesn't need to call rape "violent". These terms are not in common useage among psychologists. (At least, they never were in my college studies. None of my psychiatrist/psychologist/social worker associates have ever used the term. Half of them had never even heard the term "gray rape" before.) Using the term "gray rape" only furthers the concept that rape itself may have some sort of voluntary participation and/or influence by the victim.

LilTigre 20:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

LilTigre, you just agreed with me. If you do a google search for "gray rape", you will see there is no such recognized category as "gray rape." Someone keeps putting this section back. If you see it again, I ask you to please delete it. It makes the article sound like it was written by some survivor of date rape, that resulted from confusion.

Ah, yes, I did. I thought that was made specifically clear, although my objection is based on useage in psychological and psychiatric circles and not on legalities. If I do see it again, I'll delete it. Also, mind signing some sort of name to your comments? It's a bit strange to talk to someone completely faceless. LilTigre 20:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"It's a bit strange to talk to someone completely faceless." <smile> I know what you really meant say. I normally sign my contributions, but I decline here because the subject matter is so charged. You can call me "Grass." --Grass

That works :3 Thanks, Grass.LilTigre 20:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"my objection is based on useage in psychological and psychiatric circles and not on legalities." My objection was based on useage in psychological, psychiatric and legal circles. --Grass

[edit] Redirect

moved from above

I redirected rape to physical humor because I thought the physical humor was supposed to be funny like that.

response: Has this been fixed? I am assuming the same person wrote 'cool' crime earlier as well. --74.130.65.25 03:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)survivor

There should be a way to track the IP addresses of whatever imbecile is playing with the wiki. Might want to ask a mod about it. LilTigre 20:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Removed: Violent Rape

I removed the sub-heading on "violent rape" because there is no officially recognized category in law or psychology known as violent rape. The expression "violent rape" is self-explanatory, and does not need any further explanation. --Grass

The FBI reports ALL rape it defines as 'forcible' male-female rape and excludes all other types and forms (genders) of rape. We might want to make distinctions between 'forcible' and other forms rape here. IMO, the official FBI definition is absurd vis a vis mass media reports of rape and incest by both sexes in a wide variety of contexts some violent and some ostensibly non-violent. Anacapa 05:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you are saying. Isn't the difference between "forcible rape" and "statutory rape" obvious. What other kind of rape is there? --Grass

"rape is more about power and violence than sex (as confirmed by many rapists who used supposed "non-violent" rape)." There are many different kinds of rapists. Rape is sometimes just about having sex with a particular person as in date rape. Other times rape fullfils a desire to sexually dominate. Some people have fantasies of sexual domination, some have fantasies of sexual submission. Some people break the law to get what they can't legally get. --Grass

The Dark Side of Man has an example of rape of woman by a primate. Clearly in this case although violence was used to commit the 'crime' the purpose of the primate was simply to have sex with the woman. There was no attempt to commit further violence for the sake of power or anything else as soon as the primate was able to accomplish the rape (SEX ACT) unhindered. The FBI charts on violent crime show (at a glance) that rape has one of the lowest correlations with homicide versus other common crimes such as robbery so one has to wonder about Susan Brownmiller's and others' wild claims otherwise that rape is primarily a crime of power. (Homicide be it state-sanctioned (executions) or mere murder is the ultimate form of violent power) Anacapa 05:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sexual aggression, sexual domination and sexual control are kinds of sexual desires various people have. Testosterone not only creates sexual desire in men, it also creates a desire for physical aggression. Note the excessive interest in male teenagers for activities that release physical aggression. Feminists would have you believe this is a cultural phenomenon when in reality it is simple mammal biology. Humans have a neopallium which is usually able to exercise control over the archipallium. Some men (and even women) have higher testosterone levels than others, and some men are more controlled by their archipallium than by their neopallium. Trial lawyers may have high testosterone but they also have a strong neopallium. High testosterone alone is not a predictor of violent tendencies. High testosterone coupled with low IQ is. Very high testosterone creates "roid rage." Androids = testosterone. Androids is another word for testosterone. If we want to lessen rape, then we have to understand the enemy. Some people just want to condemn the enemy and exact vengeance. --Grass

Thanks for bringing thought to a topic that has been shamelessly politicized with absurd yet ubiquituous slogans such "rape is a crime of power but not of sex". I would like to note that men and by extension testosterone have no particular monopoly of sexual aggression. Women (estrogen?) commit sexual aggression too although due to the social double standards, lack of research, and the covert nature of female sexual aggression we rarely see it. What seems to be lacking in many of the causual explanations is the mental/emotional motivations for male or female perpetrated rapes. I suggest a glance at the following article by Patrick Carnes for some sense of this [Erotized Rage and other Sexualized Feelings] Anacapa 05:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Some people have a desire to feel powerful while they are controlling and dominating their sexual partners. And some people have a desire to feel helpless, while they are being controlled and dominated by their sexual partner. Power, domination and control can be intimately connected to sexual desire. This is what bdsm (bondage, discipline, sadism, masochism) and D/s (Dominance/submission) is all about. There is a leather bondage club called "The Power Exchange." Some men rape because they want to have dominant sex. Some men rape because they want to have sadistic sex. Some men rape because they are flooded with hormones, are super horny, and just want to have sex. Overcome with sexual desire, they lose self-control. Some men rape because they always take whatever they can get away with. Some men rape because they feel angry toward all women for the way one woman treated them. Some men rape because they are angry at so often being rejected by women. Some men rape because they themselves were raped. Some men rape because they feel sexually inadequate. Some men rape because they are fixated on one particular female. Testosterone makes men much more physically aggressive than women. Testosterone may play a role in female aggression and female sexual aggression. --Grass


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rape"

[edit] WHY?

Why NLU did you revert my edit, "Rape is having non-consensual sex with another"? The present definition that states there needs to be force for rape to be present seems patently untrue. There need not be any force in "statutory rape," or raping someone who is unconscious. Often there is just the threat of force, no actual force. Are you saying if a female willingly has sex with someone because she fears for her life that she is not being raped?

Michael D. Wolok 01:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please put my edit back. Thank you.

Rape is forcing somebody into sexual activity, in particular sexual penetration, against his or her will through use of physical force, threat of injury, or other duress. In just about every country today,


I changed the above first line of this article to read:

Rape is non-consensual sex, in particular penetration of the vagina or the anus. In present times rape is a crime in just about every country.


If you agree with my edit please put my edit back.


Michael D. Wolok 01:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It's an incomplete definition, which still has the same problem that you complained of (since consent is not a defense to statutory rape), and you also took out the pertinent fact that almost every jurisdiction requires sexual penetration. In fact, your edit leads to more issues since it takes out the explanation that if consent were obtained by force, threat, or other duress, it is not valid. --Nlu (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nlu,

The reason statutory rape is a crime is minors can't give consent. If consent is obtained by force, that is not considered true consent, but "consent under duress." "Consent under duress" is not willing consent. "Consensual" implies "willing consent." No one would say that sex that was extracted by threat is "consensual" even if consent is given. I agree with your criticism that I should have included the fact that rape usually implies penetration. But is penetration of the mouth, rape or just sexual assault? How do you feel about my emended edit: Rape is non-consensual sex, in particular penetration of the vagina or the anus. ?

Michael D. Wolok 14:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Still wrong, because very few jurisdictions consider forcible oral sex "rape." I don't know why you are insisting on removing a more accurate definition in favor of your less precise one. If you disagree, please consider taking it to WP:RFC. --Nlu (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

> Still wrong, because very few jurisdictions consider forcible oral sex "rape."

That is exactly what I said, and what my edit says. Are you reading my words. I don't understand why you are saying my definition is less accurate when "force" is not a necessary eleement of rape, consent is a necessary element for rape. Since minors are not able to give consent, that is why we have statutory rape.

Michael D. Wolok 18:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to file a RfC on this, since apparently you don't know how to. However, I don't see how "that is exactly what [you] said" at all. You're not acknowledging that "sex" is vague, and that is a major problem. --Nlu (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
RfC has been filed. Let's see what others have to say about this. --Nlu (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


How is this definition:

Rape is non-consensual penetration of the vagina or anus. It is usually achieved by physical force, the threat of physical force or some manner of coercion. In present times, in just about every country in the world rape is a criminal offense.

I think this is a lot better than "Rape is forcing another to have sexual activity, especially sexual penetration" because 1) physical force is not always an element of rape, 2)oral penetration is not always classified as rape, and 3) forcing someone to kiss you is not "rape." PLEASE NOTE THAT ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT EDIT FORCABLY KISSING SOMEONE OR FORCABLY TOUCHING THEM IN SEXUAL MANNER WOULD BE CONSIDERD RAPE. The current definition says any kind of forced sexual activity is rape.

What say you? Do we still need others?

Michael D. Wolok 04:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Better. But I'd still like to hear what others have to say about this. --Nlu (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How is this definition:

How is this definition: "Rape is non-consensual penetration of the vagina or anus. Sometimes non-consensual oral sex is classified as rape. Rape is usually achieved by physical force, the threat of injury or some manner of coercion."

or maybe

"Rape is penetration of the vagina or the anus against the wishes of the individual. It is usually achieved by physical force, the threat of injury or some manner of coercion."?


This is the edit as it stands now:

"Rape is forcing somebody into sexual activity, in particular sexual penetration, against his or her will through use of physical force, threat of injury, or other duress."

PLEASE NOTE THAT ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT EDIT FORCABLY KISSING SOMEONE OR FORCABLY TOUCHING THEM IN ANY SEXUAL MANNER WOULD BE CONSIDERD RAPE, AS "SEXUAL ACTIVITY" CAN JUST BE KISSING OR TOUCHING THE BREAST OR BUTTOCKS.

I just did a little research and found a 23 year-old woman was convicted of rape for giving oral sex to a sleeping middle-aged man. Here rape is defined as "a non-consensual sexual act."


Michael D. Wolok 05:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Came here from RfC. Rape has been defined by case law and/or statute in most nations. It would surely be better to source some of those definitions, rather than to argue about the definition here and come up with a "Wikipedians definition". AndyJones 10:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the legal meaning of rape is narrower than the general meaning of the word. "Rape" existed before it was a crime. And different jurisdictions across the world define "rape" in vastly different terms.

I am not sure why the Wikipedian dictionary definition would be any better than one we can agree on here.

Michael D. Wolok 14:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I also found this through RfC. I see no reason to restrict the lead definition to the definition of the crime of rape. It should encompass everything that is considered rape, not just that which can be prosecuted. I find both alternatives a bit awkward, although Michael's version is a bit clearer (and a bit more blunt!). I tried to come up with a compromise wording, but it's exceedingly difficult to include everything that is rape and exclude things that aren't. Perhaps it might be useful to generate a list of what is included in the term and what isn't, and use that list to form the correct opening sentence. Here's a first stab at it:
    Rape:
    Non-consensual penile penetration of the mouth, anus, or vagina -- this applies regardless of whether the rapist or the victim is the owner of the penis.
    Non-consensual tribadism or frottage.
    Non-consensual cunnilingus.
    Not Rape:
    Any consensual act
    Non-consensual touching of the breasts, penis, vulva, or buttocks (molestation or sexual harrassment)
    Non-consensual kissing
    Questionable:
    Non-consensual penetration of the vagina or anus with a finger or object. I don't think many people would have a problem calling this "rape" but I'm also not sure it's more commonly called that than "molestation".
Thoughts? Powers 00:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


I dunno that touching someone's penis or vagina isn't worthy of the title rape. I mean, isn't that what Frottage is?

Also- almost all the resources I've seen consider penetration with a finger or object to be rape. It's bc lgbt rape is getting recognized. If you leave that out you are marginalizing that community. It's commonly called rape. I have a research page on lgbt sexual assault. --74.130.65.25 23:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)survivor

Under these definition, pat-downs, strip-searches and body cavity searches fit under the definition of rape and molestation, as well they should!--71.97.162.13 13:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undisputed.

I think the following is undisputed:

Penetration of the vagina or anus with any object is considered rape. A person can be raped with a dildo, a coke bottle, a broomstick, or the barrel of a gun.

Forced oral sex is sometimes considered rape sometimes not. Women who are forced to have oral sex sometimes say they have escaped rape. Forced oral sex is often called sexual assualt, sexual battery, or oral sodomy.

I think both Nlu and I both agree as to what constitutes rape. (Nlu, please correct me if I am wrong.)

The only question we have is, which definition is better?

Michael D. Wolok 03:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been avoiding writing a definition of my own, as I didn't want to guide the debate in a particular way, but after hearing from you folks, this is what I'd propose myself, a more legally-based definition, which is yet a bit different (and I would like discussion on this):
Rape is, in most jurisdictions, a crime defined as penetration of the vagina by a penis without valid consent by both parties. In many jurisdictions, the penetration of the anus can also be considered rape, and the penetration need not be by a penis, but can be by other objects such as a finger or a dildo. Some jurisdictions expand the definition of rape further to include other acts without valid consent, including oral sex and masturbation. The lack of valid consent does not necessarily mean that the victim explicitly refused to give consent; generally, where consent was obtained by physical force, threat of injury, or other duress, or where consent was given by a person whose age was below the age of consent, a person who was intoxicated by drugs or alcohol, or a person who was mentally impaired by illness or developmental disability. (When the sexual activity involved a person whose age was below the age of consent, the crime defined is often known as "statutory rape," although a number of jurisdictions use terms such as "unlawful sexual intercourse" to avoid the forcible connotation of the word "rape.")
Given that rape is a legal term, I believe that a legal definition is a proper one for the lead paragraph, particularly since the rest of the article adequately explained situations that might be considered rape by common usage but not considered rape legally, or vice versa. --Nlu (talk) 05:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


I got most of the current definition from (as a reference) findlaw.com. I worked in a lot of law offices and it's used in most of their intranet systems along with one or two others. It was better than the merriam - webster definition (which is the leading resource for librarians). I like the def. above except the first sentence. I think that the leading sentence should include non-penis definitions of rape rather than have that in the second sentence. It sounds like only the anal rape can be non-penis penetration ( just a matter of wording i guess). Here is a page that lists resources for definitions: definitions from scholarly resources.

This is what findlaw says:

"The crime of rape (or "first-degree sexual assault" in some states) generally refers to non-consensual sexual intercourse that is committed by physical force, threat of injury, or other duress. A lack of consent can include the victim's inability to say "no" to intercourse, due to the effects of drugs or alcohol. Rape can occur when the offender and victim have a pre-existing relationship (sometimes called "date rape"), or even when the offender is the victim's spouse.

Under a variation known as "statutory rape," some states make it unlawful for an adult to engage in sexual intercourse with a person who has not reached the age of consent (usually 18 years of age)."

In eliminating the word intercourse does that imply that there was no penetration? I think it's reasonable to say intercourse could mean touching genitals without penetration. Especially in certain types of gender-gender combinations.

--74.130.65.25 21:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)survivor

The legal definition of rape changes from state to state, varies greatly country to country. Findlaw is USA-centric. Moreover, the article covers much more than "legal rape." Rape is not just a legal term. The article should start with a general definition. The general definition can be followed by a broad legal definition. If you want a legal definition you need to look in Black's Law Dictionary. There are also lawe encyclopeida.

Newspapers, magazines and book publishers use the American Heritage dictionary. I think the definition I gave is a good general definition. What is wrong with my definition? My definition is very close to the legal definition you gave, just more concise.

A few questions: If someone is developmentally disabled or retarded and legally unable to give consent, does that mean they can never have sex? Is it always illegal to have sex with someone who is drunk? How drunk does someone have to be before it is rape? Can a female be charged with rape for having sex with a drunk guy? --Grass


Hi Grass, I don't know off hand which def. you gave. I was responding to the above request for a more legal oriented definition (broad) and so mentioned that the existing one came from a legal website. I am communicating right now with some survivors to actually expand the vocabulary of rape and broaden as well as get more specific as to the types of rape. I'm not sure I understand your question about consent- but I would say that a mentally disabled person would need to have relations with someone at their own mental level. I think if the person is too drunk to give consent it is certainly rape. Yes a female can be charged with rape if they raped anyone- including a guy. I think the level of intoxication would have to be taken into consideration. This would mean that spiking drinks with everclear or any substance would constitute rape. Having sex with someone who has passed out or clearly too intoxicated to say no is rape.

> "I would say that a mentally disabled person would need to have relations with someone at their own mental level."

Are you saying someone who suffers mental retardation should only have relations with another person who has mental retardation, and not have relations, date or marry someone who with a normal IQ or a high IQ? Are you saying someone who suffers manic-depression should only have relations with another person who suffers manic-depression? Are you saying it is always rape if someone who has a normal IQ has relations with someone who is retarded or vice versa? You seem to be saying someone who is retarded does not have the right to choose who they wish to have relations with? You seem to be saying, you don't respect the wishes of a retarded adult female who wants to date and have relations with a young male doctor because they are not at the same mental level? Should a normal person with an IQ of 180 be prohibited from having relations with someone with an IQ of 100 or everyone who suffers any mental disability? What if a male has an IQ of 180, but is mentally disabled, does this mean this person can't have relations with any normal female?

> "Having sex with someone who has passed out or clearly too intoxicated to say no is rape."

Is this true, even if you are married to this person or dating them, and you know they have no objection to your having relations with them while they are asleep? I don't really think "consent" is the issue, I think the issue is respecting the desires or wishes of the individual. I think people who are drunk should have the right to choose if they want to have relations or not. I've known females who couldn't stand to have sexual relations unless they were totally wasted. Were all men who had relations with these women rapists?

> "I think if the person is too drunk to give consent it is certainly rape."

This begs the question. What do you mean by too drunk to give consent? How drunk is too drunk? Are you saying anytime a female has relations with a guy who is so drunk he is falling off his feet, she should be prosecuted for rape? How do you determine if a person is too drunk to give consent? I don't even know what this means? Are you saying police should not accept the consent of anyone who is drunk to search their property?

A good resource may be the encyclopedia of rape if you are interested in looking up an other resources to answer the above questions. Also- Merriam Webster is considered the most reliable dictionary according to academics.

--74.130.65.25 21:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)survivor

Michael, the main reason why I still don't like the language you used is that it seems insufficiently technical to me, and leaves open too much ambiguity still. Since rape is a legal concept, it should have a legal definition. After some thought, I'm going to be bold and go ahead and insert my definition into the lead paragraph, but please continue to discuss it (replacing "oral sex" with what I consider the more technical "oral copulation"). --Nlu (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Rape is indeed a legal concept, but not exclusively so. I do not see any reason to focus on the legal definition first, especially since it varies among jurisdictions. Many jurisdictions don't even call it "rape"; they call it "sexual assault" or other variants. Powers 23:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi there, I would like to edit the opening sentence to use more general terms as it excludes female-female and some lgbt survivors. I think that would make a better second sentence with more inclusive wording such as "non-consensual sexual intercourse that is committed by physical force, threat of injury, or other duress." This language is less exclusive to non-male-female rape (which has been a big issue on this page lately especially male survivors).

Do you have any recommendations? I will edit it in in a while but am open to new ideas on this. I do think that one was too ambiguous but this one is too narrow.

--Survivor 22:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The opening paragraph appears extremely mangled right now, with sentence fragments and redundant wording throughout. I don't have time to fix it up, and don't want to get involved in an edit war if I take out someone's favorite phrase. =) Powers 23:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem with Survivor's proposed language is that most jurisdictions would not view such as rape -- and the jurisdictions that do are adequately conveyed by the part of the definition that indicated that penetration by a non-penis object, oral copulation, or masturbation might constitute rape in some jurisdictions. --Nlu (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


I think we should come to a comprimise on this as Nlu's definition is objected to by at least two members. I did not delete any part of your def. but feel it is discriminatory against (for one thing) male survivors. That's a problem we need to resolve. There are four types of rape listed on this page and your opening sentence only allows (really) for one. It's only 1/4 accurate.

I also agree the wording is awkward and it doesn't sound at all professional. I think a shorter, more concise definition for the opening paragraph is in order. Getting specific about body parts like 'penis' right away actually sounds more like a medical definition than a legal one. In which case you would have to list all the body part combinations. It's sexual intercourse. That's pretty encompassing to lead off with. I personally find the findlaw def. to sound better.

--Survivor 01:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing, though, is that the FindLaw definition is legally inaccurate, in most jurisdictions, and it does not use precise legal language, in any case. That was the reason for my rewrite (after I found Michael D. Wolok's definition to be, to be honst, even more lacking in that area). Legal accuracy should not be sacrificed in the name of "non-discrimination." I also don't see how the wording is unprofessional, given that it mirrors California's statutory language. --Nlu (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to start a list at Talk:Rape/Act required by jurisdiction to show what American jurisdictions require for "rape"; I think that will show why penetration of the vagina by the penis still need to be referred to as what is required for rape. --Nlu (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
So far, I'm through from Alabama to Indiana, and I'll take this up again when I have time. I must say that the trend is against what I thought was the case -- most jurisdictions have abolished the use of the word "rape" in defining offenses, and those who keep it have often expanded them. Still, I think on the balance the majority of jurisdictions that keep "rape" as an offense's name will be ones requiring penis-vagina penetration, and I think if we start blurring that despite the legal distinction, we might as well merge Rape with Sexual assault (which is what most jurisdictions now use anyway based on what I see). --Nlu (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The main "concept" of rape in the page should be stated without legal references. After that you can improve the concept using legal references in USA, UK, etc.

The main concept should keep only definitions like "non-concensual" and "sexual assult". Example of first lines... "Rape is a non-consensual sexual assult(crime)" After that the concept can be improved by adding legal references, ststements of crime, diferent jurisdiction views, factors that will differ the concepts of "rape" and others sexual crimes. The fact that diferents jusidictions recognize rape by diferents forms and/or ways(if need penetration, if need penis-vagina ou penis-anus etc)to differ it from other sexual crimes is not relevant in the first line... it would be better that such things remain in the explanations or in the advance of the concept. Place such things in the top line is ask to be unprecise. First, be generic... then later specific. By starting something specificating like it is right now... it ll become worng. Look at the top line of the concept and you ll see that inumerous diferent crimes and acts can be called rape by those 2 first lines definition... even impalation, necrophilia etc.. Same happens to the "against another's will through violence, force, threat of injury, or other duress, or where the victim is unable to decline, due to the effects of drugs or alcohol" part. Non-consensual.. that all you need in the first lines. To metion alcohol and drugs in completely unecessary there... should certainly be mentioned but later... not in the first lines. :::—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.50.125.106 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] RAINN in the history of rape

"An important part of the history of rape is the foundation of RAINN in 1994 by Tori Amos and Scott Berkowitz. RAINN is central to the modern history of the rape crisis movement as it founded the national sexual assault hotline and provides statistics and information to the media."

I put this back into the history of rape. RAINN is the leading resource and the leader in the rape crisis movement. It is a national organization which in fact people rely on internationally (though the hotline is for the US). It is the crisis version of NOW and the women's movement from the 70's. It's an important resource as well as an extremely relevent part of history. RAINN changed everything for rape crisis centers and galvanized the movement.

--74.130.65.25 00:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)survivor

[edit] Mary Kay Letourneau incident

The following was added as a famous example of rape:

"One infamous example involved elementary school teacher Mary Kay Letourneau, who had two children with one of her students, who was 13 when she began her repeated rapes."

This is actually an example of "statutory rape" not forcible rape as it implies (the word rape when used alone implies forcible rape ). Whether statutory rape should be treated the same as forcible rape is controversial. Thus I would contend that this incident is not a NPOV example of rape by a female.

reply:

I don't think it is POV so much as it is simply statutory rape - which is a valid type of rape. You could add the word statutory inbetween repeated and rape.

--Survivor 23:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I see here the beginnings of an age-old debate which has never been resolved...is it possible for a woman to forcibly rape a man? The way this article defines rape, it is incredibly unlikely. Antimatter 06:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Types of Sexual assault

I don't want to start a NEW section on this but thought it might help to open up a discussion on the vocabulary of rape.

  1. Stranger rape

-Blitz Sexual Assault -Contact Sexual Assault -Home Invasion Sexual Assault

  1. Statutory rape
  2. Child sexual abuse and incest
  3. Acquaintance or "date" rape
  4. Spousal rape or partner rape
  5. Gang rape
  6. Drug facilitated rape
  7. Communicative or verbal / Virtual reality rape and abuse (such as A Rape in Cyber Space- graphic)
  8. Forcible touching - intentionally and for no legitimate purpose forcibly touch the sexual or other intimate parts of another for the purpose of degrading or abusing their victim or gratifying the actor's sexual desire.
  9. Sexual coercion - is defined as any situation in which one person uses verbal or physical means (including the administration of drugs or alcohol, with or without the other person's consent) to obtain sexual activity against consent. ( Adams-Curtis & Forbes, 2004)
  10. Non-consensual tribadism or frottage.
  11. Non-consensual cunnilingus.


other types of sexual violence

  1. Nonconsensual "noncontact - such as voyeurism is also considered sexual violence." (Esposito, 2006)

as well as the types of rapists (i think intent does make a difference in how you communicate 'rape- but perhaps not in the legal sense. This is more along the philosophical thought line.)

power-assertive rapist, power-reassurance rapist, anger-retaliatory rapist, anger-excitation rapist.

and how they would link to the types of percieved intent of the rapist:

Perceived...

  • Intent to humiliate
  • degrade
  • disempower-----------would link to power-assertive rapist
  • intent to punish (power, hate crime)
  • intent to control (power)
  • intent for sexual gratification
  • intent to inflict bodily harm
  • intent to terrorize
  • sexual exploitation
  • shame
  • to show ownership of the victim


--Survivor 23:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

umm, Virtual Reality rape? are you kidding me?--71.97.162.13 14:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this rape?

> "I would say that a mentally disabled person would need to have relations with someone at their own mental level."

Are you saying someone who suffers mental retardation should only have relations with another person who has mental retardation, and not have relations, date or marry someone who with a normal IQ or a high IQ? Are you saying someone who suffers manic-depression should only have relations with another person who suffers manic-depression? Are you saying it is always rape if someone who has a normal IQ has relations with someone who is retarded or vice versa? You seem to be saying someone who is retarded does not have the right to choose who they wish to have relations with? You seem to be saying, you don't respect the wishes of a retarded adult female who wants to date and have relations with a young male doctor because they are not at the same mental level? Should a normal person with an IQ of 180 be prohibited from having relations with someone with an IQ of 100 or everyone who suffers any mental disability? What if a male has an IQ of 180, but is mentally disabled, does this mean this person can't have relations with any normal female?

> "Having sex with someone who has passed out or clearly too intoxicated to say no is rape."

Is this true, even if you are married to this person or dating them, and you know they have no objection to your having relations with them while they are asleep? I don't really think "consent" is the issue, I think the issue is respecting the desires or wishes of the individual. I think people who are drunk should have the right to choose if they want to have relations or not. I've known females who couldn't stand to have sexual relations unless they were totally wasted. Were all men who had relations with these women rapists?

> "I think if the person is too drunk to give consent it is certainly rape."

This begs the question. What do you mean by too drunk to give consent? How drunk is too drunk? Are you saying anytime a female has relations with a guy who is so drunk he is falling off his feet, she should be prosecuted for rape? How do you determine if a person is too drunk to give consent? I don't even know what this means? Are you saying police should not accept the consent of anyone who is drunk to search their property?

--Grass

Wikipedia is not a place for a debate. This is in particular the reason why I think we should stick to the legal definition of what rape is, not what it should be defined as. --Nlu (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi Grass,

I can give you my opinions but you will have to look up the legal guidelines on these (if that is what you are after). I think the legal system has let all rape victims down badly and this is in fact stated in many of the encyclopedia entrys I've read (for school).

Re: "Are you saying someone who suffers mental retardation should only have relations with another person who has mental retardation, and not have relations, date or marry someone who with a normal IQ or a high IQ?" Yes, I do. The same approximate level of ability to consent but i'm not sure what the law says. It's just how i feel about it. You are asking some detailed Q's and I can only give my opinion.

Re: "Is this true, even if you are married to this person or dating them, and you know they have no objection to your having relations with them while they are asleep?" If they gave blanket consent to have sex while asleep it is not rape, if they did not specifically (and this does not mean marriage vows/duties) give consent to have sex while asleep then yes- of course it is rape. Marital rape. I in fact know a few people very upset that this happened to them. I think if you just kiss them while asleep and you are a couple it's fine. They would then wake up and give consent.

Re: "Are you saying anytime a female has relations with a guy who is so drunk he is falling off his feet, she should be prosecuted for rape?" Yes, of course. If the man feels it was rape.

re "Are you saying police should not accept the consent of anyone who is drunk to search their property?" I'm not sure how this relates to the subject of rape.

I think there's the issue of consent you are missing here. Rape is something done without consent. Of course if someone gave consent it isn't rape. Not that i'm the rape judge or anything. These are all my opinions. We also had a huge discussion on this page last month on male rape by females. I'm sure it happens all the time unfortunately. I know alot of male survivors.

take care, --74.130.65.25 05:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


> "If they gave blanket consent to have sex while asleep it is not rape, if they did not specifically (and this does not mean marriage vows/duties) give consent to have sex while asleep then yes- of course it is rape. Marital rape. I in fact know a few people very upset that this happened to them."

Suppose, the female did not explicitly give blanket consent to her partner to have relations while she was asleep, but her husband felt she wouldn't mind, and in fact she didn't mind. Is this rape?

> Re: "Are you saying anytime a female has relations with a guy who is so drunk he is falling off his feet, she should be prosecuted for rape?" Yes, of course. If the man feels it was rape.

Suppose he didn't feel it was rape at the time, but felt it was rape after he sobered up? Does someone have an obligation to know what their partner will feel when they are sober? This places a great burden on one partner, and takes all responsiblity away from the one that gets drunk. It seems we are absolving people who drink for their actions and consent while drunk. This is contrary to the way we normally deal with people who are drunk. Suppose two people who are drunk out of their minds have sexual relations with each other. Have they raped each other? Does it depend upon how each one feels after they become sober? Doesn't rape require "mens rea"? All of this has great relevance to the content of this article. I hope eveyone here can see this.

> re "Are you saying police should not accept the consent of anyone who is drunk to > search their property?" I'm not sure how this relates to the subject of rape.

Should "consent" when person is drunk be good for some legal purposes, but not for "sexual relations"?

> I think there's the issue of consent you are missing here. Rape is something done without consent.

Yes, that is the definition I gave.

> Of course if someone gave consent it isn't rape.

Even if they were drunk and they regretted giving consent when they are sober? Even if the person is mentally disabled? If someone over 18 years old gives verbal consent to sexual relations that should mean there is no rape, but the first paragraph of the entry says it is rape.

reply: I am going to give you some resources so you can read about this from people with more expert knowledge than me:

Stop Violence Against Women

http://www.stopvaw.org/Marital_and_Intimate_Partner_Sexual_Assault.html

"Intimate partner sexual assault is that committed by a current or past spouse or boyfriend. "


Marital Rape

http://www.vawnet.org/DomesticViolence/Research/VAWnetDocs/AR_mrape.php

"Approximately 10-14% of married women are raped by their husbands in the United States. Historically, most rape statutes read that rape was forced sexual intercourse with a woman not your wife, thus granting husbands a license to rape. On July 5, 1993, marital rape became a crime in all 50 states, under at least one section of the sexual offense codes. "


Hidden Hurt

http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/Articles/maritalrape.htm

A support site on marital rape. "Rape is rape, regardless of the relationship between the rapist and the victim."


How Victims Inability to Recall What Happened Affects the System's Response

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/jr000243c.pdf

A pdf article on date rape drugs and how the experience affects the victim.

The drugging should be recognized as a separate and distinct act of victimization in addition to any other acts of abuse and degradation to which the victim was subjected. How Being Unable to Forget Compares With Being Unable to Remember. In the aftermath of rape, most victims suffer acute stress disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms.



Acquaintance Rape of College Students

http://www.popcenter.org/Problems/problem-acquaintance.htm

Rape is the most common violent crime on American college campuses today. This guide describes the problem of acquaintance rape of college students, addressing its scope, causes and contributing factors; methods for analyzing it on a particular campus; tested responses; and measures for assessing response effectiveness.

I hope you find them helpful. Take care, survivor--74.130.65.25 18:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Types of play during consensual sex.

Humiliation, degradation, disempowerment, punishment, control, power, sexual gratification, intent to inflict pain, intent to cause fear, intent to cause shame to show ownership of the victim. I would just like to pont out that all this is part of consensual sex by people who like bdsm, S&M, and D/s. I submit that many rapists simply act out their sexual cravings when they can't obtain what they want from a willing partner. I think all the desires of a rapist can be looked upon as primal cravings of the archipallium that can have lawful expression. Many rapists may just not be bright enough to realize they can find consensual partners with whom to act out their primal fantasies. I suspect many rapists are just acting out their fantasies becaue they don't realize there are some partners who like things rough, and crave to be treated like slaves. Some consensual partners like to be treated as rough as some rapists treat their victims. Of course there is a bottomless chasm between having consensual sex, and non-sensual sex. But the big difference has to do with the desires and wishes of the passive partner, not the conduct of the active participant. If the active particpant finds a willing partner it is not rape. If he or she doesn't, it is. --Grass

[edit] Wikipedia is not a place for a debate?

Wikipedia is not a place for a debate. This is in particular the reason why I think we should stick to the legal definition of what rape is, not what it should be defined as. --Nlu (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Jim Wales, the creator of Wikpedia would disagree with you. First, there is a copyright problem with the definition you inserted into the article. Second, I see very little difference between the legal definition you gave, and the one I gave. Third, legal definitions differ greatly from country to country. Fourth, "rape" is not just a legal term, but a common word. It had meaning before there were laws that governed it. Wikipedia should start by defining "rape" according to its most popular meaning or its first historical useage. This is what respected dictionaries do. If you want to give the legal definition for rape, it should comae after the general definition or the historical one. Michael D. Wolok 06:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you let Jim Wales speak for Jim Wales, and you just speak for M. Wolok, OK? -lethe talk + 10:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Surely the legal definition of rape depends on the country... - FrancisTyers 13:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I mean not for this type of debate. See WP:NOT -- specifically, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, which you are turning it into. --Nlu (talk) 06:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I haven't really looked at the previous discussion, but I can say this: a talk page is for discussing changes to an article, and not for general discussion of the subject. Debates on the subject should be avoided, but debates about the wording of an article are certainly allowed. — TheKMantalk 06:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting what I am doing. I wish you could find one other person who agrees with you. It seems to me as if you are acting tyranical, forcing your POV and your beliefs on others. We had a debate as to whose definition was better, mine or yours. Then before we got sufficient input from others, you went and inserted word-for-word a definition from another website, which was a third definition. You don't seem to play fair. If I had been so bold to put in some definition without discussion, you would have immediately reverted it. I have no great objection to the new defintion you just added, it is virtually identical with the definition I first inserted, and you reverted. My main objection to it is it is unnecessarily long, overly legalistic and plagerized.

Michael D. Wolok 06:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

False. I did not insert a "word-for-word definition from another website" (which would be copyright violation); I wrote my own based on my understanding of the law (and I've been a criminal defense attorney for more than five years). --Nlu (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

See style guide in Lead section:

The lead section should contain up to four paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide a preview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable. The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, should be written in a clear and accessible style, should be carefully sourced like the rest of the text

At the moment the lead section does not give a preview of the main points, does not summarize the primary reasons and is not capable of standing alone as a concise overview. It goes into far too much detail about one aspect only, namely what is or isn't rape. This level of detail is best covered in the main text of the article. Also it would be much better to use Footnotes rather than external links embedded in the text. See featured article Douglas Adams for example. -- Tyrenius 07:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The lead section tries far too hard to define rape instead of giving an overview of the article. Discussion of what constitutes rape should be discussed in the article. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 09:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
And, as I said way above (just yesterday), it focuses too much on the legal definition, no doubt because Nlu is a lawyer. I'd like to take a stab at it but there is apparently much rancor here and I'm not sure I want to get involved. Powers 11:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How is this?

Here are my suggestions. They are general and not overly legalistic.

"Rape is non-consensual penetration of the vagina or anus. Sometimes non-consensual oral sex is classified as rape. Rape is usually achieved by physical force, the threat of injury or some manner of coercion."

or maybe:

"Rape is penetration of the vagina or the anus against the wishes of the individual. It is usually achieved by physical force, the threat of injury or some manner of coercion."

By the way, "Lethe" is stalking me. I don't know if any administrator can do anything about this.

Nlu sounds very arrogant and is trying to control this page, and force his legalistic version on everyone else. I have no problem with others criticizing my suggestions, but Nlu acts and writes like he owns this place. This is the way Lethe acts in another entry. They are both very insulting, impatient, and quick to condemn the contributions of others.

"Powers", "Jereth," and "Tyrenius," I will support each of you and others who wish to help make the introduction to this article better. If you need my help to stop Nlu from reverting your text, you can count on me.

Michael D. Wolok 22:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I am not editing this article. I have merely made a comment after your RfC request. I would also like to point out that it is not very conciliatory, as Nlu is apparently a lawyer, to give a negative portrayal of lawyers. There are good and bad in every profession. We all know that, but the passages above are way off topic and, in the circumstances, could be considered a personal attack. I suggest you delete such text from above, as a gesture of respect for fellow editors and a statement of your willingness to work towards a consensual solution. For what it's worth, my suggestion for a first sentence is:
Rape is when sex is forced upon someone against their wishes.
There needs to be a summary of the main points of the whole article in the lead section, not detailed examination of what constitutes rape and sex—this should just be summarised, with an indication that it can be seen differently at different times and in different cultures etc. The main text can go into the details.
Tyrenius 01:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely with Tyrenius and was going to write much the same thing. Powers 01:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, though I'd like to suggest replacing "against their wishes" with, "without their consent". That covers statutory rape and other non-consenting situations. The lede and intro should both be brief yet cover the whole field. -Will Beback 01:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
How's about:
Rape is when sex is forced on someone against their wishes. Statutory definitions, depending on the jurisdiction, can include non-consensuality, as, for example, when someone is asleep or too drunk to give informed consent.
Tyrenius 01:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I tried to be very friendly with Nlu even though he reverted my text without explanation or discusion. Then he said, "I will be bold" and made his own additions without any discussion or agreement. He has been very patronizing. I have tried to make peace with him on several occassions, but he just attacks everything I write without rhyme or reason. Now, he has made all kinds of false accusations against me. He has falsely accused me of saying "sex with an unconscious person is not rape." He acts like he owns this article. See what I wrote to him on his talk page, and how I first tried to work with him here. He has been very patronizing and dismissive.


Michael D. Wolok 02:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


Please, please read the discussion page before adding your own comments.

"Rape is when sex is forced on someone against their wishes."

Not all "sex" against someone's wishes is "rape"!!! If you forcibly kiss a girl on the lips, that is not generally considered rape, nor is forcibly removing a female's clothes and touching her breast and bottocks normally considered rape. This actions would merely be considered "sexual assualt" or "sexual battery." The word "sex" can include a lot of things that are not normally considered rape. I really had no problem with Nlu's change, except it was overly long and legalistic, and seemingly taken from another source. Nlu's change was just an expansion of what I first wrote.

Michael D. Wolok 02:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sex is normally taken to mean penetration, not touching someone's buttocks! Kissing someone on the lips is not considered rape, because kissing is not considered sex. That is why forcible acts of this nature are described as "sexual", not "sex". The article just needs a simple intro. Tyrenius 03:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"Will" wrote:

"I agree, though I'd like to suggest replacing 'against their wishes' with, 'without their consent'. That covers statutory rape and other non-consenting situations. The lede and intro should both be brief yet cover the whole field. -Will Beback 01:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC")

Clearly, Will's definition does not include statutory rape. "Statutory rape" is by definition a consenting situation!!!! If it is a non-consenting situation, it is not "statutory rape" but ordinary, garden-variety "rape." "Statutory rape" is rape even though consent is present. Normally, if there is consent, there is not "rape." Or as they say, "consent" is a defense to the charge of rape. "Statutory rape" does not fall under the general definition of "rape," that is why it is called: "statutory rape." "Statutory rape" means an act not generally considered rape is rape because the law (statute) says so. "Statutory rape" = rape according to law, not rape according to the general meaning of the word. In other words, sexual relations with a consenting minor would not normally not be called "rape." It is the law that makes it so.

Michael D. Wolok 02:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be one sentence that covers every single aspect of the subject. It is an introductory sentence. Other aspects can be included in following sentences. For example:
Rape is when sex is forced on someone against their wishes. Statutory definitions, depending on the jurisdiction, can include non-consensuality, as, for example, when someone is asleep or too drunk to give informed consent. Statutory rape can also include consensual sex in particular situations, such as one of the partners being a minor.
Not so difficult really. Let's concentrate on making it work... Tyrenius 03:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nlu, With all due respect, I like Nlu's intro better. You write: "Statutory definitions, depending on the jurisdiction, can include non-consensuality, as, for example, when someone is asleep or too drunk to give informed consent."

This is very misleading and confusing. The common meaning of the word "rape" is non-consensual sex. You make it sound as if non-consenual sex is only rape because that is how the law defines it. You further seem to imply that "non-consensual sex" equals sex with someone who is asleep or drunk. That is just one POV. The most common viewpoint is sexual relations with someone who is asleep or drunk is not necessarily non-consensual sex. It depends upon the circumstances. For example, if two people are married, and the female doesn't mind if her husband has sex with her during her sleep, few people would call this rape even though she did not give consent. Moreover, no court would find the husband guilty of rape. The wording is very awkward.

Then you write: "Statutory rape can also include consensual sex in particular situations, such as one of the partners being a minor." "Statutory rape" only includes consensual sex. If sex is not consensual, it is not statutory rape, but ordinary, garden-variety rape.

Finally, "force" is not a requirement for rape. The mere threat of force can make an act rape, so can other kinds of coercion or duress. For example, if a police officer tells someone they will arrest them if they refuse to have sex, that can be called rape.

Michael D. Wolok 04:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me to keep Nlu's intro. I'm just responding to your RfC and am not going to edit this article. It's easy enough to amend my suggestion however:
Rape is non-consensual sex. This is usually when sex is forced on someone against their wishes, either through physical force or a threat of violence or other forms of coercion or duress.
However, non-consensual has two meanings. It can be that consent has been expressly denied, or it can mean that is hasn't been obtained (but it hasn't been denied either), when for example the person was too drunk. There needs to be a distinction drawn between the two definitions, and I was attempting to do so. Here, as I said judicial definitions will vary, even between Scotland and England. Here is the Scottish interpretation:
But where the accused has no involvement at all in producing the victim’s state of insensibility and where he happens upon her by chance and has sexual intercourse with her when she is totally unaware of his presence and intentions, then it cannot be established that she demonstrated unwillingness. Therefore, it cannot be shown that any force was used to overcome unwillingness which never existed in fact; therefore, there is no rape.[6]
Here we have non-consensual (as consent has not been given) but not rape, according to the (Scottish) law. That is why I said, "Statutory definitions, depending on the jurisdiction, can include non-consensuality, as, for example, when someone is asleep." "Can" means it is possible, not that it is always the case.
Another distinction that needs to be made is between common usage (and the variation in time and culture), and legal definitions (which as I have shown vary also). A major problem seems to the the wish to make one single statement on the subject, where a NPOV can only be achieved by representing the differing viewpoints, and, furthermore, not by giving ones own opinion but by citing sources and referencing them. Tyrenius 06:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be a clear distinction between the everyday use of the term "consent" and the legal use. Surely, Michael, statutory rape is not, by definition, a consenting situation, because if a minor agrees to sex with an adult, even if she does so willingly and enthusiastically, she is still below the age of consent, and thus her "consent" in the everyday sense is not "consent" in the legal senseAngelicakrasia 21:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Too Long?

This article seems too long for me. Has anyone considered converting certain sections into articles? - Mtmelendez 17:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Mtmelendez. Chop it up. This article is remarkably well cited and referenced. It's good, but its so long. I think it's a Featured article in the making with some minor length changes Antimatter 06:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


I've tagged the article with the "Very Long" template so that users can discuss it here. I agree with Antimatter that this is a very good article, it just seems that there is too much information on one page, especially when considering the subject matter. It prints into about 34 pages, which definitely surpasses the recommended size of 12 to 15 printed pages (more than 30 to 35 KB of readable text) by the WP:long article guidelines. So please dicuss this recommendation here. Any suggestions are appreciated. Mtmelendez 14:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I was casually reading this article (I'm working on fornication atm), and I think it is too long as well. Splitting up this sort of article shouldn't be too hard, but then I wouldn't know what parts of the bibliography i should move to new pages etc. Here is a lay perspective of how the article might change.
  • Change the opening paragraph to about 2 sentences
  • Merge Causes of Rape with Profiles of Rapists and form a new article, perhaps with sociobiological theories as well.
  • Make 'reporting of rape' a new article, and allow it to expand via cross cultural differences.
Merge 'effects of rape' with the 'loss of privacy' section and some parts of the 'some aspects' section, such as 'victim blaming'
  • Take the 'law' section into a new article, also expand via cross-cultural differences.
Move 'history of rape' into a new article, but leaving behind a few aspects, such as how it is now considered a war crime.
  • Delete the 'non sexual usage' section, you've covered that in the introduction.
  • Move the "quotes" to wikiquote.
Effectively, you want to stick to the basics. Just have a short introduction, a brief history section, analyse the types of rape, and then leave links to everything else. Also, I know that pictures would be too crude, but are there any graphs availiable or something like that? A J Hay 06:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


Would you please post a link to an archive of the page as is? ALot of people worked hard to fill in sections quite recently created by an absent member. It would be a shame to loose all that work. The reason it was not featured is bc it was deemed too short/incomplete. THen a person created all the subsections you are speaking of condensing. They may well come back and have the same comment all over again. I do think some streamlining would be okay especially in the opening paragraph (which was just expanded :) )

thanks, --74.130.65.25 22:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)survivor


On second thought- perhaps it is not too long so much as it needs a summary at the head of each major section. After the summary sentences the more detailed explanation could be kept. It seems a shame after all that thorough discussion to add sections to delete them. ?

survivor

The Current Version Personally, when I look at this page, I see one picture, and a whole lot of text. When I read the first paragraph, I don't see a simple, concise explanation, I see convolution. Basically, what you're suggesting is good, but if you have a summary sentence followed by text, it's still too much, I suggest doing most of the unnecessary elaboration in footnotes. Ok, I just skimmed the page again, and there's a whole lot of quoting cases which can be put into footnotes, and a lot of information that can pointlessly be put into tables. The sole purpose of the table is to add colour and variation, even if guidlines say that tables shouldn't be used for simple lists. So, in summary, if you don't want to sub-page, use summaries, footnotes and lists. A J Hay 04:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


I was just looking for the arguements against nomination of this page and realized that when it was first expanded I thought sub pages were in order as well. However- in the process of expanding I think we got a pretty good index of most pertinent issues on rape. It is almost like a complete overview. I do realize the opening paragraph (recently extended) is convoluted. I think naming body parts etc. is not needed in the leading paragraph. I think that should be streamlined. Issues around body parts can be dealt with in the rape by gender section. Perhaps the legal definition could go in the legal section? That way it would not be lost but moved. It's not that it's not valid, but that it's in the wrong place. The introduction of a paper usually is an overview of the rest of the paper. I don't know if we have the old introduction archived somewhere but perhaps we should bring it back here, edit it and move the legal def. to the legal section (?). I hope no one finds this offensive as I am trying to suggest a comprimise and am not trying to be disrespectful towards anyone. I know you worked hard on this. I have been working on this page for two years as well. --74.130.65.25 18:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)survivor

You seem right, if that's how you want to go (by you worked hard, I hope you're not referring to me =P). May I suggest moving the Law template? It sure is a lot prettier than the abuse template, but I think that the article should focus on the abuse, not the law. Also, since subpages aren't the direction to head in just yet, it should still be streamlined as though they were. I'd suggest

History-Law-Types-Causes-Effects-References

or

Types-History-Causes-Effects-Law-References

Actually, they'd work in any sensible order, but atm it doesn't work with seemingly random section order thats there now (ie Some Aspects-Effects-Causes-Punishment-Human rights) A J Hay 04:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


I agree that putting types before history makes more sense. A bit of the modern history could go under the heading summary while the ancient history and details of modern hist. could go below the types. People don't really care that much about the history of this topic generally. I think the article (perhaps by my general influence) did accentuate the abuse focus untill a few weeks ago when the legal aspects were raised. I am interested in both. I think moving all the legal stuff to the legal section is a good idea. I really thought the old introduction was pretty succinct. Is there an archive of it?

--74.130.65.25 18:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)survivor


okay, Here is the old version that was more stream lined for an intro. We could also have a section on definitions? That might help and keep the argueing down.

here it is:

Rape is a crime where the victim is forced into sexual activity, in particular sexual penetration, against his or her will through use of physical force, threat of injury, or other duress. It is also considered rape if the victim is unable to say "no" to intercourse, due to the effects of drugs or alcohol or is under the legal age of consent. The word originates from the Latin verb rapere: to seize or take by force. The Latin term for the act of rape itself is raptus.

Originally, the word rape was akin to rapine, rapture, raptor, and rapacious, and referred to the more general violations, such as looting, destruction, and capture of citizens that are inflicted upon a town or country during war, eg. the Rape of Nanking. Today, some dictionaries still define rape to include any serious and destructive assault against a person or community. This article, however, focuses on sexual assault.


I am going to rearrange things without deleting anything AT ALL. You can also retreive old versions of the page through the history tab so don't get mad.

--Survivor 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

okay, I rearranged a couple of sections without any deletions. I put the long intro just under the short intro under 'definitions' and did not edit it at all. I did not rearrange the history yet but may. I also moved the nonsexual def. to combine with the definitions section at the top. It could be edited down some. I am of a mind to move the 'effects of rape' higher up as it is more relevent than some of the other more featured sections.

I suggest each person edit the section they have been working on to make them shorter and less redundant (if that is the case).

--Survivor 19:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


So I moved the image up higher to make the page look nicer. I also put the effects of rape above (instead of below ) the misc. aspects of rape section since it's more important than 'misc." I tried to find a nice icon for the abuse chart but I got tired. I thought maybe another greek statue? Please notice i did not delete anyone's work nor did i edit your words in the definition section. I wonder if we could cut down the other-use-for-the-word-rape definition. It doesn't seem that relevent and it makes the article longer.

--Survivor 19:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, if I were editing this, I'd just cut out large portions of the text; not because it's wrong, but because it's too much. For example, "Statuatory rape" already has its own article, hence it doesn't need more than one sentence. But then, I haven't done enough work on the article to know where it should be cut; and I'd probably annoy everyone if I made the cuts that I think are appropriate. If you want me to try, I will. A J Hay 04:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Basically, Survivor, go for it. Everyone who has an investment in the article will know that you are doing this for the right reasons, so it won't matter.A J Hay 04:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


I will gradually work on editing it if it doesn't upset anyone. The person who wrote alot of the long sections has not been around. I thought if they had their own website it would rock bc they had good ideas about expansion but I did think at the time it was too much for this article. Now that it's here though, it seems like the catagories should stay but be more condensed. I'm not a writer but an organizer so that's why i haven't started. :)

I picked through some sections deleting extra sentences... some sections I think should stay but be made into pages and then edited down alot are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape#Rape_of_males_by_males male-male rape is very important but the paragraph here is too long.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape#Causes_of_rape Causes of rape. It's interesting but so long it could be it's own page and get more thought and exploration there. again, i think the category should stay but be edited down.

Having never started my own page I'm not going to start that tonight.

--74.130.65.25 06:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)survivor

Starting a new page is very simple, I assure you. I could do it for you, but then there's also a certian joy which comes with starting your own page, so I'll let you do that. I cut down the 'types of rape' section, mostly by moving information to already existing pages that weren't even cited (eg spousal rape, date rape). I don't really like to think about rape, so I don't want to do that much more editing. As for you though, don't be afraid to Be Bold. (I can't resist a bad, bad pun =P) A J Hay 08:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Okay, very funny. ;) I started the Causes of Rape page and am about to start the Male Rape Research page. I think it should just be male rape (unless there is one already) bc that would just be half of it.

Okay, so of course there is a discussion on deleting / merging the male rape page. I don't care to debate/discuss this heatedly as I didn't create that section so if anyone else is in favor of it or wanted to talk about it you can here: Male Rape Research

--Survivor 18:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Oy, so someone is deleting the male rape page as I am editing / making it nicer. It was reverted I guess (?) because it's back. They are not participating in the talk page so not sure what is going on there. I will save a copy of it if anyone wants to retreive it later.

--Survivor 18:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone and split up this page. Now this page is much shorter than it was. Helicoptor 00:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi there, I don't know what to say except- this isn't a good solution. You deleted the whole page. Ummm... It was such a good page that it pulls up 1st under the search term rape in google. That says it had alot of merit as it was. I am going to revert it. It's not an act of aggression towards you personally- I'm just in shock. Too much editing with not enough discussion. We were working on an edit comprimise very succesfully. what you did was really vandalism I feel.

--74.130.65.25 04:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


I think a link I put on the male rape talk page Male Rape Research to this talk page section (on article length) is leading to some vandalism. Sorry about that. --74.130.65.25 05:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC) survivor


Wow, I am getting threatened on my IP talk page so I'm not going to edit this page anymore from safety issues. One of the people threatening me is apparantly from New Orleans where I was assaulted so I guess I wont be around here much in the future. This is a link to the article as it used to be in case anyone is interested in improving it over time.The rape article before being deleted. It was nice talking to you A J Hay. It's just not worth risking personal safety :) I don't have anything personal against you Helicopter- I just don't think the page looks better deleted. I must mention that most rape survivors don't feel safe editing this page as it is a survivor un-friendly environment and has a well established reputation for that. I now join their ranks.

take care, survivor--74.130.65.25 23:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No-one is "threatening" you. You are simply in receipt of standard warning about vandalism because of large-scale deletions. The "threat" is simply of being blocked from editing for a short while. It happens to hundreds of editors all the time. The fact that you interpret this as some sort of danger to your "personal safety" is indcative of a complete misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Paul B 23:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources needed!

You need more sources, for example in the "effects of rape" section. User:CameoAppearance removed "homosexuality" (and not any of the other supposed effects). Try to find verifiable, reliable sources for those items, otherwise people will continue to think most of that shit is just made up. Dabljuh 13:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I suggest you review the entire article for sources. Add a {{unreferenced}} tag to all sections that may need additional referencing and cross-checking, and work them through one by one. Dabljuh 14:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Valid point. MOst of my stuff is cited bc i like to search library databases and I compile bibliographies on this subject. I added citations to the effects of rape section (2 very good ones).

[edit] Video resource (online)

Just fyi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV06Rtnh444&search=rachel%20bilson%20rainn

this is a good psa for RAINN.

survivor--74.130.65.25 22:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Another video source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynSF4WwHZP4

this is a good PSA for FAYE. ~


Should i ask?--74.130.65.25 06:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wolok RfC

Some of the editors of this page have previously had involvement with Michael_D._Wolok (talk • contribs). That involvement is mentioned in the RfC I have filed, so you may be interested to see it, help it meet the two person criterion, or otherwise comment. -lethe talk + 14:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] edited sections and new pages

[edit] male rape

I just edited almost all of this out of the male rape section and put it on it's own (debated existence) page. Male Rape Research which someone wants to merge back into this page again already, lol.

here is what i deleted so no one gets upset:

"Men, young men and boys suffer rape-related trauma by rape and sexual assault just as female victims do. In addition, due to male socialization to consider all male-male sexual contact to be shameful, to 'be tough and take it like a man' and to eschew victimhood in all its forms, many males who were survivors of male rape choose to suffer in silent shame rather than risk reporting the crime. These victims consider the shame of disclosure and their likely shunning by other males, as worse than the crime itself; a form of double-bind shame similar to the double-bind blame that male-female rape victims often face. Incest by fathers or incestuous rape of male children by adult men in responsible roles is an especially insidious, shaming, and traumatic form of sexual crime against males that has gained widespread national attention in the United States due to the recent Roman Catholic sex abuse cases. Male-male rape often does deep damage to or destroys the survivor's image of himself as a man which may cause him to feel helpless and alone among other men.

When a male is raped (by a male or female) the involuntary physiological response of erection or orgasm cannot be taken to imply that the act was welcomed by the victim. A capable assailant, male or female, can induce these involuntary physical responses in the majority of males with force and/or with deception. Likewise, in incest or incestuous male-male rape, 'voluntary' initiation, 'voluntary' participation, and involuntary enjoyment by the victim, do not imply that the sexual assault is consensual, less loathsome, or less traumatic to the victim. Many people mistake these involuntary physiological effects, falsely, as indications of consent, when in fact the male rape victims have no more control over his involuntary physiological responses than do female rape victims.

Male-on-male rape does not imply homosexuality. This is a common misperception. People often view the male aggressor as a homosexual, and may think of the recipient as having homosexual tendencies too, especially if he shows signs of sexual stimulation during the experience. Research indicates that the most common form of male-male rape is group rape by other males who rape males who are considered less than 'real' men or latent homosexuals; therefore it is a mistake to perceive the rapists as homosexuals in these cases too. A male rape victim will often experience involuntary erection when forcibly penetrated by rapists of either gender but that does not mean that he is homosexual or that he enjoys the rape. To falsely label a male rape victim 'homosexual' just because his rapist was male can cause the rape victim double-bind shame in cultures where discrimination against homosexuals is rampant."


--Survivor 18:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Causes of Rape

I just made this page so presumably the section here can be edited down (but still exist). Please provide a link to the archive of the section in case the page is deleted.

--Survivor 18:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

well researched, thought out and articulated —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.158.128.105 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-28T00:59:14 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't delete the whole page

Hi Helicopter,

I am not into wiki arguements but I was totally in shock that you deleted the whole page except sociobiological theories and a couple other sections. We were working on keeping most of the topics at least mentioned on this page as it is so comprehensive in a good way. It pulls up first on google under 'rape' so that says it is a good page as is. Please don't delete the whole page as alot of people worked hard on it. If anything we were working on getting it down to a few sentences per topic with links to new pages on the topics.

thanks, survivor--74.130.65.25 04:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete the whole page, I just split some of this long article up into subarticles, like Quotes relating to rape etc. The article was too long as it was, but none of the information was actually deleted from Wikipedia without being moved to a subarticle. Helicoptor 13:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I must say the page looks terrible like this but I'm not going to argue about it. I can't believe people are okay with this but it's not worth my time to worry too much about it. It wont be pulling up much in google like this so people wont see it much anyway. Why would you leave the page looking like this? Why on earth did you choose those totally irrelevent sections to leave in? I don't understand why you did this without any discussion before hand. You don't even work on this page normally. I will put my effort into my own website if this is the type of activity going on on this page (which i have been editing for over 2 years). We wont be up for featured article again anytime soon. I did learn alot from working on this article and will fortify my own site from now on (which also pulls up in google well - so the public education will continue). The old topic sections were really comprehensive and covered the whole subject really well (took everything into consideration). I guess that's why it was first in google. (We were trying to keep the sections and edit them down alot.) I'm puzzled but not surprised.

--74.130.65.25 15:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)survivor

[edit] Picture at top of article

Is this really the best we can do? A random statue? How does that picture even convey the meaning of rape? They could be dancing for all I know. James Roberts 23:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to try and get a picture of actual rape through Fair Use, I would be very happy. That sounds wrong.... You know what I mean. I see your point, though - perhaops a blrury montage of an angry man and a firghtened lady? HawkerTyphoon 00:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It depicts the so-called "rape of the Sabine women", and so illustrates the original meaning of "rape", to carry away by force. There are numerous other paintings and sculptures illustrating this usage: Sabines, Europa, Ganymede etc A picture of an actual rape would be wholly inappropriate for obvious reasons. The are paintings, such as Degas's "The Rape"[7] and Cezanne's "The Rape" that are not explicit. Any explicit image will be properly deleted. I don't think an image is needed at all. Paul B 00:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, let me refocus my point. I have nothing wrong with the picture of the statue, I just don't think it conveys much at all especially at the limited resolution/space on the page for the image. I would suggest either no picture or a picture of some historical text that has some sort of anti-rape law printed. Thanks for the prompt responses. James Roberts 01:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the picture doesn't convey much, but in general I think any picture is better than none, and any picture that actually did convey anything would be inappropriate. DJ Clayworth 19:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very limited sociology

Currently the only thing we have on the sociology of rape is several paragraphs discussing whether animals rape, and the effects on human evolution. I'm not a big expoert in this area, but surely there must be more than this? What about changing attitudes to rape? My understanding is that some cultures considered rape to be a normal part of the 'spoils of war'? What about slavery and rape? What about 'she was asking for it'? Anyone? DJ Clayworth 19:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, just answered my own question; someone (User:Helicopter I think) 'moved' a whole load of information to other articles. The principle witrh a big article like this is that you should leave summary sections in the main article. Otherwise a person coming to find out about the subject just doesn't know where to look. Can I suggest this is reverted or fixed up? DJ Clayworth 19:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we need this article to cover the full range, as it once did before it was turned into a catalogue of victimology and then evicerated. Paul B 11:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC Response

Got here randomly from listing of RfCs on Community Page, but do have some academic background in sexual behavior. Have to say that aside from the first few paragraphs as I found them, which were good, this article is substantially tainted with junk and pseudo-science designed to legitimize or de-stigmatize male on female rape. Just because someone with initials after their name managed to get something published, or posted something on the net, does not make it good science. "Encyclopedic" should mean both "known and recognized as good" and "comprehensive"; but "known good" should always trump "comprehensive". The vandalism (e.g. "more pictures") is also out of hand. There is also way too much plain and simple error (e.g. discussion of sex and aggression in other species falls in the realm of Comparative_psychology, not Sociology). I think you need to request major intervention by moderators on this topic. 08:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)08:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is a biologial explantion "designed to legitimize or de-stigmatize male on female rape" but a sociological explanation is not? Explanations are explanations, not justifications. Bandying about the terms junk-science and pseudo-science does not help unless you have an argument to support the claim. The field of sociology does include attempts to explain all possible causes of human behaviour in a social context. Disciplines are not rigidly divided, but overlap. Paul B 11:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Didn't say anything about bio vs socio, so don't know where you got that. Sorry, but your ideas about how these disciplines approach the topic are less than mainstream, to put it kindly. If anything, I think this exchange proves my point. Need intervention (e.g. arbitration) here. NPOV not being achieved here.00:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
You were presumably referring to the 'sociobiology' section when you referred to junk-science. If you were not, you should have been clearer. Indeed, you should have a made a specific point aboout any problems rather than mere assertions, unbacked by any arguments or evidence. You have still provided no evidence or explanation of what is "designed to legitimize or de-stigmatize male on female rape" so I made a reasonable guess about what you were actually trying to say, since you seemed unable or unwilling to say it yourself - and apparently still do. Sociobiological arguments are typically opposed by those who prefer to look at specific social dynamics, cultural, or psychological explanations. It might be sensible to read the section above or look at the edit history of this article. Its current state is due to wholesale removal of sections by a previous editor (User:Helicopter). What we need to do initially is restore shortened versions of them to the main article. Also, learn to sign your posts properly. Paul B 10:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
See RfC instructions to understand signing convention. Not interested in debate on any topic except what should be in WP articles here. Looking for content that is as universal as possible in terms of lack of geographic, gender, and other biases, can be validated externally, is helpful to the reader and is reliably NPOV. There is way too much here that fails to meet these standards. For sake of something to compare to, I surfed over to the World Health Organization (WHO) pages on Sexual Violence [8]. Material in this and related WP articles should meet similar editorial standards to the WHO material. The purposes of WP are not being served here; although huge amounts of editor effort are being consumed. Moderators: This topic needs intervention! TIA --08:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The RfC instructions are for people submitting RfCs, not for Talk pages, which should be sined with four tildes. See top of page. Paul B 11:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trend

It would be good if the page showed the trend, for example, that there are less reported cases of rape every year, or more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A Sunshade Lust (talk • contribs) .

Please sign your posts on talk pages. What if there is no trend? Powers 18:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What we should do with sex offenders

Personally I can't help but think capital punnishment would be the way to go... Or we could put tracking devices on them...a way to know where they are at, at all times. We would have safer communities. --MLF

Good question, but not the sort of thing Wikipedia is generally going to answer. :) Our goal is to present the information that's already available; novel research and social change really aren't on the menu, I'm afraid. There are quite a few forums out there, that you might enjoy, of course. Have a nice day. Luna Santin 21:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

The Abuse and Criminal Law templates are taking up a crapload of space on the righthand side of this article, and they leave no room for the lead image. Placing the lead image on the left (where it is now seems awkward. Any ideas? Powers T 23:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the Definitions Section

Should the definitions section include a mention of the "affirmative consent" approach? It's been kicked around in academia, and some universities have started to adopt it. I know it's hard to explain (best I've ever come up with is that it shifts from "No means no" to "Any and every thing other than an explicit verbal yes means no."), but should it get mentioned? For that matter, the Definitions section mentions a number of legal definitions, with varying degrees of emphasis on force and with varying requirements for penetration: some, it indicates, have no penetration requirement and include unwanted cunnilingus as rape. Me, I'm used to legal definitions that specify "any penetration, however slight", not that it matters. Point is, the introductory sentence offers a fairly specific definition; should it be changed to something that better reflects the variety of legal approaches reflected in the definitions section? Finally, are there non-legal definitions of rape that are important enough to include in the section? Sort of, I don't know, rape as defined from an ethical or philosophical standpoint, rather than from a jurisdictional statute? Anyway, tossing those thoughts out. The Literate Engineer 16:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Male Victims of Rape by Females

Women are equally capable of Rape of Men. Men find it very difficult to come foward if the perpatrator is a Woman. More and More Women are being imprisoned for this offense than ever before - as quoted from the New York Times.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.108.54.30 (talk • contribs) .

lol, wut? Liu Bei 08:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender#Rape_of_males_by_females

[edit] Regarding this asseted yet not cited

Seems a good time and place to mention the need of citations thoroughout the article.

I read this sentence, "Rape is, in most jurisdictions, a crime defined as sexual intercourse or penetration without valid consent by both parties." and was immediately struck by "IN MOST JURISDICTIONS" -- how do we know this for sure? If possible to gather this thru law enforcement or government statistics, I think it would be benefical for the reader to know just what the percentages are.

It might be further important to have a supplemental page created that would set out the penal code for each state, then those from Canada and Australia could add their own. This can demonstrate to the residents of each state or province how they compare to others, thus, perhaps, spurring legislations to change the laws. Years ago, rape WAS defined just this strictly and restrictively, but victims trapped in a netherland of neither this or that were finally brought under the full protection of the law. --Kiwi--Green in learning mode 10:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Lewis Thomas reference

I have removed the following half-paragraph from the Sociobiological analysis of rape section:

A contrasting view, given by Lewis Thomas in his "The Lives of a Cell: Notes of a biology watcher", rebuts claims that rape is of evolutionary benefit, arguing instead that it is strongly maladaptive, and therefore selected against. Others dismiss Lewis Thomas' conclusion, by pointing out that what is maladaptive in one place and time, may be adaptive in another place and time. For example, in certain animal groups females only voluntarily mate with alpha males. In such an environment, non-alpha males are able to pass on their genes by impregnating females without their consent. Clearly, in animals with this behavior, the genes of non-alpha males who don't participate in this strategy are lost forever, while the genes of non-alpha males who do participate in this strategy are passed on.

I have leafed through my copy of The Lives of a Cell page for page twice without finding the claimed argument. This doesn't conclusively prove that it's not there somewhere, but if it's there it must be as a small aside rather than a main point of one of the essays. The reference is not in the main article, and Google finds no connection between Lewis Thomas and rape outside Wikipedia mirrors. - Then, with the Thomas reference gone the rest of the paragraph just repeat what have already been said, or smell like OR. Henning Makholm 23:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

WP:EL is very clear about what to link to and what not to link to. An article doesn't even need an external links section unless there's a need to link to "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article" for various reasons. The external links section was filled with everything from message boards to chat rooms to blogs. In other words, completely unencyclopedic and verboten according to WP:EL. Let's figure out four or five of the most definitive links we could possibly link to, and then do so. wikipediatrix 01:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Check: How to rape a man 'penetration' versus 'envelopation'

Just to show know that sexual aggression is not limited to the male sex, I pulled in this online piece that shows how some women think about raping men as well. How to rape a man Notice the usage of "I enveloped him". I also refer other editors to [9] to show how gynocentric 'gender' biases influence the POV about rape in the popular consciousness. IMO this rape article needs to be sex/gender neutral to be NPOV. With that in mind I edited a few of the obviously gynocentric statements about 'penetration' in the intro. Anacapa 19:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Check: Legal Definitions of rape

The idea that all sexual acts (such as kissing or groping) are considered 'rape' in some jurisdictions seems absurd. This seems more like a fascist-feminist fantasy where the definition of rape is absurdly expanded to include all sex acts no matter how minor. Could someone please check the relevant laws here and make sure this is indeed fact.

A rough translation to English of the relevant sections of the Danish penal code appears at http://www.interpol.org/Public/Children/SexualAbuse/NationalLaws/csaDenmark.pdf; note in particular Section 224 which defines "other sexual relations" (anden kønslig omgængelse end samleje) to be equivalent to intercourse for the purposes of prosecuring rape, among other sex-related crimes. The Danish original is at http://www.retsinfo.dk/DELFIN/HTML/A2006/0100029.htm. Henning Makholm 21:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Also after reading Female Sexual Aggression and the FBI's rape reporting definitions it seems like there are enormous disparities in the official definitions of rape which would affect the statistics as well. I see no inclusion of male-male rape, female-male, and female-female rape, or underage rape/incest in the FBI's definition. Can someone capture the essence of these disparities with NPOV balance so this article is more than a gynocentric rant about male-female rape. In New York City schools 40% of the staff sex offenders are female according to one story in the New York Times. 71.102.254.114 20:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I do not know how one would do this but could someone please get an editing limitation on this article? Maybe registered users only or just something to prevent this kind of vandalism I just removed from the article.

"It is also noted that women have no rights at all and they should just enjoy the experience that is rape"

It is clearly not something right by Wikipedia's standards that I hope we can prevent in the future. --Jinjinkas 04:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but the preferred method for dealing with this sort of thing is to revert on sight, which you did. Semi-protection is for persistent and frequent vandalism, which I don't think is the case here. Powers T 15:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Effects of Rape section

In its current form, this passage sounds like it's assuming a lot, or like it was written for a rape survivors' support organization website. How can the bit about how the feeling "looms over the survivor" be verified? Do all rape victims react the same way? Can someone provide clarification as to what the "loss of the fundamental need for security" means? "This loss of the fundamental need for security wreaks havoc on the survivor’s life, causing the individual to feel completely powerless and without control over his or her own body. The feeling of being unsafe looms over the survivor causing a heightened state of anxiety and difficulty with intimate relationships. The victim may attempt to return to normal social functioning (i.e. go out to social engagements), yet may find themself unable to do so. Their attempts to re-establish themself in relationships may be hindered by lack of trust." Dukie010 09:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rape and War

I think there should be a new section on rapes that happen during war. Like in WWII, reports of US soldiers raping Iraqi women, etc. FinalWish 05:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Any section on this needs to give some lip service to all the men being slaughtered while the women are being raped and some mention of the asburdity of somehow suggesting that the rape is the central tragedy and that the people killing the men and raping the women are misogynists. Qvkfgmjqy 02:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statistical analysis of rape

Would like info on which groups are more likely to rape and which groups are more likely to be raped, prior relationship, cultural differences, reporting differences, national differences etc. Is this the place for this information? SmithBlue 13:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This would probably be the place to put such statistics, if you can find them in a verifiable, respectable source. Which I doubt, but don't let that prevent you from searching for it. Be warned that studies of that kind are rather likely to be controversial, with people disagreeing about whether and how the figures should be adjusted for socioeconomical biases that correlate with ethnic and cultural groupings, and that our NPOV policy requires that such controversy be reported faithfully along with the statistic itself. Henning Makholm 15:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably OK if we find figures from Cananda?(attempt at humour) More interested in how statistics contrast (or not) with common beliefs about rape. SmithBlue 22:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] True Definition of Rape

The definition of rape on the page is incorrect. A woman cannot rape anyone. A man can rape a woman or a man, but a rape is defined as penetration by the penis, if a woman does any non-consensual act it is considered sexual assault by the law. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.48.82 (talk • contribs).

What, in every jurisdiction on the planet? Somehow, I doubt it. Powers T 13:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The annon does make a point though, that in quite a few jurisdictions it is impossible for a woman to be convicted for rape. But like Powers then pointed out, this isn't true for everywhere across the planet. Mathmo Talk 10:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not NPOV, entire article is written from the point of view of victims who were raped.

No mention whatsoever of the other victims of rape who are those that are falsely accused of rape, when this happens it can absolutely devastate their lives permanently. Thus I tagged this article as biased until it has included the other perspectives of rape. Mathmo Talk 10:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is titled "rape", not "accusations of rape". Is it not reasonable for the article to focus its attention on actual occurrences of the phenomenon called out by its title? Slapping a bias tag on the article for this reason strikes me as rather an overreaction. Henning Makholm 11:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
An article should mention all relevant aspects of the subject matter at hand, as it currently stands it focusses on only one aspect of that. I wonder if a title such as "victims that have been raped" would be a better title for the article which is currently written. Looked at the whole article more carefully again and a few other rape articles on wikipedia, and I'm certainly agreeing with the tag somebody put up that this article needs a major clean up to meet wikipedia's standards. The rape article here should be more generic with sections dealing in brief of the various other related pages and appropriate linking to them. And parts of this page here currently should be spun off to form a new page. Wish I could do this myself, but this is a lot of writing it would need to reform it into a more organised format and my current typing speed is very very very slow at the moment (got my arm broken up and in a cast a few days ago). Anyway, at least I've put my thoughts down for others to read. Mathmo Talk 14:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed here - NPOV concern from me too, in terms that the article is unbalanced, and a more clinical, rounded survey of the issue of "rape" is needed. It's not that what is there is wrong, it's good. But theres a lot that should be there needing writing and rounding out. I support User:Mathmo's comment. I might watchlist and try to add something but no promises. Can we try to compile a list of what the article needs to cover to round its subject out more properly? FT2 (Talk | email) 03:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I, too, support rounding the article out with other points of view (falsely accused, male victims, psychiatrists of perpetrators, etc). But I must say that editing or removing the current "overly victim sympathetic" content to fit with NPOV would be counterproductive, as information is meaningless without context. Also, I suspect that if a rape victim loads up this article in order to find help, it would be psychologically beneficial for them if the article seemed sympathetic to their trauma. Upthorn | 14:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding balance

Can we specify which sections are under dispute? I see that many sections are quite encyclopedic, while a few others need work. Specific labels in those sections would aid editors in improving the article.

Not to mention it makes the top of the page ugly. Xiner (talk, email) 16:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My first thoughts: The Effects and role of control sections need citations. Prevalence and reports and Media attention need to expand beyond the U.S. and a few specific incidents. Maybe that's too many tags to put in one article, so maybe a to-do box on the talk page? Also if you know any WikiProjects, that might help. Xiner (talk, email) 16:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] drugs and alcohol taken voluntarily

I, and many others, question whether sex with someone who has willingly and knowingly taken drugs and alcohol should constitute rape. I definitely think that view should be expressed in the article. Qvkfgmjqy 10:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The general consensus, as indicated by laws in most developed countries, place the responsibility on the man, who should really think about whether the other person is consenting consciously, no? Xiner (talk, email) 14:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
That may be the consensus in developed countries and if so that should be on the page. But thats a sexist way of looking at it, that should be represented on the page. Men get drunk and have sex, men consent when intoxicated and than regret it later. Why should it be the man's responsibility to make sure that the other person isnt "too drunk." The laws may well be written that a woman can be guilty of rape in these circumstances but I doubt it is ever applied that way. If a man is similarly intoxicated as a woman who cant consent to sex and he pays for a woman's dinner and/or cab fare, is the women guilty of theft in any developed countries? Qvkfgmjqy 00:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Women can rape, and as for a drunken man's paying for stuff, would you argue he's not responsible afterwards? Xiner (talk, email) 00:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I think he is responsible and is capable of giving her the money, I also think that thinking the man is responsible means that you have to think that the women is responsible and capable of giving consent. Thats the point of the example. I was trying to construct an argument using paralell reasoning to show how silly it is that the woman is judged unable to consent to sex.Qvkfgmjqy 00:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Sex with someonme who has willingly taken drugs and alcohol is not rape, and no-one says it is. Sex with someone who is incapacitated by such substances may be construed as rape if they are deemed to have been incapable of consent. Paul B 15:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
What is incapacitiated? My understanding is that it goes beyond flat out unconscious, and is something that is almost entirely interpreted by the women after the fact. This is an absurd and sexist way of looking at it, and I think that view should be reprsented. Qvkfgmjqy 00:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you arguing that having sex with someone incapable of consent is okay? Xiner (talk, email) 00:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that by definition it is not OK to ahve sex with someone incapable of giving consent. That is how I define incapable of giving consent. The question the quesiton is what does being incapable of giving consent mean. I just tihnk its been defined by extremists both in legislatures and on this page. Qvkfgmjqy 00:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I mean, of course...Xiner (talk, email) 16:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
OK. That's an old, unanswered question. How about the perpetrator who may be incapable of forming the mens rea, or intent, due to intoxication? Or how about when both (or all) parties are extremely intoxicated? Am I stirring the pot?--Evb-wiki 16:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
PLEASE STIR THE POT! Qvkfgmjqy 00:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Who initiates the sex? A very drunken man on a very drunken woman? That could be rape. A very drunken woman on a very drunken man? Of course not. Xiner (talk, email) 00:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that is absurd and sexist. WHen all you do is change man to woman, and woman to man and it switches from rape to not rape? Are you serious? Qvkfgmjqy 00:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I meant not a rape by the man on the woman. Sorry! Xiner (talk, email) 01:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
So two very drunk people having seix is not rape. Two not drunk people having sex is not rape. One very drunk, one not very drunk person having sex is rape, regardless of whether the man or the woman is the one very drunk? Thats absurd too! But at least not sexist. Qvkfgmjqy 01:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The new link

There's no mention of whether the studies were peer-reviewed, or even where they are published. The numbers sound alarmist too (50%?). I'm not sure the data are reliable. Xiner (talk, email) 16:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't aware that false reporting is a problem. I think this post is more enlightening than the above article, though. Xiner (talk, email) 16:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
http://www.anandaanswers.com/pages/naaFalse.html http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001659224&er=deny these are by a professor at purdue. He found 41% recanted in a town, and that 50% recanted when looking at two midwwestern state universites. http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_4.htm This is from a journal and looks at various studies done by other people. http://archives.cjr.org/year/97/6/rape.asp heres an article from columbia journalism review. A SIGNIFICANT number of rape allegations reported to the police in the United States are FALSE. I'm gonna put significant back into the page. Please look at the Rape Reporting page on wikipedia, it goes into this in much more detail. Qvkfgmjqy 00:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
You are quoting one obscure study. Until further studies are done this is not proof positive that 50% of all rape allegations that make there way to police stations are false. Furthermore, it is a leap of faith to say that withdrawling a charge of rape is the same as recanting an allegation of rape. Your data is simply flawed. 01:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EXCESSIVE Further readings

Do we really need 72 "further readings" here? When too many are in the in the list, the important ones are not emphasized. We could list every book or article every written about this subject, but that is not Wikipedia's function and in this case, the article would be absurdly long, and it would confuse readers. This should be an overview article.

If all of these sources were in fact used to create the article, they should appear as refs so a reader will know which book access to either verify a specific claim, or to find further reading on a specific claim. The list of refs could then be as long as we like (within reason). Assistance from frequent contributors or long-time authors to this article would be very greatly appreciated. Ufwuct 23:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rape and human rights?

Content at issue:

Probably for much of human history, rape, violence, and war have often occurred in connection with one another. In the twentieth century, the use of rape as a "weapon of war" has been well documented and addressed by NGOs as well as the United Nations [10] and national governments. If the victim is under the age of consent in the relevant country the rapist may also be charged with child abuse.

I pulled this section because it says absolutely nothing directly about human rights. What is the point here. How is this discussion about rape and war related to the larger question about rape and human rights? Human rights are violated in ALL forms of rape rather than in just those that occur in war. Please make rape relevant to human rights and put this back or put it another article. Thanks 128.111.95.24 04:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The "weapon of war" issues do deserve space in the main article. As it is, the article focuses on civil rather than wartime rape, which gets mentioned instead only in History of rape and Types of rape. I think the structural answer is to make History a section heading before (current) Definitions. --VSerrata 07:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with the "weapon of war" issue which is indeed one of many rape related realities. Making a History section would seem to solve the problem as long as it covers the complete history of rape including rape's use historically as a "weapon of war". This might be too long an article to include here so we might summarize it here and create/link a new History of Rape article as has been done for so many other rape related issues in this article. 128.111.95.138 02:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Not a new History of rape article. The existing one.
It was split off this one, but I fairly recently had to add a link to connect it to this one at all. It should be expanded and probably have a short section summarizing it in this article. Goldfritha 22:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overview of rape in intro

Content at issue:

Men who rape women are often seen as the most common type of rapist but, in fact, men who rape other men (in prison) are probably the most common type of male rapist in the US today due to the drastic decline in the rape of women by men (Kipnis, Laura (2006), The Female Thing: Dirt, Sex, Envy, Vulnerability). In recent years, there have been an increasing number of female assailants being convicted for the rape of men. However, due to social, and political, and legal double standards, female rapists who rape other women are almost never caught or convicted[11]. Due to incorrect social steoreotypes and reverse-sexist double standards, research on female rapists is rare to the detriment of their victims both female and male [12].

I added the preceding summary to show readers the realities of rape today...realities that often escape the politically loaded statements that rape always seems to suffer from. Please review the sources carefully before reverting this content. However, some of these statements may seem counter intuitive but they are well sourced and I ask that you consider the evidence carefully before you react in outrage or whatever. 128.111.95.24 04:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Those changes are very NPOV, at least the way they are stated now. For example, whether such a thing as "reverse-sexism" even exists is debatable. Many academics argue that since males are the dominant group in society the idea of them being capable of discriminating against themselves is absurd. It is after all predominantly men that are making these "reverse-sexist" laws, not women. 129.100.195.105 21:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changed Word

When I first saw this page the world in the introduction before "sex crimes" was "fun". I changed it to serious, although I'm not sure what it's really supposed to be, but obviously not "fun".129.100.195.105 21:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Serious" is right – thanks for helping. This article is a moderately popular target for vandals who apparently seek to enrage the most readers they can by "making fun of a serious subject". Such vandalism is usually removed quickly. –Henning Makholm 21:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/p/Talk%7ERape_b918.html"