Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:14, 1 July 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gender studies Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Relevance

This article doesn't state the jurisdictions to which it refers. It is a catagoric fact that the crime of rape (versus sexual assault) cannot be perpetrated by a woman in England and Wales, unfair it may be but that is the state of the law today. The jurisdictions refered to need to be clarified here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.234.136 (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A slightly odd distinction. Under English law the woman may still go to jail for life. see http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030042_en_2#pt1-pb3-l1g4 subsection 4, c and d Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've removed a good deal of questionable content, all per our core policies. Please consider discussing it here prior to re-adding this material.
brenneman 05:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Female-on-male rape POV?

Just scanning the article, not really following it or anything (I linked to it from the article on John Irving's Garp), notice the tone of the female-one-male non-statuatory rape section is a bit biased. I don't have an agenda here--I might agree with the editor's political points, for all I know--but it's basically using studies to argue with what is "generally considered" by the law, et al. So on an (apparently) controversial subject, differing views are mentioned only to disagree with them. I think that violates Misplaced Pages's NPOV--it's certainly not encyclopedic, or in written in good faith. I'll look at it later, and maybe think about editing it, but I'll throw the idea out there. I think the same information could perhaps be presented in a better way.65.117.234.99 (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

-Looks fine to me. --24.145.53.167 (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Rape of Females by Females removed

I removed the above mentioned paragraph for several reasons.

• First the reference given was totally wrong. The cited article treats of rape by men in Haiti where normally goes unpunished or the victims end in jail. Not a word about female rapers.
• Plainly false sentence like: "impossible as many official organisations refuse to acknowledge its existence". First of all, which "official" organization? Lesbian organization do talk about (general) violence in lesbian couple and do often offer counseling for it. So, if female on female rape it would be discussed too and not refuse to acknowledge.
• Weasel words like "Many people think"

--Dia^ (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh I was just going to say I think we should add a "Rape of Females by Females" section... are you planning to re-add it, worded differently? If you are having troubles with any "cases" I know there was a case of "lesbian gangs" who were raping other females in the US that might be a decent source. Avalik (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way this article is structured you would expect such a section, even if it were just to say that it doesn't exist or is unknown (either statement would of course be hard to make without sources to back these negatives up). A quick google search would seem to confirm the prejudice that it is popular in media, but less prevalent in real life. the "Female-female rape links" in http://rapesurvivor.pbworks.com/External-links indicates that at least some perceive this to be an issue, though I wouldn't consider these links to be reliable sources, not to speak of authorative sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.103.80.129 (talk) 05:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Rape of females by females re-added (and format)

It seems like the person who deleted it wasn't going to re-add it ... I agree that it needed to be edited, but not completely demolished. So I re-added it and I'd say I pretty much completely re-did it, though with a few original lines to base it off of.

I tried my best to include sources from both sides of the spectrum, however the side that either portrayed it as a national epidemic that was destorying the country/world, or non-existant I generally found to be biased ... despite this, I did include one source for this viewpoint, though I did find it to be very biased. I tried finding sources that argued if it was non-existant or an epidemic that didn't seem biased but failed.

As for the other side of the spectrum (it exists, here is some stats, blah blah blah) I found them more readily available and less biased ... but that may be personal bias here, so please do review, as I am trying to keep it NPOV as possible.

If my section wasn't done well enough, I do really advise to not just "delete it", the section introduction "Female on female rape has been the least publicised form of rape, though it arguably does occur. It is often labelled "lesbian rape", though the sexual identity of one or both (or more) persons involved may or may not actually be lesbian. Forced penetration by another female is possible with the use of strap-ons, dildos, other foreign objects and digital penetration." is rather NPOV and hard to challenge, so if you want to erase it at least keep that.

As for the format .... I did it so it goes like,

Rape:

1. (by males)

a. of females

b. of males

2. (by females)

a. of females

b. of males

b.1 statutory

b.2 non-statutory

seems more consistent with than what we originally had,

Rape:

1. (by males)

a. of females

b. of males

2. (by females)

a. of males

b.1 statutory

b.2 non-statutory

b. of females

Avalik (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The only citation given for the claim that studies on female-on-female sexual violence "show a range from a low of 5% to a high of 57% of respondents claiming they had experienced, attempted or completed sexual assault or rape by another woman, with most studies finding rates of over 30%" was Salzman, L., Fanslow, J., McManon P., Shelly, G., 1999. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. “Intimate Partner Violence Surveillance: Uniform Definitions and Recommended Data Elements.” National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, Salzman et al. does not contain any statistics on female-on-female rape, or any other kind of rape. It's just a guide containing definitions and coding information for people who are preparing reports on rape statistics. Since these claims are not properly sourced I am removing them. CKarnstein (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, my apologies I obviously had a source for it but I must have grabbed the wrong cite. I'm putting it back up with a different cite, hopefully I have the right one this time.

In future reference, you're supposed to challenge material like that not just completely delete it. I'm also taking off your "request citiation" on the last part... because it says right there, "quote from ____ book". Or do you need a citiation that it is indeed a quote? Avalik (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Alright got a few sources... not sure if I have to expand on the researcher name and year and the book and such, though I did for a few of them. I took out the whole sentence that you requested a citation as well after some thinking... I couldn't find a source that says that this is what the book actually says. It was a little wordy anyways though I liked how it lead into the next paragraph part, oh well! Avalik (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you need more than just an author name and year for a cite. Something like "Wood (1987)" is not enough information for anyone else to be able to look up this cite. Complete cites need to be provided for all of these claims, or they will be removed. I also find it impossible to believe that "most studies" find that over 30% of all women have been raped by other women. If these studies are of lesbians in particular then you need to say so. And since this article is specifically about rape, not all forms of sexual assault, it's misleading to quote statistics that cover all forms of attempted or actual sexual assault. Domestic violence figures are also irrelevant to this article, as most domestic violence is not rape. As it stands, the article is claiming that female-on-female rape is over six times more common than male-on-female rape. CKarnstein (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

On further reflection, I don't think anyone should waste their time expanding citations that are irrelevant and misleading in the context of this article. I am removing the statistical claims on sexual assault and domestic violence from this article, which is specifically about rape. The topic of female-on-female domestic violence is already covered in the broader Violence against women article. Oh, and for future reference, it is not Misplaced Pages policy to ask permission before editing an article, especially if it is incorrect or badly cited. We are encouraged to "be bold" in editing. See Misplaced Pages:Citing sources for more information on correctly citing sources. CKarnstein (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll remember that for future reference. I saw it used elsewhere I think (just a study and year) so maybe that's where I got the idea that I could get away with just a year and name. Also my apologies on the wrong wording, you're right I intended to mean lesbian-identified women (I think, it's been awhile now) and I didn't intend to be misleading. If you'd like maybe it would be better if I linked you the sources/cites and you could expand with them instead as I seem to be failing miserably with doing it myself ha - I suppose the 'sexual assault' sources would be irrelevant but certainly not every single ref I cited wasn't irrelevant so I'm sure you could get something from some of them. Or maybe we can just leave it... statisticless :) that could work too. As for the last bit if that's the case thanks for letting me know... I didn't say for you to ask permission though, but rather ah... in example, tag it with "unreliable citation" or something of that sort? Just want to make that clear, I certainly didn't mean "ask me before editting this!" Avalik (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

ADD: Ah... after doing a quick search I'm going to have to disagree and say that an author name and year WAS enough. Here was my cites: Girshick, 2002; Loulan, 1988; Sloan and Edmond, 1996; Renzetti, 1992 and Waldner-Haugrud and Gratch, 1997 ... try googling any one of those and just those. The relevant studies or articles come up right away no problem. So, yeah, they weren't badly cited... maybe you should have verified that they weren't enough first. But anyways, I'm going to assume you'll remove it if I try to add some statistics again even if it was properly cited but feel free to (or anyone else, really) to go through my cites (rest are in history) and re-add the stats if you so feel inclined... I spent a few hours gathering them so it's not like I was rash about finding them. Avalik (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You are not supposed to censor data because you dont agree with it. The stats are valid. You cannot remove relevant information because "it is covered in another article". 2605:E000:1310:81D7:30DA:B8D1:FAB:BA1C (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Male of male

Why isn't there a male by male rape section? Is there no data? Is it listed elsewhere? Can it be linked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.244.232 (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This article talks about its use in warfare. There's probably a lot of useful info there but I've no time to add to this article at the moment - so please feel free to use it. Malick78 (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The female-on-male section is poor

It starts by saying that erectile response is involuntary, which implies that the definition of female-on-male rape is primarily, or includes, a woman causing a non-consenting man with an erection to penetrate her.

To make this claim (like any other claim), Misplaced Pages needs a citation showing that this situation exists. Gronky (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The Statutory female-on-male rape is poor

This section is poor and I suggest using the entry on this from the Wiki page on statutory rape http://en.wikipedia.org/Statutory_rape. Which reads ( the references will have to moved over as well)

Female-male statutory rape

In the past, sex involving an adult female and an underage male was often ignored by the law, and was often interpreted as a sexual initiation for the younger male. However, in recent years, social perceptions have shifted, in part because mental health experts have noted that such sexual encounters can often be characterized as abusive, resulting in serious, long-term problems for the boys involved. Additionally, controversial were cases when the adult female is in a position of responsibility over the boy, and there have now been a number of high profile cases (Mary Kay Letourneau, Debra Lafave, Pamela Rogers Turner, Pamela Smart), in which adult females have been prosecuted for participating in sexual relationships with younger males. Under English and Scottish common law, such cases would be viewed as indecent assault and some cases have been prosecuted.

In the U.S., courts across the country including the California Court of Appeal have held that male victims of statutory rape are liable for child support for any children resulting from the crime.

Zimbazumba (talk) 03:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That's more about legal history of such rape. But giving a short explanation of what statutory rape is, would be helpful, as I, for example, had to search for this term to figure out whether it is prosecuted, etc.Q42Dqv (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Woman

A woman's physiological response to sexual contact is involuntary. In rare cases, women can become physically aroused, produce natural lubrication, and even experience orgasms against their will during rape. I am not sure about anyone else, but it seems to infer that a mans physiological response to sexual contact is different from a womans ie it's voluntary, although men will not produce natural lubrication they might get other physiochemical reactions eg erections —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.61.109 (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Tek gungu

This is the name given to the practice of male-on-male rape in the military conflicts of the Congo DRC. We should cover this better than we currently do. The documentary Gender Against Men is a good starting place for getting a prespective on this situation. __meco (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Innacurate Reference Summary

The summary for reference #2 states: 'estimates that 100,000–140,000 violent male-male rapes occur in U.S. prisons annually; compare with FBI statistics that estimated 90,000 violent male-female rapes occur annually.'

This is incorrect in that the FBI estimate is an estimate of the number of rapes *reported to the police nationwide*, not an estimate of the actual total number of rapes committed against women. This is very important because the summary gives the impression that more men are raped in prison than women in the whole US, which is incorrect.

6:25 Mrach 6th, 2012.

Female on male rape

"Penetration of a man by a woman is possible through forcible stimulation of external male genitalia..." I don't understand how this could result or aid in the woman penetrating the man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdmitch16 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this statement refers to pushing objects or fingers/tongue between the foreskin and the glans, and down the urethra. The legal status of the later is definitely "sexual penetration," but I am not so sure about the former. Either way, you are right, this statement is far from clear, but I'd like to see its author give an explanation before removing or changing it.Q42Dqv (talk) 05:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

None of those scenarios require genital stimulation, so I still don't see how the sentence makes any sense. Kaldari (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Wiki Rape Article

I think the work on this article is excellent, however, I feel it would be fully appreciated by everyone if it was merged with the Wiki Rape article. It would save time for many people in identifying what rape is, who can commit it, and what are the ramifications of rape, if it was all located in the one article with different sections. In the talk section of the Wiki Rape article, there are many citations of female to male rape and many other good suggestions that may help give prominence to this very delicate issue. As it stands separated from the Wiki Rape article, it has no merit and people may overlook it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.35.92 (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. Few people ever come across this article. I, for example, have been periodically reading various Misplaced Pages articles related to rape, for the past few years. I came across this article for the first time, a week ago, only because I became interested specifically in female-on-male rape and decided to enter the term into Misplaced Pages's search bar. Also, I think that merging this article with the "Rape" article will attract many good editors to it, as, in contrast to your view, I think it is poorly written and needs a lot more work. It is sloppily written in some places, and very vaguely or painfully brief in others. Thanks. Q42Dqv (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Assertions about the number of male-victim prison rapes exceeding the total number of female-victim rapes.

"Several studies argue that male-male prisoner rape, as well as female-female prisoner rape, might be the most common and least-reported forms of rape, with some studies suggesting such rapes are substantially more common in both per-capita and raw-number totals than male-female rapes in the general population."

This is how the section stood before editing https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rape_by_gender&diff=552277525&oldid=550253930 . There are three references given here but none of them support the claim in the section above, by my reading of each at least. This issue seems to relate to "Innacurate Reference Summary" above: I am given the distinct impression that someone is attempting to get the article to support a specific plank of the Men's rights movement platform, namely that male-victim prison rapes exceed total female-victim rapes, rather than editing in a good faith effort to summarize existing research. If a reference can be given that clearly supports this & it can be stated without weasel words ("some studies ..." "...suggest might...") go ahead and add it back. Please do not write "Some studies" without tying the assertion back to a specific source- by my reading these articles do not support the above assertion. 76.119.100.216 (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Expansion

Each of the sections in this article could benefit from expansion. Topics that could be addressed include the effects of society on the ability of victims to seek help, how society affects the ability to prosecute, the role of the media, and societal norms that may make it difficult to for victims to speak about their experiences or obtain counseling.

In addition, the sections are short and tend to only make note of a couple pertinent local cases. The article could benefit from a more global view and more analysis on how culture affects each of the subgroups. SpiceUpTheMind (talk) 05:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the Rapes of females by males section definitely needs expansion as it is statistically the form of rape by gender that happens the most but Rapes of males by males and Rapes of males by females are significantly longer, which makes the article seem POV --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I argued similarly months back. But, like I stated minutes ago in this WP:Dummy edit summary, "Because rape happens to women far more than it does to men, it's obvious why the Rape of females by males section is not big; rape of women by men is already quite documented throughout literature and Misplaced Pages." Flyer22 (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That's irrelevant unless this documentation "throughout literature and Misplaced Pages" is linked through the page as part of a larger article (such as a larger article Rapes of females by males). This article isn't "Rape by gender that isn't talked about as much", it's "Rape by gender", and that means it has to portray "Rape by gender" as it is, not focusing on the specific issue of Males raped by females because some editors feel this particular issue is not focused on enough in other media or articles. I'm not arguing that the Males by females part should be reduced, but that the Females by males should be lengthened until it portrays the issue as it is --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel that it is irrelevant, and here's expansion on my reasoning: Why would Misplaced Pages need a Rape of females by males article, when, for example, the Rape and Rape statistics articles are essentially such an article because rape happens to women far more than it does to men? Having a Rape of females by males article is akin to having a Male bodybuilding article; I call it akin to that because bodybuilding is far more common among men than it is among women, which is why the vast majority of the Bodybuilding article focuses on men...while a Female bodybuilding article was created specifically for the topic of bodybuilding among women.

All that stated, I am always for following WP:Due weight (the significant majority view being given more weight than the minority view), which is even implied by the first diff-link I provided above in this section, and is documented on my user page. So whatever appropriate editing achieves that, then okay. Flyer22 (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the fact that the article itself implies that the reader has enough knowledge on the topic of 'Rapes by gender' and that they would have researched the topic previously, reduces the knowledge a reader can draw from the article, that is to say, the fact that the article explains what rape is, suggests that they may not have read these other articles. I also don't think the bodybuilding analogy is that strong, as this article exists to show the gender dichotomy of rape between the two features genders, not a specific gendered reading of rape. I wouldn't be arguing this if it were a 'male rape' article. If this is the case, and the editors think that it is worth going more in detail into cases that occur less frequently, maybe it's worth stressing in the article that "Most rapes that occur are females by males" for the understanding of readers. Furthermore, there are no links on the rape for 'Rape' and 'Rape statistics' on the page suggesting that this is the case. Considering that rape is an emotive topic, I feel that articles like this should go the extra length in providing an unbiased account of said issues, and be as informative as possible for readers --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that the Bodybuilding article comparison is quite strong when it comes to the suggestion that a Rape of females by males article should be created, and I'm certain that many would argue that such an article should not exist since that topic is already well covered on Misplaced Pages; it would be seen as an unfavorable WP:Content fork. As for the Rape by gender article, it does link to the Rape article and it does cite an old U.S. statistics report showing that rape is committed against women far more than it is against men, and usually by men. But like I stated, I am fine with whatever appropriate editing takes place to place WP:Due weight on the fact that the vast majority of rapes are committed by males against females. Flyer22 (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

How are you so sure? What about things like this . It seems men are usually the perpetrators but we have to be careful in asserting that overall victim count is higher for women. See as well, p17, which shows a much higher percentage of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization for females vs males, but since there are less women in prison the absolute numbers will be much lower.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

How about , , and ? You are right that you have to be careful for it, but there is a lot of evidence that women are more regularly the victims of this kind of violence --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Obiwankenobi, I'm sure because it's covered by research upon research; and I don't just mean statistics. Overall, crime is committed far more by males than by females, and scientists have repeatedly stated that such a factor has nothing to do with underreporting; for example, a lot of scientists are very interested in the role that testosterone plays in human development, citing it as a strong contributor to teenage boys and men being far more likely to commit crimes such as rape and murder than teenage girls and women are likely to commit such crimes or crimes at all. That male-male rape is underreported factors in, but not so much to suggest that men are raped as much as or more than women. Prison is not the general population; there are significantly more opportunities for a man to rape another man while in prison (such as a gang rape). But in the general population, where society is mostly heteronormative and there is the fact of men usually being physically stronger than women? Research continues to show that men are the number 1 perpetrators of rape and girls/women are the number 1 victims of rape. Also, with regard to the report you showed above, research on such matters is often inconsistent. But research is usually consistent with regard to which sex/gender is likelier to be a rape victim. Flyer22 (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The research cited by Drowning is based on a survey of households, and as far as I can tell it does not include the prison population, which as you note is more likely to be a victim of violence. I don't dispute that evidence is strong that in pure numbers men are more likely to be perpetrators, but the increased (eg 3-5x more frequent) incidence of inmate on inmate female sexual violence is interesting and worthy of further study (although, in pure numbers this still would be small), but I think if you're talking in the US about # of rape/sexual violence victims you have to include the prison population to get fair numbers, and once you do that it's not so obvious that women are the majority victims. Many reliable sources have pointed this out - I'm just challenging Flyer's statement that it's obvious more women are raped than men. I'm not convinced it's so obvious - perhaps globally this is still the case, since globally we don't have the prison population and rape issue, but in the US some statistics suggest that men are in the majority of victims.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I know this is a blog post, but this is worth a read and is very informative, if you can ignore the finger pointing Either way, it will be hard to tell until a study is done on this without the intention of proving a specific point concerning gendered violence --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

My "obvious" statement went along with "it's obvious why the Rape of females by males section is not big; rape of women by men is already quite documented throughout literature and Misplaced Pages." But, yes, I was implying that "it's obvious more women are raped than men." And while Drowninginlimbo was not implying that, Drowninginlimbo was right there along with me indicating that the vast majority of rapes are committed against girls/women. Anyway, I appreciate you offering a different point of view on this matter, Obiwankenobi. Flyer22 (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I just think we should all be careful about using articles like this one to promote a point of view. We should be driven by neutrality and best sources. That particular blog post Drowning links is also trying to make a point, namely "In fact, they’re far too important to be used as political footballs by people who just want women to stop talking about rape." - I don't think those who study prison rape are trying to stop women from talking about rape. However, when you hear people saying "Its obvious" and "the vast majority" even though admittedly the best studies haven't been done and SOME reliable sources - not MRM, but sources like the Guardian - suggest that the latest data from the US could mean higher number of male victims of some sort of sexual violence (so then you get into differentiating rape from other forms of unwanted sexual violence). So it seems the best data isn't in yet. Read this, for what is happening in other countries: - for example, this quote: "although a rare 2010 survey, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that 22% of men and 30% of women in Eastern Congo reported conflict-related sexual violence" - we hear a lot about rape of women in war, but it's rather stunning that the percentage of men is almost as high as # of women, and in other conflicts, the % of men is HIGHER (and the absolute numbers could be much higher, given the number of male combatants). I think what is clear is that the instances of rape of men seem to happen more in different circumstances - in prisons, in war, while in detention, as a means of torture, etc, whereas probably the majority of female rapes outside of warzones are just by an acquaintance, done in the outside world - so this implies differential treatment options, but should not be used to imply that one side is suffering more than the other... Indeed, we have many articles on (Minority X in Y) or (Gender X in Y) precisely because it is more rare, not because it is more common, so the argument that "Rape of women" should be a longer argument than "Rape of men" seems silly. We shouldn't use either side of the facts to say "This part of the article should be 10 paras, while this one should be 5" - rather we should focus on expanding the coverage of all of these issues as fully as possible.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think articles should reflect data that hasn't come in yet, but I will be interested to see where this particular study goes. I'm also not trying to trivilise male rape in prison, that would be a disgusting position to take, just contextualise it with the similarly important issue that is female rape. Furthermore, and this may not be what you were trying to say, I am not arguing that "this part of the article should be 10 paras, while this one should be 5", but specifically that we should focus on expanding the coverage of all these issues as fully as possible, and that the 'rape of females by males' section is severely lacking, and considering how emotive an issue this is, the article should be as informative as possible in every section, including the ones that focus on women. Ignoring women's issues is just as much an issue of neutrality as ignoring men's issues --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

On that particular point, since we already have Rape which focused mostly on male->female rape + tons of other ancillary articles, I don't think we need to duplicate that material accordingly; a link out to the main article is sufficient with a robust summary here - and we should probably build out a Rape of males article, and do the same summary-style here. No-one is suggesting reflecting data that isn't here, I'm simply pointing out we should not be facile in our off-the-cuff statements about prevalence of rape victims, and even if women *are* raped 3x or 4x as often globally, that's no excuse for not having complete and full sourcing on the whole scope of the problem for all sexes. Finally, I really think it's incredibly daft to suggest that we're ignoring women's issues here, there are 1378 pages in Category:Rape, and I would hazard a guess that the majority are about male->female rape, male->female rape cases, male->female rape statistics, etc. If wikipedia articles were really length-limited based on importance-to-society, then we would have vast swaths of video games articles to ice and many more articles to create... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

So your argument is that, because there are lots of articles that cover 'Rape of females by males', then this specific article doesn't need to in depth, even though the article is 'Rape by gender', and 'Rape of females by males' is definitely 'Rape by gender'? It's not daft to assume that. If you don't think it is important for the 'Rape by gender' article to cover 'Rape of females by males' in as much depth as 'Rape of males by females', because there are other articles cover 'rape of females by males', then that is your own opinion, and you are welcome to it, but I don't believe it is NPOV --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not my argument - someone seemed to be arguing (a) Male->female rape is more common, therefore this section should be much bigger. I pointed out that (a) At least in the US, we lack good data combining out of prison + in prison rape stats, so be careful with facile statements like that, and (b) it shouldn't matter that much anyway as we're not in a "who is the biggest victim contest" and (c) There are so many other articles covering all other aspects of rape that we don't need to make the male->female section much larger here, esp given the preponderance of material elsewhere and easily linkable; instead a summary-style with links out to the detailed statistics and cases for female->male rape elsewhere on the wiki should be sufficient and would better serve the reader. So, keep them roughly the same length, at the end of the day, but in a different format, at least for now until we restore Rape of men.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The argument was that it should be lengthened to be as in depth as the others on the page. It feels like you picked one small part of the discussion and blew it way out of proportion. Nobody was trying to undermine male rape, you were the one who brought that into it. I also don't understand why you have a huge aversion to expanding that one segment of the article. It's pretty short considering the scope of the topic and it wouldn't harm the rest of the article to discuss the gender specifics of 'Rape of females by males' in more detail. Also removing the article for 'Rape of men' would not be beneficial by your own reasoning as the 'Rape of females by females' segment (that is also very short and should probably have an expansion tag) is another issue regarding rape that isn't discussed much --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Obiwankenobi, I follow the WP:Due weight policy (its subsections included), which is a part of the WP:Neutrality policy, and it is clear about how to treat what the vast majority of sources state on a subject and that the view of what those vast majority of sources state on a subject should be given prominence in the article. Again, my view on WP:Due weight is clear from my user page; I don't edit based on personal opinion, unless deciding on structural details...such as "the article looks better with this heading, is better with this text, etc."; otherwise, it is about following Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines for me. I follow the sources...with due weight. And from what I know of sources on the topic of rape is that rape is indeed a crime committed against girls/women far more than it is committed against boys/men; you are free to disagree with that, but I won't be sharing that view any time soon. Flyer22 (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be a misapplication of WP:Due weight. If WP:Due weight were really applied in this fashion, we would delete a vast majority of articles focused on "minority X" or "women and X" since the majority of sources treat such issues without reference to same. Instead we have a bit of affirmative-action whereby such articles can be written and sourced. I really think we're splitting hairs - rape is an important issue for men and women, and frankly rape of men is undercovered compared to rape of women, as things stand in 2014.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:Due weight is clear for me on this. Google Books and Google Scholar, for example, show that sources discuss rape of females to a much more extensive degree than rape of males; that's how it is in gender studies and the rest of literature on rape. WP:Due weight is also clear that, in some cases, we have articles on topics that are a minority matter and why we have those articles; so I also can't agree with your "If WP:Due weight were really applied in this fashion" argument. Flyer22 (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, you're misunderstanding due weight in my opinion. Due weight is not "there are 100 articles about female rape, and only 1 article about male rape, so the female rape article should be 100 times as long" - instead due weight says "if there are 100 articles claiming X, and 1 article claming Y, you should not give the Y view equal space". But we have unlimited space to cover rape of men and rape of women - indeed 1378 articles worth of articles on rape of women, so I really don't see how due weight comes into it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe that you are misunderstanding WP:Due weight; that policy directly supports what I have stated with regard to my application of it on this matter. And I see you arguing against that policy; my view on that won't change. I am not arguing that WP:Due weight is "there are 100 articles about female rape, and only 1 article about male rape, so the female rape article should be 100 times as long," and my initial comments in this section show that; they show that I, like you, have argued in this discussion that because there is already a lot of material on male-on-female rape on Misplaced Pages, including the Rape and Rape statistics articles, it's understandable that male-on-female rape is not covered to an extensive degree in this article. But, alas, on Misplaced Pages, I will always choose WP:Due weight over what is simply "understandable." And WP:Due weight is extremely clear that because rape of girls/women is the majority aspect concerning rape by gender, then that aspect should be clearly presented in this article as the majority aspect...whether it is by a statement in the lead and a more extensive Rape of females by males section or whatever. It expressly prohibits artificially "balancing aspects" and "giving equal validity." Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

plz explain how due weight would allow full articles about Women in mathematics even though the vast majority of sources about mathematics are about mathematicians who are male, given most of them over time have been male? WP:undue is about minority opinions, it is not useful when applied to what is effectively a summary-style article that should link out to more detailed treatments. Male rape is not some minority opinion, it is a documents fact, and number of people effected or number of articles on same doesn't change that. Again, if we applied undue the way you are suggesting we would trim by 10x most articles about Women in X because the bulk of sources about X don't cover the gender angle. Undue is about how you present differing opinions, but we're not dealing with that here, we're dealing with separate topics entirely underneath the rape umbrella, and as such undue doesn't apply the way you think it does.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Nah, I've explained enough what WP:Due weight is and how it applies to this case (it does not simply apply to opinions, by the way), and I know that many others familiar with that policy (such as editors who hang out at that policy page) would support everything I've stated in this discussion on the matter. No need to repeat myself; that policy is explicitly clear, though, obviously, like every Misplaced Pages policy and guideline, there is the occasional misinterpretation (such as the one currently being debated at the WP:3RR policy page). Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I wasn't arguing that a 'Rape of females by males' article should exist, I was arguing that if the 'Rape of females by males' section was to be shorter, despite covering the majority of 'Rape by gender', because other articles cover this, then a clear link to an article that explains this should be provided, and that the 'Rape' article doesn't cover this. As it stands, I feel there is a subtle editorial bias, in that editors have dedicated more time to expanding the matter 'Rape of males by females'. I know that this has happened because it is an issue that hasn't been covered on other articles, but it doesn't change the fact that the majority of rapes are 'Rape of females by males', and that Misplaced Pages exists to inform, not persuade. Just to iterate, I am not arguing that these sections should be reduced, but that the 'Rape of females by males' should be lengthened to reflect the detail of the other sections, as the vast majority of rapes by gender relate, and that the article will be more informative of the issue if it reflects this --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I know that you were using "Rape of females by males article" as an example; I was simply countering it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, in the bodybuilding example, a Main article link to female bodybuilding is included, meaning that the article covers both male and female bodybuilding, even though the female bodybuilding content is on another article. In this article, there is no Main article link to Rape of females by males because that specific article does not exist, so it being covered by other articles is irreverent to the quality of this article --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree to disagree on the irrelevancy aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it was the main argument anyway, so I accept that --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Drowninginlimbo, regarding this, there is not a lot of research out there on female-female rape; so I don't think that section can be expanded much beyond what it is, aside from extensive quoting of sources on that topic. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I guess that one will have to wait a few years then --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Noting here, for documentation on this talk page: The Male rape article now exists. I'll alert WP:MED to that article because I'm certain that some of the medical sources (including the mental health sources) used for it are not WP:MEDRS-compliant or what WP:MEDRS considers satisfactory. Flyer22 (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, sorry i didn't read this talk page. I hope i didn't mess it, did I? In my country, a male rape just happened, and this rape by gender article doesn't satisfy me well. Okkisafire (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Questionable statement regarding conviction by gender

Quote, "It also stated that 99% of the people convicted of and imprisoned in response to rape accusations were male, with only 1% of those convicted being female."

Most immediately, this is not what (Greenfeld) claims. The relevant claim from Greenfeld is: "Nearly all arrestees for forcible rape in 1995 were male (99%)"; that is, this describes arrests rather than conviction.

I think it is very likely that this statement is based on the FBI's Uniform Crime Report of 1995, which can be found here: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1995. Greenfeld lists among his references, "Uniform Crime Reports FBI, Crime in the United States, selected years." If we look at the UCR 1995, specifically Table 33, page 213 under Section IV, it lists 23809 males and 297 females as being arrested for forcible rape in 1995 in the United States - this is indeed 99%.

My concern is that the UCR 1995, specifically page 23 under Section II, defines "forcible rape" as follows: "Forcible rape, as defined in the Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Assaults or attempts to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded." In other words, this statistic reflects 'X on female' rape rather than rape in general.

I am not well acquainted with the community and am reluctant to make edits, however I would be grateful if a more competent individual would review this information and consider a relevant edit. Thanks! 216.238.229.246 (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear poster. Thank you for the valuable research. I think your point is correct. Debresser (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that the original statistic warrants inclusion, but if you could find another to include alongside it then it would benefit the article. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The "1 in 71 men had been raped" stat is misleading

The "1 in 71 men have been raped" stat from the CDC survey is misleading. It defines "rape" as the attacker penetrating the victim, which excludes women who use their vagina to rape a man (rape by envelopment) which is counted as “made to penetrate”. The very same survey says “1 in 21 men (4.8%) reported that they were made to penetrate someone else,” which is far more than 1 in 71. Also, the study says that 79.2% of male victims of “made to penetrate” reported only female perpetrators, meaning they were raped by a woman.

The above, lifetime stats do show a lower percentage of male victims (up to 1.4% rape by penetration + 4.8% made to penetrate = 6.2%) than female victims (18.3%) although it is far more than the 1 in 71 stated in the article. However, if you look at the report’s stats for the past 12 months, just as many number of men were “forced to penetrate” as women were raped, meaning that if you properly include “made to penetrate” in the definition of rape, men were raped as often as women. Egalitarian activist (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2013‎ (UTC)

Egalitarian activist, I saw your comment the day you posted it, but I am just now replying. With regard your arguments, do read WP:Synthesis; per the WP:Synthesis policy, we are not supposed to use sources to draw conclusions and report those conclusions in a Misplaced Pages article when the sources do not state those conclusions or are not otherwise very clear about those matters. Regarding this and this edit you made, I removed this part because it falls under WP:Synthesis. The additional information you added should help clear up matters, and people can read the sources for further clarity. I also made this tweak. And something else to keep in mind, going by your username, and if you chose that username with regard to the type of editing you intend to do at this site, is WP:Activism.

Also, remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Misplaced Pages talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I wasn't using the source to draw a conclusion. I merely clarified the study's definition of rape by pointing out it excluded victims who were not penetrated and gave an example (men forced into vaginal sex). It's up to the reader to decide whether these "made to penetrate" cases should be considered rape. I do believe this clarification would lead most readers to view this as rape, but that's just because it's the obvious conclusion to make when presented with the definitions used in the CDC report. Is there a better way to explain the CDC report's definition of rape? Egalitarian activist (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

If the source does not mention that it excludes "victims who were not penetrated" from its definition of rape, then it is drawing a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by the source. That's why I pointed you to WP:Synthesis. However, if the source is otherwise very clear that it excludes "victims who were not penetrated" from its definition, it might be acceptable to note this. I feel that it's best to err on the side of caution with regard to WP:Synthesis, so I would suggest you including the source's definition of rape to clear up the matter you want cleared up, what the source clearly states about how it defines rape, without engaging in any WP:Editorializing. Flyer22 (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN)

Obiwankenobi, calling RAINN an advocacy website and acting as though they don't count as a WP:Reliable source for rape, even though they absolutely do count as a WP:Reliable source for rape, is not going to cut it. The fact that RAINN specializes in rape does not make them any less WP:Reliable for topics about rape than the World Health Organization (WHO) specializing in health topics. We get editors calling the WHO an advocacy website as well, especially with regard to its stance on female genital mutilation as opposed to circumcision. But you know what? We still use the WHO for such topics -- because they are a well respected organization that has expertise on health topics and passes as a WP:Reliable source for health topics. In fact, they are often considered the authority on health topics, including by a lot of editors at WP:MED. Similarly, RAINN is a well respected organization that has expertise on rape, abuse and incest topics and passes as a WP:Reliable source for those topics. Sure, RAINN is not international or usually considered an authority, but they are the biggest organization with regard to its aforementioned topics in the United States. Yes, they are anti-sexual assault. So is every health organization in the world, including the WHO; otherwise, that health organization is out of step with science. Being anti-sexual assault is no valid reason to dismiss the source as simply an advocacy website. The type of advocacy that I and everyone at Misplaced Pages should be concerned about is what is addressed at the WP:Advocacy page, or feminism or masculism sources being used inappropriately with regard to gender topics such as this. I have no problem with you removing RAINN for a valid reason, such as instead wanting what can be considered a better source or RAINN not supporting the text it was referenced to, but removing RAINN because it is an "advocacy website" does not cut it for me. And that's all that I have to state on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The RAINN website cited statistics from other places, and synthesized those statistics together to make a point, for advocacy purposes. We would be better served by quoting relevant statistics directly from the source, not through the filter of advocacy players like RAINN. RS can be reliable for some things, but less so than others.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Disagree with this, the organisation is legit and all statistics on page support that conclusion --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Mid-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• High-importance sociology articles
• C-Class psychology articles
• High-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• C-Class Gender studies articles
• Mid-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• C-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• C-Class law articles
• Mid-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles