Talk:Rape

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rape article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Rape is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
March 7, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
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.
  • Other:
    • Possibly create a template to link rape topics together
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
About archives • Edit this box

There is nothing on this page about Autism. People with Autism have a higher probability of becoming rapists due to their apathy. Maybe we should include a part of this section about Understanding Her Fear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jquandar (talk • contribs) 12:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] unsigned

Disorder is spelled wrong, as "disoder". It needs to be fixed sometime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.46.224 (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Several problems with "causes of rape" section

The causes of rape section needs attention by an expert. There are several serious problems with it, among which: 1) Correlational studies are presented as causal findings. This is Highly Problematic. 2) Drugs may disinhibit behavior, but they cannot be considered causes of behavior in a strict sense. Most drunk or drugged people do not rape. More subtlety is needed in discussing the correlational findings on drugs and alcohol. 3) The section cites studies out of context. It refers to specific studies without metion of the populations studied, when they were studied, in what settings. The claims made, in the form of overly simplistic percentages, may not refer to anyone outside of the studies mentioned. 4) Instead of simplisticly referring to drugs and alcohol and interpreting correlations as causes, the article should list the top several factors that have been studied and make a statement about the extent of the strength of evidence for each factor. It should refer to the highest quality qualitative and quantitative literature reviews in the field. 5) Religious institutions are not authorities on the causes of human behavior; references to religious institutions' lay attributions to the causes of behavior are not encyclopedic material and should be moved to a separate section on the religious views on rape.

-P  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blagov (talk • contribs) 15:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] um, that's awkward formatting...

ok maybe it was just my computer, nvm

[edit] RfCU

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#DavidYork71_socks for case involving Bosharivale, CranberryIce, Mcilhenny etc. CranberryIce was marked as sockpuppet of DavidYork71 by DrKiernan, so I've marked Bosharivale and Mcilhenny as sockpuppets of DavidYork71. utcursch | talk 07:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prevalence of "Victim-Blaming" Attitudes Amongst Public

Since I can tell this is going to be a controversial edit, I have started this topic so that we may assess the neutrality of this statement. Here is a sentence I wish to append to the "Victim Blaming" subsection:

Despite decades of feminist propaganda designed to debunk widespread acceptance of "rape myths", many members of the public still subscribe to politically incorrect theories of female sexuality.

Please articulate any and all objections.

MannaOfTheMessiah (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems a rather problematic way of phrasing things, even though it's broadly true. The problem is with emotive phrases like "propaganda" and "politically incorrect". How about "Despite longstanding feminist activism dedicated to eliminating of what many feminists term "rape myths", these beliefs remain widespread." I think there needs to be a clear specification of the so-called myths and of what beliefs are still widely held. Paul B (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


Well said, Paul. Here is a revision based upon those concerns.

Despite longstanding feminist campaigns of activism and agitprop dedicated to the elimination of harmful rape myths (attitudes and beliefs conducive to sexual violence), virulent memes persist; many members of the public still contend that at least some women may be prone to masochism and deception.

Any commentary and/or criticism is welcome.

MannaOfTheMessiah (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conviction % problems

I am removing the following: Even when rapes are reported to the police, the chance of a successful conviction is very small:

If the rape is reported to police, there is a 40.9% chance that an arrest will be made according the the FBI Uniform Crime Report. If an arrest is made, there is an 80% chance of prosecution. If there is a prosecution, there is a 58% chance of a felony conviction. If there is a felony conviction, there is a 69% chance the convict will spend time in jail. So, even in the 39% of attacks that are reported to police, there is only a 16.3% chance the rapist will end up in prison. Factoring in unreported rapes, about 6% of rapes—1 out of 16—will result in jail time for the rapist.[citation needed]

First, it positively reeks of synthesis. "So, even in the..." sounds like "I did the math and came up with...

Next, it's not cited.

Next, the numbers don't work. 40.9% x 80% x 58% x 69% does NOT = 16.3%. To get 16.3%, we need to ignore the 80% chance of prosecution (oops!).

Next, this assumes that the only time a perp arrested for rape will see jail is if tried and convicted for a felony. This ignores guilty plees, plee bargains and convictions on other (non-felony) charges.

Next, "factoring in unreported rapes" (given as 39% reported) takes the erroneous 16.3% to 6.4% ("about 6%"), while using all the numbers given gives a lower figure.

Finally, we cannot combine all of these figures in the manner proposed for several reasons: 1) If they are from more than one source, they likely use differing methodologies, which might conflict. 2) The figures are quoted in differing levels of significance: "40.9%" would typically mean "40.85X% - 40.94X% with a reliability suggesting differences below .1% are unreliable". while "80%" could be significant to +/- 10 points, +/- 1 point or +/1 .1% (if the editor was reporting "80.0%" as "80%"). 3) Multiplying figures from a given confidence interval gives figures of a substantially lower (but unknown) interval.

Essentially, the whole section is worthless as is.

Mdbrownmsw (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I can give you the numbers I have read in other encyclopedias and reference materials:
"Only about 2 percent of all rapists are convicted and imprisoned and, on average, convicted rapists serve only one half of their original sentence... the low conviction rate is due to the difficulty of proving rape under most state laws." World Book Encyclopedia
Macdonalds, J. (2007). Rape. In The World Book Encyclopedia. United States of America: World Book Inc.
If you want to look up the numbers to correct the entry here are some resources:
The main government resources from which most organizations derive their data are:
Department of Justice
http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/welcome.html
Statistics from the FBI - Uniform Crime Reporting from the DOJ
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS) from the DOJ.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm
An explanation:
"The U.S. Department of Justice administers two statistical programs to
measure the magnitude, nature, and impact of crime in the nation: the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Each of these programs produces
valuable information about aspects of the nation’s crime problem. Because the UCR and NCVS programs are conducted for different purposes, use different methods, and focus on somewhat different aspects
of crime, the information they produce together provides a more comprehensive panorama of the nation’s crime problem
than either could produce alone." US Dept. of Census
UCR: "Uniform Crime Reports (UCR)—The FBI’s UCR Program, which began in 1929, collects information on the following crimes reported to law enforcement authorities: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larcenytheft, motor vehicle theft, and arson."
NCVS: "National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)—-A second perspective on crime is provided by this survey of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Details about the crimes come directly from the victims. No attempt is made to validate the information against police records or any other source."
US Dept. of Census :http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/07statab/law.pdf
--Survivor (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Be bold. Put it in. While reckless editing on a page like this produces far more heat than light, the "Harmonius editing club" approach rarely makes much progress on an article this contentious. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] self blame

I added a section on self blame under victim blame. Feel free to par it down a bit if you need to. --Survivor (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

'Self blame' and 'Victim blaming' subsections should be combined. The appropriate retitling would be 'Complainant accountability', bringing light to both aspects.Unwhitewasher (talk) 07:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree - neither blaming the victim nor self blame are forms of "Complainant accountability". Phyesalis (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
With respect, quite wrong. Accountability is of the essence of any blaming exercise. We have to ask ourselves whether it takes one or two to tango, so to speak.Unwhitewasher (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Can we get some sources on this POV? Phyesalis (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Phyesalis. Victim Blaming, the social phenomenon of criticizing victims for "allowing" offenses to befall them, and self-blaming, the post-traumatic psychological condition of incorporating self-resentment into rationalizations over the transpired offense, are each distinct areas of discussion regarding the social & emotional fallout accompanying sexual assault. "Complainant Accountability" implies A) a legal context, B) some existing external standard for wrongdoing undermining a victim's claim, & C) that a discussion of Victim & Self Blame is even evidenciary in nature. Absent some substantial source giving credence to this contention and some solution with what to do with the Treatment & Destructive Effects subsections (which would clearly not fit under "Complainant Accountability"), the proposed modification would not constructively contribute to the article. CheshireKatz (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can I just ask one thing?

On dealing with content additions, can we focus on the substance of that content rather than speculations about the personality/identity/POV/motives of those supplying it?

I think this is a reasonable ask. Everyone who bring seriousness to addressing this subject should receive the respect and proper consideration that we would expect for ourselves. This is crucial to getting the best article with all perspectives covered. In other words, we don't shout down, hound out, politic or witch-hunt against others who are only trying to supply reliable sourcing and see that the article lead lives up to reflecting the ENTIRETY of the article content, just for example.

In the past we have seen highhanded treatment from some who behave as if they have some special insider's right to outright dismiss nuances in development of the article introduced by newcomers. We don't declare people unpopular and then try to hunt out and eradicate them and what the constructively may bring to subject exposure on Wikipedia. That is gaming and it is wrong and will always be a detriment to what we overall attempt to achieve here.Unwhitewasher (talk) 07:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This page exists precisely for that purpose. If you would like to see a change to an article that you perceive as constructive, you are encouraged to bring it up for discussion and await feedback from the larger community. With that in mind, willful disregard for this forum on such a contentious issue will inevitably lead to edit wars and will undermine the chances for achieving the sought after the change in the first instance. Also, regardless of the contributor's PoV, the language of substantive contributions can itself imply a particular PoV, whether by shibboleth or aphorism. Placing contributions here, prior to appending them to the article itself permits the community to contribute constructive criticism rather than a reactive response to a controversial modification of this extremely sensitive article. CheshireKatz (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Unwhitewasher, all those "people" you speak of were sockpuppets. And you speak just like them. If you are going to pretend to be a different person, at least make an attempt not to use the same favorite words of yours that you always use, try to change up your type of edits to this article a little, keep us guessing. It is not about ganging up on "newcomers"...it's about dismissing banned users who have no right to be here in the first place. And, yes, they have no right. Why? Because Wikipedia says so. Whether you see that as childish reasoning or not, it's as simple as that. They are banned. People who are banned from a community have no right to participate in that community again, unless they were wrongly banned. You were not wrongly banned, in any case. You were banned because of your constant disruption to Wikipedia, like changing the definition of rape to a definition that does not define it. You were rightfully banned then. And you will be rightfully banned every time you come back. Flyer22 (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Unwhitewasher, you clearly have done little research on the subject and understand none of the nuance. You repeatedly attempt to interject awkward legalese into sections that have nothing to do with rape prosecution, and demonstrate almost no understanding of the "sociobiological" or antifeminist arguments you reference only to then butcher and conflate them. I do not know if you are a Muslim, a misogynist, a defense lawyer, an alleged rapist, or merely an eccentric contrarian with too much free time on your hands... however, you are clearly not the lone defender of Truth you wish you appeared. Does this article contain an implicit feminist POV? Absolutely! But so too does ~90% of the rape literature published in the last fifty years of Western civilization, and this is at least partially because it is the most sensitive tone of voice to adapt when discussing a subject with such traumatic relevance to some individuals. Although they will be subject to scrutiny and debate, non-feminist revisions can succeed so long as they are truthful, objective, and germane (see December 10 2007). If you wish to inform Wikipedia's readership of courtroom ambiguity, please thoroughly research the subject, and then present your findings within a unique subarticle of the Rape page; hijacking the main article and vandalizing the work of others with inflammatory assertions is not an effective means of mitigating bias.

I look forward to your return a year or two from now, after you have spent sufficient time in the stacks of your local library. 76.29.90.12 (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Unwhitewasher has been blocked indefinately as a sockpuppet of User:DavidYork71. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What is it with the people wanting to trivialize a serious subject? This isn't the discussion of a movie parody or quibbling about using the English spelling vs. American spelling of a word. This is one of the most active articles on my watchlist and it almost always is due to vandalism or nitwitery of some sort. Can this article be locked and edits have to be approved? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Niteshift36, although I completely sympathize with the sentiment, what you propose would be completely anti-thetical to Wikipedia's raison d'etre. However, there is reason to feel good about the current state of the article. Presently, this article has been in a pretty stable state for a while and is on a LOT of editors' watchlists. As a result, vandalism and controversial contributions are quickly reverted. If the contribution had merit, it is typically brought up for discussion on the talk page and after careful consideration added to the article. So the desired consequence is achieved while the method is in keeping with Wiki-policies. I contributed a significant chunk of material to the History section almost a year ago and I'm happy to see it has remained relatively unchanged with the exceptions of fixed grammatical errors, replacement of weaker citations with stronger ones, and constructive rephrasing to preserve NPoV and article uniformity. The result is that when destructive edits are made, they are patently evident and easily addressed. So no worries and keep watching. - CheshireKatz (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the answer and the practice of openess, but, at the same time, is it not true that there are articles that are lockedNiteshift36 (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't lock down a serious topic, but wikipedia can lock down a political page like the Ron Paul page. And that's over disagreements in POV, not vandalism. See, it's not about "openness", it's about preferences. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The best way to reduce vandalism is to make an article better. Make it interesting enough, structure it well, and the vandals (i.e. bored school kids) will get so interested reading the article they'll forget to deface it. But if you lock an article it can never improve. Wnt (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to Sociobiological Controversy

This (Rape & NPOV, below) has been copied from here: [[Talk]]. It appears to indicate that the statement "the debate over whether or not biological factors influence the male decision to rape still causes great controversy, espescially between feminists and sociobiologists", however inflammatory it may sound, is neutral. However, as I wrote it to appease DavidYork, and he has instead continued to vandalize this page, removing references to warcrimes and reinserting his... well, his retarded summary of sociobiology (which, like the section on sociobiology currently present on this page, demonstrates no understanding of the argument to biological determinism), I see no reason to include it on the Rape page. Fuck DavidYork.

(Sorry the above is worded so awkwardly. I really cannot be arsed to be eloquent when I am this tired.) MannaOfTheMessiah (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rape & NPOV

I am confused. You left a very ambiguous message saying that a contribution of mine appears to have been non-neutral and may have been removed. It has been removed, but you were not the one who removed it. Two questions:

1) How did this come to your attention?

and

2) How does the statement "the debate over whether or not biological factors influence the male decision to rape still causes great controversy, espescially between feminists and sociobiologists" convery a non-neutral POV? As far as I can tell, it acknowledges both sides of the argument but favors neither; which, to my knowledge, is the very definition of neutrality. The only other reason I can think of for removing the statement is if it is false, but that cannot be the case as the history of the rape page itself testifies to its veracity.

Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MannaOfTheMessiah (talk • contribs) 07:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as a third party who happened to notice your comment, I can say on the face of it that the sentence you quoted seems to assert that all Femanists and Sociobiologists hold the opinions you've attributed to them, or that they are more strongly opinionated than anyone else on the subject. I don't think that's a proper assertment. TheHYPO (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Explanation for human behavior is the primary distinction between feminism and sociobiology. Feminists subscribe to social constructionism, the belief that culture is the only influence upon human action. There is no feminist, that I know of, who objects to this belief. Sociobiologists, meanwhile, believe that biology influences behavior. These are foundational tenets of their belief systems, their adherents are the most strongly opinionated, and this diametric conflict is responsible for most of the edit wars on the Rape page. MannaOfTheMessiah (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Without reliable sources, these edits look like you are pushing your personal opinions onto Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 12:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The pages Rape and Sociobiological theories of rape are proof that the statement is objective, germane, and neutral. I am not adding anything to Wikipedia that is not already there. If you still believe otherwise, please elaborate. MannaOfTheMessiah (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't/don't have that much of a problem with MannaOfTheMessiah's edit on this topic. It's User:DavidYork71 and his a billion sockpuppets' edits that I have a problem with. Obviously, as we are all tired of his vandalism to this article and other articles. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
However I do think MannaOfTheMessiah is actually pushing the issue regarding feminists and socialbiologists-gurgh....(!). But it is worth noting these issues regarding the concerned group.
I would have to say that "Sociobiological theories of rape" can be deemed as one of the main motivations for a man to rape a woman. (From my sexually-frustrated-male point of view...)
I don't think Manna-Of-The-Messiah-whatever user's minute statement is actually a "big threat" to the article. I leave it you guys to sort that statement out, whenever you like the taste of it or not =P
As for the sockpuppet issue; I see you're a far better counter than I am, Flyer22 ;)
Shin-chan01 (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


"I would have to say that "Sociobiological theories of rape" can be deemed as one of the main motivations for a man to rape a woman. (From my sexually-frustrated-male point of view...)" - Shin-chan01 (talk)

   "The law exists to prevent men from doing what they want to." - Sigmund Freud, Totem & Taboo

MannaOfTheMessiah (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That line does sound a bit...too true. I never recalled Mr. Freud said such things relating to Rape.
Are you SUUURE you didn't make that quote up?!?!
Quoting a line from a Wikipedia user doesn't count as a reliable source, you know that, right?
Shin-chan01 (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am paraphrasing from memory... but, I think that's what he wrote. In that particuliar instance, however, he may have been speaking of murder, or maybe just iniquity in general. Freud often spoke esoterically about many taboo subjects in order to make controversial assertions without risk of censure or reprisal. That quote, for example, can be found (I think) in the last third of Totem and Taboo - as the last third of his books is where ALL his most intriguing ideas are to be found, since he spends the first two thirds of each book circumlocuting the subject so as to deter casual readers while assuring that diligent readers follow his convoluted thought processes. For an overview of how Freud's thought relates to the subject of rape, you ought to read John Forrester's article "Rape, Seduction, and Psychoanalysis" in this book. MannaOfTheMessiah (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You're "paraphrasing from [your] memory"...? Well, that's nice. I don't ever recall that being a reliable source.
Since when did I became a comparable figure (to Sigmund Freud) to make a quote out of?
As far as your paraphrased line of quote being concerned; my short-hand analysis can't find any hit or references being quoted exactly the same as that line.
Try that on Google.
Shin-chan01 (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This sounds like a conversation more suited for user talk pages. Please focus on the article. --Phyesalis (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced/dubious

I have removed the "dubious" tags from this section: "According to a news report on BBC1 channel presented in 12 November 2007, there were 85000 women raped in UK last year or about 230 cases everyday[citation needed][dubious – discuss]. This means according to the report that one of every 200 women in UK was raped last year[citation needed][dubious – discuss]. The report also showed that 800 persons only were convicted in rape crimes that year[citation needed]."

The edit adding them said, "Unsourced "statistics". Contradictive and unsourced statements. One says there's 230-odd rapes each year, while the other says 200 being raped everyday...."

No, it says 230 rapes (in UK) every day and ONE WOMAN IN 200 raped last year. My guess is the 1/200 figure is someone's bad calculation taking the 85000, dividing by half the population of the UK from some other source, arriving at roughly .005 and giving us the stated text. Or maybe it's from a reliable source/BBC. No way to know at the moment. The pseudo-cite given is not verifiable. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You could have least give me the credit for highlighting these error/unsourced statements =p
Shin-chan01 (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Something like that must have happened. However, even if it is from the BBC, I doubt it holds water. To get such high estimates I would suppose that intra-relational rape is included, in which case a significant number of victims were probably raped more than once during the year. This would reduce the fraction of all women who were raped at least once. In any case "one in 200" sounds so unlikely that we should not repeat it without verifiable sourcing; I have removed that sentence. –Henning Makholm 03:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it needs more than 2 or 3 reliable and independant sources to back that statement up.
I saw a news broadcast on Sky News relating David Cam-moron(?) of the Conservative Party's "Sexualisation of Britain" (sounds catchy); one news presenter mentioned that about "1 in 20 women have been raped since age 16", while "1 in 5" rape cases have been reported to the police. Now it did not include how they got the numbers or how these people surveyed rape cases. It did not however mentioned rapes of the other way like, er, women raping men or same-sex rapes. Neither it did mentioned girls younger than 16 being raped.
But DO NOT put that statement onto the article juuust yet, because you've just only read this from me.
Shin-chan01 (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Home Office's website has tons of statistical reports. This shouldn't be particularly difficult. See: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r159.pdf
KEY POINTS
● 0.4% of women aged 16 to 59 in England and Wales said they had been raped in the year preceding the 2000 BCS – an estimated 61,000 victims.
● 0.9% of women said they had been subject to some form of sexual victimisation (including rape) in this period.
● Around 1 in 20 women (4.9%) said they had been raped since age 16, an estimated 754,000 victims. About 1 in 10 women (9.7%) said they had experienced some form of sexual victimisation (including rape) since age 16.
● Age is the biggest risk factor for experiencing sexual victimisation; women aged 16 to 24 were more likely to say they had been sexually victimised in the last year than older women.
● Women are most likely to be sexually attacked by men they know in some way, most often partners (32%) or acquaintances (22%). Current partners (at the time of the attack) were responsible for 45% of rapes reported to the survey. Strangers were responsible for only 8% of rapes reported to the survey.
● 18% of incidents of sexual victimisation reported to the survey came to the attention of the police; the police came to know about 20% of rapes. 32% of women who reported rape were ‘very satisfied’ with the way the police handled the matter, 22% were very dissatisfied.
● Less than two-thirds (60%) of female rape victims were prepared to self-classify their experience as ‘rape’ and less than three-quarters (70%) of women who self-classified themselves as having been the victim of ‘attempted rape’ also self-classified this incident as a crime.
That should be a fine start. If you have trouble finding relevant stats, try googling: "site:homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2 rape". This caught my attention as well: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6313479.stm Hope these help. - CheshireKatz (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] False Accusation/Wrongful Conviction

I'm a bit surprised that this article doesn't address the instances where someone falsely accuses another person of raping them. While there's no need to go overboard with this, if someone knows where we can stick in some stats about this, I think that would make this article more informative. 70.21.58.3 (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised this talk page fail to emphasize of rapes "of-the-other-way-round", like women-men or gay/lesbian rapes.
However, these things do apply to this subject you've highlighted.
Shin-chan01 (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is fundamentally about the actual experience of rape, not any and all phenomena associated with rape. For example, the topics of rape fantasy and rape pornography, topics ostensibly related to rape, require separate articles. I suppose you could think of this article as "The Act, Causes, & Consequences of Rape." What you are describing is a perceived issue related to the reporting of criminal charges associated with the topic of this article. That connection is in itself tenuous considering the otherwise narrow nature of this article. Further, occurrences of false accusations are not unique to sexual assault and would do better in an article about false criminal accusations perhaps. - CheshireKatz (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
There is in fact an article about this: Rape statistics (redirect: Rape reporting). Paul B (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a POV tag to the section. The tone of the section makes it seem that false accusations are commonplace, and that deterrents don't exist. In addition to the OR/synthesis issues, the tone is not neutral.Ngchen (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole section appeared to be about India anyway. I've replaced it with scientific studies. Paul B (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rape and reproduction

" A single act of rape may be more than twice as likely to make a woman pregnant as a single act of consensual sex. that statistic will reopen the hotly contest debate over whether rape can be a successful reproductive strategy in evolutionary terms. It could help to explain why men raping women has been so common throughout history and across cultures, two American researchers told the conference... " Matt Walker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.87.180 (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that's why men raping women has been so common. They are not thinking "must get this woman pregnant"... At least most are not. And, no, I don't believe that it's their internal biology overtaking them to rape women. Flyer22 (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It's well-known that semen quality is improved by a day or two of abstinence from ejaculation but degraded by prolonged abstinence. Could the greater pregnancy rate derive simply from the life-style of the rapist? Alternatively, rapists could commit more sperm to mating for psychological reasons, which would be interesting since the rationing of how much sperm is given to each mating is typically more associated with arthropods and hasn't been well studied in humans. Wnt (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
There's some good evidence that female biology deters (but does not prevent) conceptions related to rape. though I don't know if there's any compensating factor in terms of male semen quality. Many date rape drugs, due to their anxiolytic effects, may undermine that.--Ryan Wise (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dildo v. bottle

I shudder at having to bring this up (no reflection on the editor, merely a response to the subject matter) but, indeed, women do get raped with foreign objects, the long-standing "bottle" seeming a bit more likely than the recent change to "dildo". I'm not sure I've ever heard of a woman being raped with a foreign object that turned out to be a dildo. I've reverted back to "bottle". --Phyesalis (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General comments on focus

I think that this article lacks some historical and cultural context and gets a bit lost because of it. Topics such as Lucretia and honor killing should be addressed in much more detail, because it is hard to imagine how cruel and unreasonable the ancient Roman culture, or modern culture in some Islamic countries, could be toward women. The source I added about "per vim stuprum" makes the claim that Christianity in general and Saint Augustine in particular was responsible for the dramatic improvement of attitudes toward rape, which is well worth further investigation.

Additionally, the article lacks very important information on treatment - both the feasibility and effectiveness of treatment or rehabilitation for offenders, and techniques for preventing or treating posttraumatic stress disorder in victims as well as methods of reducing the chance of HIV infection after the fact.

The long section on blame suffers from buzzwords (meme, agitprop...) and needs very straightforward explanations. Despite the popularity of "blame games" in modern Western culture, in 127 years people are going to be scratching their heads trying to figure out what the word even meant in our time (perhaps trying to decide if we meant 斥, 诃, 咎, 怪, 责, 怨, 诮, 埋, 罪, 赖, or 谯). Trying to wring out one's own preconceptions from such a philosophical topic is not easy, but cross-cultural comparisons could be helpful.

Last (and least), it is not clear to me that the rape of men should be integrated so tightly into each section. While the crime is similar, I'm not sure how many sources for each section actually address men. Neither the law nor the motivation of the offenders nor the circumstances of the offense nor necessarily the response of the victims can be counted on to be exactly the same for men and women. Wnt (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you have foreign character encoding on your post?
What is it are you exactly trying to say...?
88.105.35.227 (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, the funny characters aren't too important and were just to illustrate that other languages might not have one single word neatly corresponding to our own. I just mean to say that "blame" may seem to mean something clear-cut in one culture, one group of people, one moment, but it is actually a very difficult thing to understand. Even very basic philosophy can be a thorny subject - what does it mean to force someone to do something, by threat of violence or poverty or shame or by confusion? If one woman is afraid of being cut with a knife and another of ending the day without money to feed her child or buy a "fix", who decides what reasons are worthy? How can anyone be said to have caused something at all, let alone said to be at "blame" for it after being plainly ? forced, when everything is fated to happen, or if everything is the result of quantum randomness? I feel like the long section on blame discusses a very abstruse point within one belief-system without the appropriate background - as if an article on Miscarriage contained a long section discussing how long fetuses spend in Purgatory without giving any background on Christianity or the concept of an afterlife. Wnt (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure its possible to remain NPoV while trying to assess or describe "hard to imagine how cruel and unreasonable the ancient Roman culture, or modern culture in some Islamic countries, could be toward women". Any attempt at so doing will result in projecting modern or western sensibilities onto an external culture. One can have the most unimaginably terrible and squalid conditions, and those living under them will be perfectly content, until they experience or are made aware of a "better life". That is human nature, and there are innumerable illustrations of this. What might appear to us to be "cruel and unreasonable" may be seen as a reality (or even necessity) of life within another culture. 89.241.138.231 (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links About Male Rape Survivors

A while back, I put several links on this page about male rape survivors. Most of them were either about prison rapes or rape between homosexual partners. Some were help links, others were stories from survivors, some were links to prevent prison rape. However, they have all seemed to vanish. 64.60.64.146 (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 4.1 gang rape

is it really possible for a 13 year old individual to be raped by 80 men and survive and is this article really true. i am a swedish student and i am working on a crime report and i would like to use this article as an astonishing fact. but if it isnt a fact i would like to know.

yours sincerely

Kalle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.78.21.25 (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to do your homework. Try google. If it's unsourced, this astonishing fact should probably be removed. WLU (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Perpetrator's perspective?

I feel this article is too biased in the direction of victim's responses and perspectives. What about the rapists? The socio-biology section is a good start, but there is also much material on whether rape is motivated primarily by passion or violence, and various pop-culture phenomena such as the video game "Custer's Revenge" and the online "Rape Room" (where rapists used to post videos of their acts). If memory serves, there was even a "How-To" guide (published by Loompanics?) advising would-be rapists on various practical issues, such as avoiding the law.

[edit] External links

I've removed almost all the external links - there were many, many support and advocacy sites, which violates WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:SOAP. I have left in ibiblio, which has an extensive list of internationally useful links and information links, and added the DMOZ which also has a variety of support sites prominently listed at the top of the rape page. Please review WP:ELNO for information on what should not be linked, as well as WP:EL for what should before adding or replacing external links. WLU (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rape v. sexual assault

This article has strayed from the legal definition of rape, although it remains under wikiproject law. As it stands, there is no distinction between rape and sexual assault, although many jurisdictions contain both crimes.

The crime of rape:

  • comes from the common law definition: forced intercourse against a woman's will
  • is defined as intercourse by forcible compulsion in most jurisdictions
  • is defined as intercourse without consent in a minority of jurisdictions
  • is a felony under the Model Penal Code
  • does not include sexual contact but may include sexual penetration per os or per anum

The crime of sexual assault:

  • is a modern term which did not exist in English common law
  • is defined as intercourse without consent in a majority of jurisdictions
  • contains the element of force in a minority of jurisdictions, does not contain the element of force in a majority of jurisdictions
  • is a misdemeanor under the Model Penal Code
  • may include sexual contact or may exclude sexual contact to a lesser included offense such as "indecent assault."
  • may replace the crime of rape in some jurisdictions

Additionally relevant to both:

  • sexual assault and rape are synonyms for non-legal purposes and are treated as such in non-legal scholarship
  • have no legal meaning in jurisdictions that have abolished the terms such as Michigan and its kin.

I would propose that rape and sexual assault be reorganized. The rape article should focus mainly on the elements of force and compulsion, and consent to a slightly lesser degree with a link to the sexual assault article. The sexual assault article should focus mainly on the element of consent, and to the elements of force and compulsion to a slightly lesser degree with a link to the rape article. Part of the problem is that in quite a few jurisdictions, the offense of rape does not include the issue of consent as an element except in as much as the use of force demonstrates a lack thereof. Another solution would be to delete the sexual assault article and have it redirect to rape.

Ideally, each article would explain issues concerning sexual assault and rape statutes such as differences between jurisdictions on the issues of intrinsic and extrinsic force, and whether lack of consent is an element of the offense to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or whether consent is an affirmative defense with the burden of proof on the defendant. I would also propose that the sections be regrouped and reordered. Thoughts appreciated. Legis Nuntius (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden effects that appear years after the assault

When a person is raped, especially by family, or other cared for persons, it not only destroies the trust built up between them, but it leaves a person scarred for life. Some effects that may not appear directly following the incident may include:

a realization of what happened self-blame self-pity uncontrollable angery/numb felling mental shutdown frequent arousals, often unprevoked an empty felling inside upset stomach migraines total incomprehension to surrounding events and a lack of concern for things that would normally be important.

If you or someone you know has been experiencing several of these things, confront the person, and seek help if necessary. Rape is a serious issue, and is not something to be overlooked or ignored. Take this advice from someone who has personal experiences with rape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evil ninja lizard man (talk • contribs) 02:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The sociobiological vandal

I see that months later we are still dealing with this person. But has it been a new person lately with the same type of thought-process/editing style of the previous vandal, or all we all convinced it's still the same person making this edit?

I was very ticked off with this person before, as noted above and in archive. But is there some sort of compromise we can give this vandal (yes, I know, we shouldn't compromise with vandals, but still), to where a brief mention about the sociobiological theory of rape is included in the lead, despite its controversy? There was a small text above about it I agreed to, that wouldn't give undue weight to the subject, which was briefly included in the lead before.

What do other editors think of this and the continuing attempts to include this subject in the lead? Flyer22 (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] difference between rape and prostitution

how are they related? would legalizing prostitution lessen rape cases? does the rapist rape because of the sexual pleasure it gives him? because if so then prostitution should be okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.151.224.29 (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] restoration of data to article

I have restored sourced data to the article. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten the Gang rape section with two references. If editors approve, I will later re-add the section previously deleted. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of Rape

I don't know if I'm violating the NOR or NPOV but how can the carrying away of women in ancient times be a non sexual form of rape. I don't think men (in anciant times or today) abduct women so they can both play chess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmckeon ie (talk • contribs) 10:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The article does not say that the carrying away of women in ancient times was a non-sexual form of rape. It says that rape comes from the Latin raptus, which means to seize or take by force. The carrying away of women in ancient times could be a non-sexual form of raptus. The article states that the Latin word for rape was crimen vis. It does not state that the Latin word for rape was raptus. In ancient times, both men and women were abuducted for the purposes of enslavement. It was a crime in Ancient Rome to have sexual intercourse with a slave if you were a citizen or freeborn. Female slaves worked in much the same capacity as male slaves. This is completely unrelated to the rape article, which involves a sex crime. You are correct to think that men throughout history do not usually abuduct women so that they can play chess. You would be incorrect to assume that the modern or ancient abduction/kidnapping of women by men always resulted in rape. Sometimes the kidnapping or abduction resulted in murder, a demand for a randsom, or as part of a child custody dispute. Legis Nuntius (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Country specific"=>"In the United States"

This addition has a title of 'country specific', but only discusses the US. I'll be retitling, but it may be too isolated a section; more countries would be much better to avoid systemic bias. WLU (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further reading

The further reading section was far, far too long, and contained a ridiculous amount of pop psychology and books only tangentially associated with rape (there was a book on covert incest - not rape, barely related, and certainly not suitable for this article). The FR section should be short, not duplicate references, and contain only the most scholarly and comprehensive books available. Ergo, I trimmed it to university press books only and only those that covered rape directly, in some sort of extensive form. When she was bad was a good book, but it does not focus primarily on rape. WLU (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Good edits. I have restored a couple of refs and see also's that I believe are pertinent to the topic. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A complete re write of this article

After seeing the quality of the article on rape I decided to make some edits and re writes (e.g.Rape trauma syndrome). I've been making steady progress on the subject however today I hit a brick wall. The problem is that the article on rape deals specifically with sexual intercourse without consent. However the effects for a rape victim are the same for a victim of other forms of sexual abuse. The motives of a rapist are the same as the motives of sexual abusers. When creating articles except for subtle differences rape and other forms of sexual abuse are the same.(this is a very sensitive subject so let me just say I'm not implying rape and sexual assault are the same for the victim)

I think the information in the rape article should be merged the sexual assault article to creating a new article "sexual violence".

Then I looked at the sexual assault article.

By wikipedias, or by any standard the sexual assault is at best useless and at worst misleading. It seems to have been be written by every crank putting in there own two cents. It's packed with unreferenced contributions from ultra feminists and idiots. I don't know how it has remained in that state for so long.

This article bests itself with

"The most effective 'tip' for how to prevent sexual assault is to not perpetrate sexual assault. If no one perpetrated this crime, it would be eliminated"

I would love to meet the person who wrote that.

They should be banned from wikipedia on general principles.

If you look at other articles relating to this subject (e.g.sexual assault, Sociobiological theories of rape, Child sexual abuse) their standards are not much better.

I think the sexual assault and the rape article should not be part of the common law series. For it to meet wikipedias standards these articles have to deal with a vast array of issues and fields. I think there should be a article on sexual assault and rape in the common law series but I think wikipedias article on sexual assault and rape should be far more comprehensive.

There is a lot of ignorance around the subject of sexual assault. On wikipedia and in general. This is why I think its vital that this article be improved.

There should also be a "sexual violence" portal to help coordinate the effort.

However there isn't one and I'm not able or qualified to start one.

So here's my plan. The article should be renamed "sexual violence" so it can act the way the Ireland article links the Irish history article and the Irish people article.

This subject needs a comprehensive structure. The article Sexual assault should be the primary article around which every other article in this subject pivots. Each article has to have the obvious i.e NPV, NOR............ Not being idiotic. I think the Sexual assault article should look something like this

Contents
   * 1 Definition of sexual assault
         o 1.1 Forms and contexts of sexual violence
   * 2 The extent of the problem
         o 2.1 Sources of data
         o 2.2 Estimates of sexual violence
               + 2.2.1 Sexual violence by intimate partners
               + 2.2.2 Forced sexual initiation
               + 2.2.3 Gang rape
               + 2.2.4 Sexual trafficking
               + 2.2.5 Sexual violence against sex workers
         o 2.3 Sexual violence against men and boys
               + 2.3.1 The extent of the problem
               + 2.3.2 Consequences of sexual violence
               + 2.3.3 Prevention and policy responses
         o 2.4 Sexual violence in schools, health care settings, armed conflicts and refugee settings
               + 2.4.1 Schools
               + 2.4.2 Health care settings
               + 2.4.3 Armed conflicts and refugee settings
         o 2.5 Customary forms of sexual violence
               + 2.5.1 Child marriage
               + 2.5.2 Other customs leading to violence
   * 3 What are the risk factors for sexual violence?
         o 3.1 Factors increasing women's vulnerability
         o 3.2 Age
         o 3.3 Alcohol and drug consumption
         o 3.4 Having previously been raped or sexually abused
         o 3.5 Having many sexual partners
         o 3.6 Educational level
         o 3.7 Poverty
   * 4 Factors increasing men's risk of committing rape
         o 4.1 Alcohol and drug consumption
         o 4.2 Psychological factors
         o 4.3 Peer and family factors
               + 4.3.1 Gang rape
               + 4.3.2 Early childhood environments
               + 4.3.3 Family honour and sexual purity
         o 4.4 Community factors
               + 4.4.1 Poverty
               + 4.4.2 Physical and social environment
         o 4.5 Societal factors
               + 4.5.1 Laws and policies
               + 4.5.2 Social norms
               + 4.5.3 Global trends and economic factors
   * 5 The consequences of sexual violence
         o 5.1 Pregnancy and gynaecological complications
         o 5.2 Sexually transmitted diseases
         o 5.3 Mental health
         o 5.4 Suicidal behaviour
         o 5.5 Social ostracization
   * 6 What can be done to prevent sexual violence?
         o 6.1 Individual approaches
               + 6.1.1 Psychological care and support
               + 6.1.2 Programmes for perpetrators
               + 6.1.3 Developmental approaches
         o 6.2 Health care responses
               + 6.2.1 Medico-legal services
               + 6.2.2 Training for health care professionals
               + 6.2.3 Prophylaxis for HIV infection
               + 6.2.4 Centres providing comprehensive care to victims of sexual assault
         o 6.3 Community-based efforts
               + 6.3.1 Prevention campaigns
               + 6.3.2 Community activism by men
               + 6.3.3 School-based programmes
         o 6.4 Legal and policy responses
               + 6.4.1 Legal reform
               + 6.4.2 International treaties
         o 6.5 Actions to prevent other forms of sexual violence
               + 6.5.1 Sexual trafficking
               + 6.5.2 Female genital mutilation
               + 6.5.3 Child marriage
               + 6.5.4 Rape during armed conflicts
   * 7 Sexual violence and HIV/AIDS
   * 8 See also
   * 9 References
   * 10 Further reading
   * 11 External links
         o 11.1 National organizations
         o 11.2 Support organizations
         o 11.3 Research and information

This is a theoretical contents box. Writing the actual article in this form would make it far too long.

However every article linked to the sexual assault article needs to be of the highest quality or else this article won't work.

Over the next few days section by section I'll start creating or rewriting articles that fall under the titles above. I'm going to incorporate all relevant information that currently exists into these articles and will add more relevant referenced material.

I'd appreciate any help or suggestions.

P.S. I posted the same message on the sexual assault articles talk page

Jmckeon ie (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I encourage the rewrite, but the former content did not just deal with the legal system. I've moved the former content back. After rewriting this will be a large article and I'm sure it will need splitting eventually, though. Gimmetrow 04:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I concur with the undo of the move. There is overlap between the various topics (that's not unusual on Wikipedia), however, the topics are unique. While there is similarity of effects between various types of sexual abuse or violence, rape is a particular act that is different from any other. Similarity is not identity. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you the former (current) article does not just deal with the legal system. It deals with everything. Before the creation of the sexual violence article the two main articles on the subject of sexual abuse were Sexual assault and rape. I encourage you to look at the quality of those articles.

I outlined a plan above to create a comprehensive article on sexual abuse that would stop overlap and meet wikipedias quality standards. The creation of this article would allow an independent article that would give legal definitions to "rape" and "sexual assault". To prevent overlap, all other non legal information would be linked back to the sexual violence article.

The key reason for moving this article is definition. Rape has a precise meaning. The only problem is that in different jurisdictions it has a completely different percise meaning. There is also the problem of Michigan. You can only be sexualy assulted in Michigan. If you continue down this path of logic you end up with the current article, which I think we can all agree is not up to standard.

The term rape and the crime rape, have to have a precise definition based on the jurisdiction.

To the argument "Similarity is not identity" I can only counter with define rape. Then when you define it create sub articles to deal with the different forms. You'll be left with a list that will include Vaginal rape, anal rape, child rape. Then list:

  • the effects on the victim
  • the motives and psychological profile of the perpetrator
  • the legal responses of each jurisdiction
  • the vulnerability factor to becoming a victim
  • the community programmes to educate about that specific form of rape
  • the individual counseling aproaches to the victims of the crime
  • .............

You will only end up with the facts hidden in a quagmire of overlapping and irrelevant information. There has to be a structured approach if the problems with this article are going to be fixed.

The structure of this article should look something like this:

Introduction
History
Country specific rape law

Whether this article is moved, merged or rewritten there has to be a concrete solution found. Jmckeon ie (talk) 08:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] this article is so conflicted

every section seems to be pulling statistics from a different source and the numbers tend to disagree. assertions from one section will dispute another. it's deadly confusing. (for example, one section says 2% of rape is by strangers, and ~35% is at the victim's home. another says 20something% is by strangers and 40% at the victim's home). i would fix it but i don't know how i could figure out which numbers are right or not. --dan (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)