Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:06, 2 December 2007

Sociology NA‑class

This page 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 NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

	Medicine NA‑class
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Gender studies NA‑class

This page 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 page, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment 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

	Law NA‑class
This page 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 NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1

If you made the plea for help in the "To do" section of the box above, I have responded to you at the bottom of this page, under the header titled "Plea for help". -- Joie de Vivre 19:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sociobiology?

The sociobiology section reads (at least to me) very much like pseudoscience and rape apology. Suggesting that perhaps some humans (presumably women) make themselves "more available" to rape? Also, this opinion is put forth by Camille Paglia, who is not a sociobiologist but a social critic. This section seems extremely biased, if not dangerous to include for social reasons (giving people reason to justify a brutal crime). Paglia is speaking outside of her field and is being portrayed as an expert. None of the sociobiologists who share her opinion are referenced. Is it possible for someone to remove or edit this section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alison88 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding balance

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

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

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

Also, in the Statistics section, it is calculated that "there is only a 16.3% chance the rapist will end up in prison". It should be "accused rapist". If maybe 1/2 of accusations are false, as the article suggests, the change of a rapist going to prison should be closer to 32.016%.134.173.56.14 01:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

drugs and alcohol taken voluntarily

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

The general consensus, as indicated by laws in most developed countries, place the responsibility on the man, who should really think about whether the other person is consenting consciously, no? Xiner (talk, email) 14:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That may be the consensus in developed countries and if so that should be on the page. But thats a sexist way of looking at it, that should be represented on the page. Men get drunk and have sex, men consent when intoxicated and than regret it later. Why should it be the man's responsibility to make sure that the other person isnt "too drunk." The laws may well be written that a woman can be guilty of rape in these circumstances but I doubt it is ever applied that way. If a man is similarly intoxicated as a woman who cant consent to sex and he pays for a woman's dinner and/or cab fare, is the women guilty of theft in any developed countries? Qvkfgmjqy 00:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Women can rape, and as for a drunken man's paying for stuff, would you argue he's not responsible afterwards? Xiner (talk, email) 00:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think he is responsible and is capable of giving her the money, I also think that thinking the man is responsible means that you have to think that the women is responsible and capable of giving consent. Thats the point of the example. I was trying to construct an argument using paralell reasoning to show how silly it is that the woman is judged unable to consent to sex.Qvkfgmjqy 00:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sex with someonme who has willingly taken drugs and alcohol is not rape, and no-one says it is. Sex with someone who is incapacitated by such substances may be construed as rape if they are deemed to have been incapable of consent. Paul B 15:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What is incapacitiated? My understanding is that it goes beyond flat out unconscious, and is something that is almost entirely interpreted by the women after the fact. This is an absurd and sexist way of looking at it, and I think that view should be reprsented. Qvkfgmjqy 00:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you arguing that having sex with someone incapable of consent is okay? Xiner (talk, email) 00:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that by definition it is not OK to ahve sex with someone incapable of giving consent. That is how I define incapable of giving consent. The question the quesiton is what does being incapable of giving consent mean. I just tihnk its been defined by extremists both in legislatures and on this page. Qvkfgmjqy 00:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean, of course...Xiner (talk, email) 16:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. That's an old, unanswered question. How about the perpetrator who may be incapable of forming the mens rea, or intent, due to intoxication? Or how about when both (or all) parties are extremely intoxicated? Am I stirring the pot?--Evb-wiki 16:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE STIR THE POT! Qvkfgmjqy 00:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Who initiates the sex? A very drunken man on a very drunken woman? That could be rape. A very drunken woman on a very drunken man? Of course not. Xiner (talk, email) 00:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that is absurd and sexist. WHen all you do is change man to woman, and woman to man and it switches from rape to not rape? Are you serious? Qvkfgmjqy 00:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant not a rape by the man on the woman. Sorry! Xiner (talk, email) 01:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

So two very drunk people having seix is not rape. Two not drunk people having sex is not rape. One very drunk, one not very drunk person having sex is rape, regardless of whether the man or the woman is the one very drunk? Thats absurd too! But at least not sexist. Qvkfgmjqy 01:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

To me, whether it is rape depends on the intentions and actions of the one who initiates, proceeds with and completes intercourse in the active role, if there is such a person. (note the ugly construction of what I just wrote. I am trying to be precise.)

here is how I define it:

If one or more adult(s) deliberately renders another adult helpless to have intercourse, while knowing the victim would not consent if able to do so, that is rape. even if the active party later gets drunk or takes drugs. If one or more adults take advantage of an adult's helpless state to have intercourse, while knowing the victim would not consent, that is also rape. If an adult chooses to have sex with a child, knowing that drugs and/or alcohol has made this possible, that is also rape, regardless of "consent" on the child's part. However, if two drunk/drugged adults have sex in a haze of confusion, that is not rape. If one party is under the influence and one not, but both are confused, that is not rape. If one person feels violated afterwards, that also is not necessarily rape. It could be, but someone's feelings after the fact do not mean it was rape in every situation. If signals get crossed and consent gets misinterpreted by one or both parties, I'm confused. a grey area. If the victim, though drunk or drugged, clearly says no and/or resists intercourse and the other party is aware of this lack of consent in time to stop activity, it is rape. 70.22.7.198 03:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Mary Katherine

What if you are sober and consent to later have sex while intoxicated with someone while sober? Is it still rape?

The new link

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

I guess I wasn't aware that false reporting is a problem. I think this post is more enlightening than the above article, though. Xiner (talk, email) 16:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.anandaanswers.com/pages/naaFalse.html http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001659224&er=deny these are by a professor at purdue. He found 41% recanted in a town, and that 50% recanted when looking at two midwwestern state universites. http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_4.htm This is from a journal and looks at various studies done by other people. http://archives.cjr.org/year/97/6/rape.asp heres an article from columbia journalism review. A SIGNIFICANT number of rape allegations reported to the police in the United States are FALSE. I'm gonna put significant back into the page. Please look at the Rape Reporting page on wikipedia, it goes into this in much more detail. Qvkfgmjqy 00:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You are quoting one obscure study. Until further studies are done this is not proof positive that 50% of all rape allegations that make there way to police stations are false. Furthermore, it is a leap of faith to say that withdrawling a charge of rape is the same as recanting an allegation of rape. Your data is simply flawed. 01:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

40-50% false is hard to believe, but so is the 2% false that I have heard other people use. Retracting the allegation does not prove that it is false. It proves that the allegation was retracted. Due to intimidation, shame, threats to the victim, psychological poor health therefore lack of stamina to deal with the court process, etc., or just a realization of the impoosibility of getting enough evidence, real allegations can be retracted. source: Christine Courtois, Recollections of Sexual Abuse, published 1999.

I would also like to see a clarification or another perspective about the "false" accusations not including those which had poor evidence. Because by itself, the impression is that good Lord, very *few* allegations of rape are valid.

the clarification I would like is that because rape involves sexual intercourse, and often the victim and perpetrator (alleged, false, real, whatever) know each other, the difference between rape and consensual sex is difficult to establish in many cases.

I do not have a cite for this but it's common sense so there must be one....

the other thing is, what is sometimes called "grey area" rape. can someone clarify whether "grey area" rape is included in the 40 to 50% false accusation stats? that would be for example, when a partner gives permission for some sexual activity yet states "no intercourse" and does not have enough time to restate the word "no" once intercourse commences. Or he/she says no and/or resists, but the other person is too caught up in the sexual activity to pay attention.

I'm not talking about, they agreed to a chaste kiss and then out of nowhere it turned into sex. but there are situations where couples who are taught about "virginity" agree to a lot of other sexual behavior, but not vaginal intercourse. or a particular type of intercourse was discussed as off limits beforehand and the "grey area" alleged "rapist" did it anyway. Anal sex can be an example of this.

70.22.7.198 03:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Mary Katherine

EXCESSIVE Further readings

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

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

Rape and human rights?

Content at issue:

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

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

The "weapon of war" issues do deserve space in the main article. As it is, the article focuses on civil rather than wartime rape, which gets mentioned instead only in History of rape and Types of rape. I think the structural answer is to make History a section heading before (current) Definitions. --VSerrata 07:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the "weapon of war" issue which is indeed one of many rape related realities. Making a History section would seem to solve the problem as long as it covers the complete history of rape including rape's use historically as a "weapon of war". This might be too long an article to include here so we might summarize it here and create/link a new History of Rape article as has been done for so many other rape related issues in this article. 128.111.95.138 02:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a new History of rape article. The existing one.

It was split off this one, but I fairly recently had to add a link to connect it to this one at all. It should be expanded and probably have a short section summarizing it in this article. Goldfritha 22:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Overview of rape in intro

Content at issue:

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

I added the preceding summary to show readers the realities of rape today...realities that often escape the politically loaded statements that rape always seems to suffer from. Please review the sources carefully before reverting this content. However, some of these statements may seem counter intuitive but they are well sourced and I ask that you consider the evidence carefully before you react in outrage or whatever. When a woman gets a 30 day sentence and a man gets a 30 year sentence for similar crimes one can be pretty sure that reverse sexism (as well as ignorance and denial) is a significant reality in rape prosecutions. 128.111.95.24 04:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Please read what a WOMAN has to say on this before you become too bothered about whether reverse-sexism exists and about who does it to who. Men can and do use reverse-sexism against other men just as some women can and do use sexism against other women. The cause here is what kind of inane cow____ or bull___ either sex has had shoveled into them to support ANY form of sexism. I also suggest you check out Nathanson and Youngs Spreading Misandry and Legalizing Misandry for a better take on what kind of man likes reverse sexism and why. 71.102.254.114 03:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is after all predominantly men that are making these "reverse-sexist" laws, not women.

But who elected the men? Just because a group has more power in society doesn't mean they hold all the power. I've had female bosses, for that matter. And any moral rule can cut in both directions. That's what makes it a moral rule. --Ryan Wise 00:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In most cases, a woman couldn't rape a man, I believe, because he could overpower her, unless maybe she him restrained, how is that you say they are? The snare 09:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Changed Word

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

"Serious" is right – thanks for helping. This article is a moderately popular target for vandals who apparently seek to enrage the most readers they can by "making fun of a serious subject". Such vandalism is usually removed quickly. –Henning Makholm 21:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly relatedly, what in the world is up with the section at the end of "definitions" that talks about the practise of "corpse-humping" in video games and links to "pwnage"? It seems to be vandalism to me, but as a new user I'm not really comfortable deleting it myself, apologies. 24.21.143.244 12:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In defining rape, legal definitions should be included; namely, that the word 'rape' is absent from several legal codes. The crime of 'rape' is defined and discussed as 'sexual assault'.

Off topic - could use input re Duke rape case

The Duke University lacrosse team scandal (and its discussion page) could use some expertise on rape, victims, reporting, etc. Any expert input would be appreciated. Please be aware that it's a controversial issue and choose your words carefully! Thanks. Guanxi 05:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Section headings

The structure of this article could do with a little work. What we have now is:

1 History of rape - link to a "main article"

2 Definitions of rape

3 Types of rape - link to a "main article"

4 Effect of rape - link to a "main article"

5 Sociobiological analysis of rape - link to a "main article"

6 Loss of control and privacy

7 Challenges to conventional assumptions - link to a "main article"

8 College campus rape

9 Media Attention

One thing I'd suggest fixing is the absence of a section outlining rape statistics (i.e. the size of the issue) - the main article linked from "Challenges to conventional assumptions" is actually about rape statistics, so I'm thinking of renaming that and moving the heading up to before the section on "Effect of rape". And the section on "college campus rape" looks to me like it should be a separate article linked from a section within "Types of rape". I'll make those two changes. (later edit) It's now:

1 History of rape - link to a "main article"

2 Definitions of rape

3 Types of rape - link to a "main article"

4 Rape statistics - link to a "main article"

5 Effect of rape - link to a "main article"

6 Sociobiological analysis of rape - link to a "main article"

7 Loss of control and privacy

8 Media Attention

What do other people think? VSerrata 14:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think that college rape can be an article of it's own (I can't find that subtitle now however?) and loss of control and privacy isn't very necessary for the entry, it is a more appropriate topic to be addressed on a different website. I also think the entry section needs to be cut down, and "Rape is a form of assault involving the non-consensual use of the sexual organs of another person's body. The assailant can be of either sex, as can their target." is a very weak entry to the article. I do not think the first thing to address in an article about rape is the fact that rapists can be male or female (which is a controversial stance according to some sociologists given how rape occurs). An entry line like "Rape is a violent sex crime which transends class, culture, race, and gender barriers" might be better. 67.175.172.127 05:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Plea for help

The following comment was added to Talk:Rape/to do. I have placed it here and replied below.

I am not sure how you deal with being raped. This is something that I have had to endure since I was 5 years old and was abused by a male babysitter. I was then raped at the age of 17 by a friend. I am now 26, I have a six year old son and a partner of 5 years whom I love very much. Last Christmas I was raped again by my partners brother in law. My son witnessed part of this attack. My attacker apologised to me after he did what he did to me. I have only just told my partner this weekend what happened to me. I told him because I got upset at a family party and needed to get out all the feelings that I had. At the time of the rape I had had alot to drink after being in town having a few drinks to celebrate the chrstmas break. When I got home that night I had a few more to drink.

This man was so close to our family as he had been like a father to my partner after his own dad passed away. We got on with him very well and had no reason not to trust him. He abused our trust and I fweel so ashamed that I was too drunk to stop it.

I never reported this to the police. Even now I don't know what to do. I am worried that I will not be believed. I am very close to this mans wife ( My partners sister) and they have children whom I know this would devastate.

What can I do???

I am so sorry to hear that you have suffered for so long. Luckily, you don't have to suffer anymore; you can get help today. Please don't allow your son to witness you being abused. Please call RAINN, the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network. Their toll-free hotline is 1-800-656-4673. It's a free call from any phone. RAINN can connect you with resources in your area that can help you and your son to be safe. If you want to read about this organization before you call, RAINN's website is http://www.rainn.org/

Because Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, editors tend to stay on the topic of articles. As much as you deserve help and support, not many people on a Misplaced Pages talk page will reply to a post that is not about an article. Fortunately, someone at the RAINN hotline is waiting for your call. Something else you could try is looking in your phone book for "Rape" or "Sexual assault" resources. Don't wait to get help, things can start getting better now, if you ask for help today. Don't let your little boy see one more violent act, call them right now. Joie de Vivre 19:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to also suggest you go to a support group. There is a list of them here: http://www.ibiblio.org/rcip/rcmsgboards.html

Take care, --Survivor 00:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Could we add a notice at the top pointing people in the direction of a help forum? Richard001 00:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Suppression of Politically Incorrect research and reporting about rape

Pioneering researchers are beginning the challenge the cunning, covert, and ugly ideologies of 'gender'-feminism that mythologize female innocence and create baseless hysteria about all men as "patriarchal" rapists (as in the Duke Lacrosse players scandal where an inane rush to judgement almost resulted in the rape of justice). This article is from the editor of the groundbreaking book Sexually Aggressive Women. Hats off to courageous women who take this taboo topic on....especially when men are too ashamed (or too chicken) to tackle it head on. I urge editors who hope to create a NPOV article about rape to consider the POV points psychologist Struckman-Johnson raises here in Sex, Violence and Research 128.111.95.47 04:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Feminist zeal?

There is no support for this claim: "The modern feminist movement in its zeal to show female victimization by male rapists has often overlooked female rapists who rape men or women."

This is like accusing Martin Luther King of ignoring the civil rights of Asians in his zeal to stop the civil rights abuses of black people.

Do we really believe the feminist movement intentionally ignored the rape of women by men, or could it be that such cases constitute a neglible percentage of rapes? All of the feminists I know support the rights of all human beings not to be sexually assaulted regardless of gender. One of the most important things feminism did was to challenge male dominated law enforcement agencies and courts who let rape go unpunished.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.246.89.74 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

You're right 155.246.89.74 that statement is original research and is unsourced. Unless it can be sourced it needs to be removed.--Cailil 20:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Murderbike 01:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Scots Law

I have removed the 'Scots Law' section from this article and added it to the article where it should have been placed in originally. See Laws about rape. --88.108.96.244 23:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about that, but please do not keep editing the section to represent Scottish law placing equal validity on males and females as perpetrators and victims of rape. As far as I can see, this is simply not true under Scottish law, whatever you may feel about it personally. If you have references to Scottish legal sources that show that it is true, I would be happy to be enlightened. -- TinaSparkle 00:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well can you please stop putting it back into this Rape article, it is now in the Laws about rape article, where it should stay. I don't see English Law, Italian Law, American Law, French Law etc on this page. I am not being rude to you and wouldn't dream of being, as its not in my nature - but I know for a fact (My relatives and Great Aunt is Scottish) that a Woman can be prisoned for raping a man, and all the information that is on that article is already POV. Men and Women are tried under the same law due to the fact that Women commit rape against men and vice-versa. The aticle edits that I made do not reflect POV, the original article was corrupt in its information, for example where it says 'Men who rape children under the age of 12' the law states 'A Man or Woman' and in all the other cases, I will cite sources if its neeeded. I will quote to you the line from the internet 'A woman who forces a man to have sex can be prosecuted for rape under section 3 of the 2003 Act.' --88.108.53.172 10:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved the Scots Law piece into the Definitions of rape section here - I agreed with you that it didn't require a section on its own. I am just as happy for it to be in the Laws about rape article, though not in its erroneous form. I'm sorry, but I think you're mistaken about this law, regardless of what your great aunt may have told you. Please note that she is not a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards. Neither is "the internet" - you need to reference things formally on Misplaced Pages. If you can find an official legal document from the Scottish courts stating that this is the case, then it is of course reasonable to add it to the article, but I really can't find any evidence that it is. I don't think your understanding of POV in this context is correct, either. This article may not contain original research, and whether or not it represents your opinion is irrelevant. It is supposed to provide an overview of the subject, referenced entirely from mainstream, reliable academic and media sources. You don't seem to have a login, so perhaps you are new here: please consider signing up, reading the verifiability guidelines, and taking the NPOV tutorial. -- TinaSparkle 15:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Some quick googling turned up http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/pdf_res_notes/rn01-46.pdf, apparently a background briefing for the Scottish Parliament, which says in part:

Rape is a gender-specific crime. In Scotland, it can only be committed by males upon females, which appears to mean by persons biologically male at birth upon persons born biologically female. It is, therefore, a crime of specific personal violence perpetrated on females. The act of rape must consist of penetration of the victim's vagina by the accused's penis.

Rather unbelievably, it appears from other googling that Scotland does not even have a written-down criminal code, so it is difficulut to settle this question with sources as authoritative as would be possible in the rest of the world. (By the way, where is the link from the main article to laws about rape?) –Henning Makholm 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I wondered that! We definitely need one.

However, the good news is that Scottish law is written. Acts can be found at HMSO , at the Office of Public Sector Information for anything between, or via the Scottish Parliament website if they're after devolution. I found the sort of thing you've found, which is why I made the argument above. It isn't difficult to settle this matter: it's clear from the passage you quote, and it's clear from all the other legislation and legal opinion on the matter, too. The argument has continued on the Laws about rape page. Unfortunately, despite all the legal, official and media information making it abundantly clear that he is mistaken, 88.108.53.172 has so far persisted in re-editing the article to represent his personal views rather than the facts. -- TinaSparkle 22:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am going to stick up for the annonymous user here, you have just removed the fact that 'The victim can be of either sex, as can the assailant' this is fact, so you really need to put your POV and sexist conotations behind you. --ChuppaFlubber 10:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

ChuppaFlubber, I am disappointed that you assume that I am a sexist: you misunderstand my intention. Most legal definitions of rape specify that rape is an act committed by a man against a woman. Whether or not we agree with this is irrelevant. As I have tried to point out to the anonymous user, it doesn't matter what I think or what you think: it matters what the verifiable definition of rape is. I have no objection at all to the article containing references to female rape of men if such cases can be documented by proper reliable sources.

I believe that an NPOV beginning for the article would replace the sentence you support with something along the lines of "Most legal definitions of rape define the act as penile penetration of a woman by a man; some also define rape as penile penetration of a man by a man; some definitions encompass non-penile penetration. Some dictionary definitions of rape do not specify the sex of the assailant or the victim." This seems to me to be accurate. I would be 100% happy to include a line saying "some legal definitions of rape allow for rape of a man or woman by a woman", if that is true, but I know of no legal systems in the world that define it as such. I would be very interested to know of any that do, and would be more than happy for them to be noted in the article: I am not at all opposed to it being accurate! My concern is that this is a particularly sensitive subject, and it is of paramount importance that we keep personal opinions out of it. -- TinaSparkle 14:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I respect your views and your intentions. Here was a well know case of a woman who raped a man and was convicted of it and served 30 years in prison for her act. Link. --ChuppaFlubber 15:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fathermag doesn't seem like a great reliable source to be honest. However, this Link from the BBC has a woman being charged with rape - albeit possibly as an accessory. QuiteUnusual 13:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In Scots law a woman cannot be charged with rape. This is because, in Scots law, rape as defined as penetration of the vagina by the penis without the active consent of the woman (Lord Advocate's Ref (No 1 of 2001) is a recent case which removed the requirement of force in rape, but kept it gender specific). Please stop editing articles you know little about.

Please also remember that Scots law is very different to English law, and that quoting BBC articles relating to English law is not useful.

The user above is correct in stating that Scotland has no criminal code, but that does not mean there are no authorities we can cite. Past court cases set precedents, which must be followed.

"I would be 100% happy to include a line saying "some legal definitions of rape allow for rape of a man or woman by a woman", if that is true, but I know of no legal systems in the world that define it as such." I'm pretty sure lots of jurisdictions do allow rape to be on even sex, by either sex, but Scotland does not. Balfron 16:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Media attention section

I am confused by the current "media attention" section of the article. It appears to be a list of various films and TV in which people are raped, chosen quite arbitrarily, and mixed in with serious real-life issues such as the Duke lacrosse case. Doesn't seem very helpful in its present form.

I don't really see that this article should have anything in it at all about fictional representations of rape. If it did, it would quickly grow to massive proportions, as the subject is one dealt with quite frequently in literature, film, TV etc; if that information was felt to be useful, perhaps there should be a separate article called something like "representations of rape in popular culture". As far as this article goes, my feeling is that it should attempt to deal with the real-life issue of rape, and that the "media attention" section, if it exists at all, should be about real rape cases.

Even if we do make the "media attention" section about real rape cases, of course, there will still be a question of NPOV, and of representing a global perspective. How do we choose which cases to include? Again, I'm worried the section might grow out of all proportion quite quickly.

I haven't made any changes to the article yet; I would welcome other editors' opinions. -- TinaSparkle 15:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It feels seriously inconguous to me to have a "media attention" section here in the first place. Usually the point of having a "media attention" section in article X is to demonstrate by example that mainstream media do not consider X to be an obscure matter of no interest to the general population, and/or something made up in school one day. But this presupposes that it was ever in doubt that media would spend time on X at all. Which is obviously not the case for rape.

We don't have any "media attention" sections in Iraq War, Harry Potter, Pope Benedict XVI, or Juvenile delinquency, though these subjects receive plenty of attention from the media. It is self-evident that the media attend to those matters, and it is equally self-evident that rape is not a specialized subject unworthy of mainstream media attention. –Henning Makholm 16:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you. Certainly what's there at the moment isn't worth keeping, as it seems to be little more than a collection of indiscriminate information. If no one produces an argument in its support in the next couple of days, I'll delete the section. -- TinaSparkle 09:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

So removed. –Henning Makholm 07:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sociobiological section

The paragraph about orangutans is unclear and uncited. It says young males rape, but then it says males remain in the trees and call to females. I'm assuming what is meant here is mature males. The bit about killing infants is not in scientific language and I question whether it is appropriate there at all. If it could be shown that female orangutans regularly kill offspring resulting from rape, that would be useful data, but what is there right now sounds like an opinion.Bifemmefatale 17:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you: that paragraph was weird, unreferenced, and just seemed like someone was trying to promote an agenda (and not very clearly at that). I have removed it. I've also removed a claim about women's ability to conceive under stress that was referenced to some website called "Holistic Online", as per WP:RS, and a claim about the desirability of female choice that was researched to an undergraduate assignment. Particularly on articles like this, which are obviously controversial, it's incredibly important to have things referenced to proper reliable sources. -- TinaSparkle 09:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

New Link

Hi,

Would it be possible to add a new link on your main page please.

The Link I would like to have added is www.thelighthousesanctuary.com

The Lighthouse Sanctuary is a web site for rape and abuse sufferers and survivors.

Many thanks for considering this request.

Kind regards, Keith

(Woppy64 02:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

Keith, although I am personally in sympathy with organizations that help rape survivors, I do not really believe that it is appropriate to include such things in a Misplaced Pages article. I think this on the grounds of Misplaced Pages not being a directory of information, and of Misplaced Pages not being a forum for advocacy or advertising of any kind. See what other editors say, though, and perhaps consider making your request to rape survivor websites or blogs. -- TinaSparkle 17:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for your response.

I have no wish to sound rude as that is not my intention but I have say I am somewhat mystified as to why you would not include our link as you already have an external links section which list a number of organisations, some of which we have worked closely with in helping them with there own work.

May I respectfully ask that you reconsider you decision on having The Lighthouse Sanctuary linked to in your external links section.

Once again I apologise if I sound rude as this is far from my intention.

Kind regards, Keith Woppy64 11:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Keith, you don't sound rude, though you do sound a little like you're new to Misplaced Pages. I haven't made a decision; I have simply made a contribution to the debate. I hope some other people might share their thoughts here, too. Nothing I say is final. At the moment, as far as I can see, there are quite a lot of sites listed for sexual abuse survivors. I am not sure of the politics of this as pertains to Misplaced Pages, though I am concerned about the implications as regards the Misplaced Pages guidelines I listed above. Misplaced Pages isn't actually the place to go if one is looking for a support community. It's an encyclopedia. I would dispute the inclusion of most of the organizations that are already listed, though I have not yet deleted any as I am interested in the responses and feelings of others on this issue - yourself included. Please do bear in mind, though, that this is not a personal issue, or a question of how we individually, emotionally or politically feel about rape. It is a question of what is right to list in an encyclopedia according to Misplaced Pages's guidelines.

I'm sure you will appreciate that Misplaced Pages is not a directory, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a forum for advertising, and that it is not reasonable to expect every single organization for survivors of rape to have a listing on this page - otherwise it would be unbelievably long. My feeling is that the appropriate response of editors here would be to take the lead from the notability guidelines, and provide perhaps a couple of links to internationally notable charities/lobbyists for rape survivors. I do not think that listing every existing group is appropriate or desirable. My feeling is that the present list of external links needs to be reduced rather than expanded. I would, however, welcome the opinions of other editors on this matter, and I certainly mean no disparagement, relative or absolute, of the Lighthouse Sanctuary. If we are going to include support groups, I see no reason why the Lighthouse Sanctuary should not be included. -- TinaSparkle 19:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree mostly with TinaSparkle's points. The external links section has been larger and more unwieldy before, but the selection of surviving links still seems a bit random. It may be worth noting that this article is the #1 Google hit for "rape", so it is quite conceivable that rape victims will come here when trying to find a way to react. This would seem to give us a certain responsibility to point victims in the right direction, without losing sight of our encyclopedic mandate. I'm unsure that a truly internationally relevant link can be found, but perhaps we should aim to link a single well-reputed relevant charity in each English-speaking country, preferably one that has lots of links to other more specialized (by religion, geography or other circumstances) organizations. –Henning Makholm 20:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion links in further reading section in this article should lead to web site that provide additional info or researches into subject. Such as articles publishing statistics, laws overview, details into history of rape, etc. Survivor web sites should not be there. And any web page that not provide non trivial and/or non significant information should be excluded from that section. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to present facts about subject matter, not link to services surrounding topic. As for suggestion to have just one most notable link for every English language country - there would be no excuse not to include the second/third url etc.

On the other hand the article itself could discuss survivor help movement. With an examples and links to organizations that mentioned in such section. But I really not sure of such movement notability and needs to include paragraph about it into rape. Eventually Misplaced Pages should have separate article about such thing, and that article should be linked through See also part. It would be really nice if you, Keith, or someone who know about that subject can write article (possibly short one) discussing rape survival help (u can come up with better name). I would say it is best way to deal with this request, and links to notable charities will be appropriate in that article.

As for inclusion of hhtp://thelighthousesanctuary.com - as long as other similar organizations listed in external links - I doubt that someone will revert your edit, if you simply add that web site. But eventually that section should be and will be cleaned up. TestPilot 04:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Opps, Rape crisis center and Effects of rape and aftermath#Psychological consequences and treatment is already there. TestPilot 04:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

With regard to this, posted by TestPilot, "And any web page that not provide non trivial and/or non significant information should be excluded from that section."

You have basically implied that sites such as The Lighthouse Sanctuary and the subject matter they cover are trivial and insignificant and I find that very offencive.

Also The Lighthouse Sanctuary is not just a "survivor web site" it does provide additional information on the subject of rape.

The Lighthouse Sanctuary also works very closely with government agencies and other leading organisations, helping them in all areas pertaining to the subject of rape.

If you do not wish to have The Lighthouse Sanctuary link listed here then that is fine but please never imply again that the work of The Lighthouse Sanctuary, and other similar organisations, is trivial or insignificant.

Woppy64 23:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Keith, I'm sure your organization is valuable and I don't think TestPilot was implying otherwise. He was merely discussing whether or not support organizations for survivors belong in the external links section of the article. We just had a very similar discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Incest#The_links_in_question) pertaining the Incest article and came to the agreement that while Misplaced Pages is not a directory, one or two representative support organizations for survivors do belong in the article. The danger is to list too many similar resources as opposed to a few representative of different services. The other issue for me is that Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort and contributing only by adding a link may be seen as self-promotion. Searching for Orion 15:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

pov tag

I added the pov tag to the article to reflect concerns I have this article contains falsehoods, misrepresentation, and misreporting designed to pander to the gender-feminist political positions on rape. Many authors within and without feminism have weighed in on the manipulation of rape rhetoric, rape reporting and rape representation by Establishment femininists. The debate about rape incidence is ongoing with several authors suggesting that men rape men more frequently than men rape women today due to the drastic decline of rape in the US. However any pov that counters prevailing feminist political pov is usually censored or silenced here. That is why I tagged the article. Anacapa 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Content like the following is what seems to be 'problematic' to some editors intent on pandering to the 'woman as victim-saint' line in this article. However, NPOV goes both ways. Women are gaining increasing notoriety for female-male rapes as well.

The issues I have include reverse-sexism in the definition, pandering to feminist political agenda, using "men's rights say" or other slandering to conceal or silence official reports of female-male rape, reporting incidence as fact when there is much debate about rape reporting and in general taking the standard feminist fearmongering line against all reports to the contrary. Many feminist authors have debunked feminist fearmongering and myth making about rape. To censor or ignore their concerns is pandering to pov. Anacapa 03:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I edited/added content below which is as much a part of rape as anything else in this article. However, I anticipate that those editors who take a male-bashing reverse-sexist POV about rape will again try to censor such content which flies in the face of their shamelessly sexist victim-saint ideologies. This is the very kind of reverse-sexist censorship I am concerned about here. To those editors who are busy accusing me of POV I ask that you check your own before you make me the bad guy here.

The word rape originates from the Latin verb rapere: to seize or take by force. The word originally had no sexual connotation and is still used generically in English. The history of rape, and the alterations of its meaning, is quite complex. The Latin term for the act of rape itself is raptus. Historically, rape has been seen (incorrectly) as a 'female' issue. Rape is now considered to be a crime committed against members of either sex, by either sex. That said, most historical accounts of rape refer to male-female forms of rape.

Male-male rape has historically been shrouded in secrecy, probably due to the stigma men associate with being raped by other men. Male-male rape is commonly thought to occur inside correctional institutions where reporting is difficult or impossible. Today, male-male rape is seen as common in the United States, but is rarely reported, acknowledged or prosecuted due to the settings in which it occurs.

Female-male rape has historically been considered impossible due to the fact that male erectile response is required for woman to rape a man, thus making female-male sexual coercion appear impossible. However, it is now known that males can experience sexual arousal during rape, that women can and do rape men, and that the consequences to the male survivor are serious. Although research of female-male rape is rare, recent mass media reports have shown that it is more common than once thought. Many authors have noted significant social and legal doublestandards that inhibit equitable reporting, prosecution and sentencing of women who rape men and boys.

Historically, the the rape of females by females has been considered a taboo topic. Rape of women and girls by women is the final frontier of rape research and reporting. However, a number of reports show that female-female rape is a reality.

Many developments in law took place during the twentieth century. These included landmark decisions by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda that defined (male-female) rape as an institutionalized weapon of war and a crime of genocide. Although rape as a war crime is primarily committed by men, in 2003, the first woman was prosecuted for using (male-female) rape as a crime against humanity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anacapa (talk • contribs) 04:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved POV tag to section u cited above. If u really think whole article should be tagged - feel free to put it back. TestPilot 05:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Rapist

I noticed the rapist article needs some work and I feel way out of my league. I've committed a cardinal sin in creating a section only to contain an external link, but I'm not sure how to edit the information so it's not just a copy-paste... most of what I do is cleanup stuff usually. Someone please take over for me! Kuronue 22:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

"Most experts believe the primary cause of rape is an aggressive desire to dominate the victim rather than an attempt to achieve sexual fulfillment."

If you're going to quote "most experts" as saying a sexual act isn't about sex and put it in the opening paragraph, a citation for this statement should be the foremost priority for improving the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.167.147.162 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC).

I think the claim of "most experts" is accurate. There are literally thousands of articles written on this subject. The above statement "a sexual act isn't about sex..." is telling. The author believes that rape is a sexual act, but rape isn't sex; it is sexual in nature. The traditional definition of rape was carnal knowledge by force or duress. "Most experts" are looking at the motivation behind the use of force or duress and they ask the question, "Why is the criminal using the force, what does he seek to gain or gratify in himself by using force?" The statement of "most experts" is actually very conservative. The idea that rape is about sex is held most frequently by non-experts who are not familiar with the law review, criminology, and psychology articles written on the subject. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of experts in several different fields have come to the consensus that rapists seek gratification through domination over their victims. This is what they teach at police academies, law schools, and psychology classes. Some high school health textbooks from 10 years ago say the same thing: rape=control. The mental state of control is related to many other crimes such as domestic violence and stalking. This is why the frequency of women who are the victims of first time domestic violence or rape is higher for those who have been stalked than it is for the majority of the population. If you want the proof, look at the legislative history of any state that has an anti-stalking statute. The purpose of such a statute is to prevent sexual violence against the victim. Stalking is not primarily about sexual gratification, but its link to rape is clear. The claim of "most experts" is accurate and does not require a quotation. A simple google search should have been this person's first clue that they spoke too soon. Legis Nuntius 22:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the claim has been sourced nicely now, I am unsure what the purpose of the above outburst is. However, it still needs to be contradicted: One of Misplaced Pages's core policies is that even accurate claims do need sourcing, unless it is a claim that no reasonable reader could possibly doubt. That is, we do not source a claim that the sky is blue or water is wet, but claims that are marginally more doubtful than that do need to be attributed and sourced. You acknowledge that much of the general population does believes that rape is about sex. That alone warrants sourcing of any claim otherwise. Telling readers to do "simple google searches" is not an acceptable substitute for sourcing a challengeable claim. Misplaced Pages does not accept random websites as trustworthy sources, and we should not expect our readers to do that either. –Henning Makholm 23:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the above "outburst", as you call it, was to debate the position that rape is sex rather than an act of domination. If you read the wikipedia policy on talk page guidelines, you will see that discussion of rape on the rape talk page is an appropriate topic. Discussion of wikipedia policies is not and I would ask that you put such discussions on my talk page. I am not certain that labeling someone's post as an "outburst" falls within wikipedia's guidelines. I have never come across an article from a reputable source that makes the assertion that rapists rape because they want to have sex. How would one begin such a search? Possibly with this website.It is ironic that wikipedia is most often one of the top ten results on a search engine. Does this imply that wikipedia should not accept itself as a "trustworthy source"? Legis Nuntius 19:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want to "debate the position that rape is sex rather than an act of domination"? Nobody seems to have asserted that position, and anyway Misplaced Pages is not a debating society. It certainly is an appropriate use of a talk page to discuss how Misplaced Pages policies apply to the article in question. You seem to be saying that simply because the claim is true it should not be sourced. That is an utter and complete misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages's sourcing policy. The policy of sourcing claims apply to true claims as well as false claims - in fact it applies more to true claims, because demonstrably false claims should not be sourced; they should be removed (or replaced with a true claim that so-and-so says such-and-such). Your failure to find a respectable sources for a different claim than the one in the article has absolutely no bearing on whether we need to source the claim that actually does appear in the article. Finally: No, Misplaced Pages articles do not count as a respectable source for the purpose of writing Misplaced Pages. –Henning Makholm 20:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The above anonymous user failed to find the reference at the bottom of the article, and instead posted the above challenge. There is no reason to cite it in the introduction. It is common criminal defense that a date rape was just sex. This user characterized rape as a "sexual act". It is the public policy of this country to debunk the rape myth that men can have an uncontrollable need to sexually gratify themselves and therefore cannot stop when told "no." I was justified in challenging a claim similar to the same line of thinking. Such thinking needs to be debated and not defended. Your tone of calling a post an "outburst in need of contradiction" and your post immediately above borders on an ad hominem. Your above statement mischaracterizes my posts and then proceeds to argue against that position. A "failure to find a respectable source" is a good reason to use google, that was my point. "Your failure to find a respectable source for a claim has absolutely no bearing" and "I understand that you did not find a source, but I do not think that relates", what is the difference? Tone. Tone speaks to the credibility of an argument because of the ad hominem fallacy. Be mindful of tone. The anonymous user's post was not very tactful because a rape victim could see the above claim: rape = sexual act, after her assailant claimed the rape was just sex. Someone unfamiliar with American rape prosecutions or the American public education system may not have seen that inference. The anonymous user makes the declaration that his claim is the "foremost priority for improving the article" when this claim is baseless and not tactful. I assert that before someone challenges facts on a sensitive topic that they should at least do a google search before they declare their claim as a foremost priority. Possibly, they should read the entire article before declaring what the foremost priority for that article is. The rape page is different from other wikipedia articles; it requires greater tact. I do not think this anonymous user is deserving of further defense. If you think otherwise, contact a wikipedia moderator and remove this discussion to my talk page. Legis Nuntius 03:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not a "common defence" that date rape is "just sex". The defence is to claim consent, not to claim that non-consensual acts are "just sex". There is no defence in law that rape is a sexual act and it is absurd to suggest that there is. Your argument creates a false anthithesis between "sex" and "act of domination". By implying that violating and dominating acts of sex are somehow impossible, you are the one who is sustaining a dangerous myth. An example is your misapplication of archaic terms like "carnal knowledge", as though this is somehow something different from "sex". You are the one who is obfuscaing matters by conflating sex as an act with sensuality. Paul B 09:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion Mr. Barlow! I think you are confused both by what I wrote and American law. The difference between sex and rape in most jurisdictions is a lack of consent; others still require a showing of continual resistance or the use of force. Others require sexual contact, while others require penetration or intercourse. The legal defense would be tailored to the specific jurisdiction. The defense given by the perpetrator on the police report in a date rape case is "yes we had sex but it was sex, it wasn't rape." A police report typically does not give a legal defense such as "Perp stated that sexual penetrative genital contact did occur and he was not mistaken as to belief of informed consent and circumstances from the perspective of a reasonably objective standard were such that he was not recklessly mistaken as to alleged lack of informed consent." But, from your familiarity with American law classes and police reports you already know this. I think you are confused about the legal definition of "carnal knowledge". I refer you to the article, where I give the legal definition and cite the criminal law treatise in which it may be found. I believe that your dictionary or sense of the English language may not coincide exactly with 17th century legal definitions of the word. Such a topic rarely comes up in an American criminal law class, so the confusion is understandable. It would be nigh impossible to find in a google search, so I would not refer you there, and I sincerely doubt you have an interest in researching the usage of "archaic terms" through the centuries. I took the rest of your comment as a little muddled. "Conflating sex as an act with sensuality?" Not sure where you got that one. I took such quotes as "you are the one who is sustaining a dangerous myth" as an attempt at provocation. Regardless, thanks for your sudden contribution to the discussion on interpreting my previous posts. This string of comments is becoming less about rape and more about my previous posts, in which case I believe it is time for a moderator to get involved. Legis Nuntius 20:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the meaning of the word "sex" is determined by "American law" (though I see no evidence here that the word is so enshrined in law. Your examples are about interpreting colloquial expressions from defendants). Perhaps you are not aware that a)the meaning of words is determined by usage. b) that there are a number of other jurisdictions in this world, and Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect a worldwide view. On a), the primary meaning of the word "sex" has changed over the centuries, but it currently refers in usage to a range of acts, which encompass those traditionally referred to as "carnal knowledge". "Conflating sex as an act with sensuality" was a phrase designed to draw attention to your confusion. I was using the word "sensuality" to clarify that you are assuming that the word "sex" is identical in meaning to "consensual sex". Indeed your own position makes the very word "consensual" redundant. The fact that it is not, and that the phrase "non-consensual sex" is widely used indicates your error Yes, I think the tone of your posts are indeed part of the problem as far as clarifying the issues is concerned. By all means bring in a mediator. Paul B 00:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You place special emphasis on usage; I believe usage shows that "sex" is identical in meaning to "consensual sex" in the phrase "He had sex with her". No one would construe that such a phrase would mean "He raped her", nor would there be any doubt as to whether or not a rape had occurred. This is not a colloquial expression. The word "consent" is an invention of the law in reference to the present topic. As far as the law dictating the meaning of words, your quotation gives a good example of that. The author of this web page looks to the Colorado statute to find the meaning of rape as "non-consensual sex." It is ironic that the Colorado statute has since been repealed and rewritten. There is no mention of the word "consent" any longer, but instead "calculating to gain submission". Governments influence word usage through policy and public education programs. It could be that the usage of "consent" in reference to rape could be phased out in preference to other terminology that gets at the problem better. I am indeed aware of the "other jurisdictions in this world". The law journals in England cite to Canadian and American authorities on rape with great frequency. For an example of a law review article from the UK, see Jenny McEwan, I Thought She Consented: Defeat of the Rape Shield or the Defence that Shall Not Run, Crim. L.R. 2006, Nov, 969-980. Nations born of English common law systems take special notice of the laws in sister jurisdictions. Curious that England, Canada, and the US all enacted rape shield laws. It is because former English common law systems have dealt with the problem in substantially similar or the exact same way. I gathered that you believed I was not taking other jurisdictions into account. I hope this clears up the misunderstanding. Legis Nuntius 03:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

History

Question for all: Rape used to have a section about "rape as a tool of war", along with mention of it being most recently used in Bosnia. The mention, as well as the entire section, is gone. While this is an ugly concept, perhaps uglier than rape itself, it still merits a valid mention. Rape has been part of the modus operandi of conquerers throughout history. Was this section removed for a reason?

--Luno 21:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just added some info to the history section.

--Survivor 00:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This information contradicts historical treatises on medieval law.

In antiquity and until the late Middle Ages, rape was seen in most cultures less as a crime against a particular girl or woman than against the male figure she "belonged" to. Thus, the penalty for rape was often a fine, payable to the father or the husband whose "goods" were "damaged". That position was later replaced in many cultures by the view that the woman, as well as her lord, should share the fine equally. In some laws the woman might be married to the rapist instead of his receiving the legal penalty. This was especially prevalent in laws where the crime of rape did not include, as a necessary part, that it be against the woman's will, thus dividing the crime in the current meaning of rape, and a means for a man and woman to force their families to permit marriage.

Rape was given the punishment of death in most cultures including ancient Greece and Rome. It was only in the last few hundred years when this was changed reflecting the "eye for an eye" theory of capital punishment. Kinsmen of the victim would enact the punishment themselves, and this was condoned by law. Even the seemingly innocent consensual sex between a virgin and a married or unmarried man was grounds for the tort of seduction, where the parents or maiden could sue the seducer for monetary damages. The unsubstantiated and contradictory passage will be removed. I will quote an article on medieval law concerning rape instead.Legis Nuntius 00:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is substantial source material available supporting Survivor's paragraph. Deuteronomy, in particular, responded to rape with the precise punishment described:

22:28 - If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
22:29 - then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.

Furthermore, throughout Hammurabi's Code, the female's consent is never addressed, merely a crime against the husband or betrothed. In addition, a virgin was exempted from death for her naivete & held blameless.

#129 - If a man's wife is found with another man, both shall be tied and thrown into the water, but the husband may pardon his wife.
#130 - If a man violate the wife (betrothed or child-wife) of another man, who has never known a man, and still lives in her father's house, and sleep with her and be found, this man shall be put to death, but the wife is blameless.

The Code also describes that death is the desert of a man caught sleeping with his son's wife, however an exception is carved out if the wife was a virgin, in which case the father owes her financial compensation and the betrothal is voided.

#155 - If a man betroth a girl to his son, and his son have intercourse with her, but he (the father) afterward defile her, and be surprised, then he shall be bound and cast into the water (drowned).
#156 - If a man betroth a girl to his son, but his son has not known her, and if then he defile her, he shall pay her half a gold mina, and compensate her for all that she brought out of her father's house. She may marry the man of her heart.

I suspect these are sufficient to return the offending paragraph with the addition of citations and some minor reworking.
Some more fun references:
Women and the Law in Early Ireland
History of Sexual Violence
Women in Late Antiquity: Pagan and Christian Lifestyles --CheshireKatz 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of word "Innocence"

I think that the use of the word "innocence" in the introduction is a weasel-word and ought to be changed. Implicit in the use of "underage innocence" is a particular value system which construes that sexuality is inherently unwholesome. It's also misleading and inaccurate--the issue is that people below a certain age are deemed legally and ethically to be unable to give consent to certain sexual acts. 69.37.165.246 17:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I completely agree. It has been changed. -- TinaSparkle 17:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

\:It's not weasel, it's just wrong. Good point. Paul B 22:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Creating a new article

I think we need an article on rape in all animals, giving only a small mention of it in humans. Forced copulations occur throughout the animal kingdom, even in the tiniest invertebrates. Saying 'it's not against the animals will because animals don't have will' is fairly unimportant - many animals are clearly distressed by being raped and try to avoid it, and even where they can't reasonably be said to have 'will' it can still be defined in terms of fitness. How about forced copulation? This could then be a small subsection of rape and Non-human animal sexuality. Richard001 02:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what value such an article would serve. I don't think that animal sexuality has much to do with this article, which is about the concept and crime of rape - I'm not aware of any attempt to apply anti-rape legislation to animals. Of course, if such a thing has verifiably happened, there could be a note of it here, though it might sit more happily in the Laws about rape article. There is already an article called Sociobiological theories of rape, which covers any implications of forced copulation in animals as it may be analogous to humans. And the Non-human animal sexuality article already has a section on coercive sex, though I note it lacks sources. Perhaps, if you have reliable sources that discuss forced copulation in animals as rape, that would be the best place for them? -- TinaSparkle 08:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Understanding the behavior in other animals is important in understanding it in humans. It's not going to be a legal article, but a biological one. The section on sociobiological theories could then link to both articles for readers interested in a 'natural history' view on the subject. I know of a good place to start researching it that will point me in the direction of further material, so I'll start off on the animal sexuality article and take it from there. Richard001 01:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Statistics are weak

The statistics seem quite weak to me. The number of rape victims as a percentage of the population is a pretty often researched number. And sure, it varies quite a bit, but the 0.24% and 0.04% numbers quoted in this article are on the low side, IMHO. And what the hell is the "National Crime Victimization Survey"? The link just goes to an abstract written by Anthony D. Amato. Some law student for all I know. That's quite misleading. (The abstract even hints at a political bias.)

The next line begins "But other government surveys . . . ", apparently falsely implying that Anthony D. Amato is a government institution ;-)

Then, this line finishes with ". . . and report a higher victimization rate." well, what's the rate?! It's 2.8-4.9% of college women are raped in a year. Shouldn't that be included in the article. Maybe to get both sides of the spectrum?

Another confusing thing about this statistic, is it's not clear what it is indicating. I assume that it indicates how many women, as a percentage of all women are raped in any one single year. Maybe the reason the number seems low to me, is it also includes the elderly and the very young.

Another statistic that I find even more interesting and informing, is the number of women who have *ever* been raped. Here is a study done by the US Dept of Health and Human Services, and National Institute of Mental Health, reporting that 26% of women 18-24 years of age, have been raped at one time in their lives. http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=108037

And, this article summarizes a number of studies, finding the range to be from 2% to 56% of women have ever been raped. The studies are cited. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/welcome.htm

208.48.16.9 00:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's get our history straight

There were two diametrically opposed statements about how rape was "viewed historically": whether as a "woman's issue" or as a 'crime against her father or husband". I removed the following, which seemed less accurate than ther other - but it definitely needs a citation at the minimum.

"Historically, rape has been seen (incorrectly) as a 'female' issue, an act of violence by a man against a woman. Rape is now considered to be a crime committed by either sex against members of either sex." NuclearWinner 23:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The National Crime Victimization Survey is a credible tool used by the FBI, along with the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) to collect crime & victimization data. These reports are often compared to ascertain figures regarding unreported crimes by comparing the number of reported victimizations during the past year with the number of reported crimes during the past year. While there are some issues with these reporting systems, they are the primary official figures from the US government.

Citation number 23, and the statements related to it, are completely inaccurate and should be deleted immediately. The figures used in the article are inaccurate and, more to the point, hopelessly biased.

I don't believe this quote, supposedly from Linda Fairstein

The following material is completely inconsistent with everything I have found about Linda Fairstein on the web.  :"* Linda Fairstein, former head of the New York County District Attorney’s Sex Crimes Unit, noted, “There are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen. ... It’s my job to bring justice to the man who has been falsely accused by a woman who has a grudge against him, just as it’s my job to prosecute the real thing.”" If this book really contains this quote, someone, please substantiate it. NuclearWinner 23:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

statistics section needs to change from a debate to encyclopedic writing

Right now, the Statistics section reads like a debate between those who think it's over-reported and those who think it's under-reported. Those issues should be condensed and summarized, and other info about statistics should be added. Guanxi 17:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this looks rather hopeless. I think what the article ought to say is something along the lines of: Such-and-such hard statistics exist (number of rapes reported, rapists convicted), but the relation between these numbers and the actual incidence of rape is very controversial. Here are reasons why they numbers might be too low (bla bla bla ) and here are reasons why the numbers might be too high (bla bla bla ). Nobody really knows how large any of those effects are. Some secondary statistics attempt specifically to estimate the ratio between official statistics and the truth (bla bla bla ), but the methodology and underlying assumptions of those efforts have also been broadly criticised () cannot be said to have reduced the total amount of controversy.

... but unfortunately I don't have half the sources it would need to support such sweeping claims of controversy to Misplaced Pages standards. What to do? We cannot let stupidisms such as "most rapes-63% are not even reported to police" stand; I have trouble imagining how one might possibly know that fraction with an uncertainty that allows even one significant digit. –Henning Makholm 23:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

In Art

Might discuss treatment of subject in art and more common treatment in cinema. --Samuel O'Malley 17:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Again removed material not aimed at improving the article

Trust me, it was loathsome and does not belong on a talk page. NuclearWinner 17:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Women Raping

While I am not denying that there may be instances of women raping those who are not just underage, the source used here doesn't seem appropriate for such a strong topic. It is written in poor English and lacks many names and places that the rapes took place, sounding little better than a collection of rumors. 67.164.16.191 05:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, so please go ahead and remove it. You've given several good reasons. NuclearWinner 00:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan

I have temporarily commented out the following: "In Pakistan, under the Hudood Ordinance in force from 1979 to 2006, the definition of rape required a woman to have supporting evidence from four male eye-witnesses. The sexual act was otherwise considered adultery."

Could a woman accuse her husband of rape? As written, if she did and did not have four male eye-witnesses, it would be considered adultery.

Also, for such a strong claim, I would like a cited source.

Mdbrownmsw 20:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

From the citations at Hudood Ordinance, this claim appears to be a matter of notable controversy. One reference claims that the four-witnesses criterion was not a requirement for proving rape as such, but a threshold for "upgrading" the sentence of a rapist from civil punishment to some more draconian religiously-mandated punishment. It appears that Pakistan, in order to maintain compatibility with religious tradition, distinghishe formally between rape (defined religously) and non-consentual adultery, relying in the latter case on the general principle that a non-willing participant in a crime is not to be punished.

As for a woman accusing her husband of raping (her), the accusation would probably be considered meaningless in the first place. That is not particular to Pakistan or Islamic legal tradition: Google finds various reliable-looking claims that jurisdictions such as England, the Netherlands, Germany or Switzerland formally considered intra-marital rape to be a contradiction in terms until somewhen in the 1990s. –Henning Makholm 09:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Suprise sex

I think the term rape is a little too negative and POV, and would like to change this article's title to "suprise sex" - does anyone have any opinions regarding this proposal?Sennen goroshi 19:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. (Monty Python mode on). "You're a looney.". That is all. SirFozzie 15:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Survivor of Rape

I was raped at a young age and got pregnant and I think it would be nice to add a section to this article called Wikipedian Rape Survivors where wikipeidans who went through it can share there stories. I vote that we allow all to edit it and share our stories. The millions who read wikipedia might love to see we support them and we feel their pain 75.109.98.208 04:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Such sites already exist, and that is not what wikipedia is for.

Mdbrownmsw 12:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You dont know what rape does! It destroys and I would love to support people and im going to add my story whether you like it or not! 75.109.98.208 22:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What you think I do or do not know is not the issue. Your story, however painful and devistating for you has no place on wikiipedia. - Mdbrownmsw 12:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

After reading your comments on the Talk:Sexual intercourse page, made about 3 hours and 30mins before your claims to be a rape victim, I am a little skeptical regarding your motives for contributing to wikipedia content. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Sexual_intercourse&diff=prev&oldid=162001048 Sennen goroshi 07:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

75.109.98.208 is a definite troll. At here, "she" is a survivor of rape. At Talk:Sexual_intercourse he wants to upload a picture of himself, supposedly 18, having sex with a 15 year old.

Another time, we have the return of "Salverland", a little piece of "imagination" being added to wikipedia here and there, under 75.109.101.139.

He's been here before, one year ago, when he was 20 and his gf was 14 (now they're 18 and 15).

Mdbrownmsw 15:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

desire vs. agression

The article said "Most experts believe the primary cause of rape is an aggressive desire to dominate the victim rather than an attempt to achieve sexual fulfillment."

While this is certainly an opinion advocated by many people, there are several things about it that are problematic; First and foremost, could someone produce some objective studies which give any reason to believe the above view? From the sources I've read, the 'domination' vs. sexualization' dichotomy seems to be primarily a political reaction to the sexualization of rape, rather than the result of any systematic study of the actual motives of most rapists.

As a counterexample, some forms of pornography depict rape, which strongly suggests that some people associate domination with sexual fulfillment rather than seeing them as mutually exclusive.

Second, on what basis is this asserted to be the majority opinion of experts? That seems quite difficult to back up. If this viewpoint is still controversial, it should be presented as such, rather than as a foregone conclusion of the majority of experts. --Ryan Wise 00:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The version you originally had said "Some experts, in an effort to distance rape from consensual sex". How was the motivation of "some experts" determined? - Mdbrownmsw 17:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

See causes of rape, which has been linked to.

The feminist theory of rape asserts that what feminists see as male domination of female in socio-political and economic domains is the ultimate cause of most rapes.

Brownmiller is pretty clearly trying to tie rape into other forms of domination. She de-emphasises the mechanisms of male arousal and is de-associating rape from other forms of sex. Male arousal, prior to feminist critics like Brownmiller, was considered a primary cause of rapes. So I was operating under the assumption that Brownmiller's intentions (and the intentions of those feminist critics who based their views on her work) squared with her results. Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say "in an attempt to attribute rapes to perceived general social injustice rather than male sexual desire" but that seemed a bit wordy. Either way, I removed the passage since it might be disputed, motivations having many layers to them. I'm not sure why you're arguing about a passage which isn't there any more, though. --Ryan Wise 21:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's good to discuss material after it has been removed. Discussion creates a clearer history, it documents why something was removed. Discussion is also a first step toward getting consensus if an editor wants to reintroduce it. Clearly, this issue of what 'causes' rape is an ongoing discussion on the talk page, be it "the" feminist theory, or sexual desire. (On a side note, there's no such thing as "the" feminist theory, it should be attributed to a particular school of thought, or a given author/wave. Feminists are no more homogeneous than any other group. I think "A feminist theory" is preferable.) Phyesalis 05:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Statistics, please?

Are there any statistics out there from credible sources claiming that revealing clothing can ever be a factor in rape? I don't believe that it can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.168.22 (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems to be an excuse on the part of rape apologists. The way a person is dressed never justifies an attack on their body. Alison88 01:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the matter either way, but saying that a thing is a factor is not the same as justifying it. Not locking my bike up correctly may be a factor in whether it is stolen or not. Stealing my bike is not justified, even if I don't lock it up. It's a poor analogy, but I hope it illustrates the difference. --Ryan Wise 00:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sociobiology?

The sociobiology section reads (at least to me) very much like pseudoscience and rape apology. Suggesting that perhaps some humans (presumably women) make themselves "more available" to rape? Also, this opinion is put forth by Camille Paglia, who is not a sociobiologist but a social critic. This section seems extremely biased, if not dangerous to include for social reasons (giving people reason to justify a brutal crime). Paglia is speaking outside of her field and is being portrayed as an expert. None of the sociobiologists who share her opinion are referenced. Could someone with the power possibly remove or edit this section? Thanks Alison88 02:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You can do it. Be bold. - Mdbrownmsw 04:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mdbrownmsw, but unfortunately at this point I can't; I'm a fairly new registered user and this article is semi-protected. I am not sure how long it will be before I can edit this article but if no one does between now and the time that I am able to, I guess I eventually will. It would be nice if someone who had the power could edit it sooner, rather than later. Alison88 14:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Alison, you can help the process along by posting links or cited info on this talk page. I'm sure other editors (myself included) would be happy to make use of your contributions. Also, if you set up your user/talk pages, other editors can post helpful suggestions there. The other thing you can do is find established editors who will mentor new users. This might help the waiting period. If you have questions (on the article or WP in general), I would be happy to assist you in any way I can. Just leave me a message on my User talk:Phyesalis page.

Per Paglia, she is not a sociobiologist, but a social theorist. Her contributions on the subject are valid. But like I said if you have info that contradicts her position (or other sociobiologists who support her position) you can just post it here for the time being. Hope this helps. Phyesalis 03:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

'Experts' as NPOV

There are a few places where people on one side of a contested issue are described as 'experts' while those who disagree with them are not. Could someone explain, at least here on the talk page, who (specifically) qualifies as an 'expert' and while kind of objective study anyone referred to as an expert has based their ideas upon? I assume, for instance, that the Catholic Church would not be described as an expert in the matter of rape, despite their study of the matter. Describing only one side of an argument as having expertise, particularly when their views are based more on social and political criticism than methodical study, seems NPOV. If I'm missing something here, maybe someone could shed some light on the subject. --Ryan Wise 00:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Experts

This opening sentence... Rape is a form of assault where one individual forces another to have sexual intercourse against that person’s will. Some experts assert the primary cause of rape is an aggressive desire to dominate the victim rather than an attempt to achieve sexual fulfillment

...should state the word "experts" because as I stated in my edit summary of changing it back to that, an expert on something is someone who studies a great deal in that particular field and thought of by others who also study in that particular field as having great knowledge on the subject. People call these individuals experts. Most sources call these individuals experts. We shouldn't be calling them groups, as if they are a part of a cult or something. Why are we trying to make this article seem "more neutral" in that way? That's not more neutral, it's just off. Rape isn't even a neutral topic. Flyer22 00:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an argument from authority on a controversial issue. Maintaining an NPOV tone is especially important on such topics. It's worth asking what kind of evidence a particular group bases their expertise on. Though if it's preferable, I could maintain balance by citing other experts instead. --Ryan Wise 00:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Saying "maintaining an NPOV tone is especially important on such topics" has nothing to do with the fact these people are experts. That's what they are called, just as experts on pedophilia are called experts...not groups or social critics. I'm changing it back to what it is and originally was titled, unless a group of editors here insist on your wording. Flyer22 01:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"Some" or "most"? "Experts" or "groups"? Unless we have a verifiable statement from a reliable source any variation of those is POV. Name names and cite sources. - Mdbrownmsw 14:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel that we need a source (of any kind) for the word "groups", seeing as that is just identifying a group of whatever, no different than saying the word people. The word "group" doesn't have to mean an official group or anything. As for the words "most" or "experts"...yes, a valid source is needed for those, but perhaps the source already provided with the wording "most experts" in this article cites that. If anyone has access to that book, perhaps they can clarify. As for the word "some"...I feel the same about that word as I do about the word people. However, the word "some" should be used sparingly in an article on Misplaced Pages, because Misplaced Pages doesn't like it that much. Flyer22 15:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to go with 'most' since the new source on Felson and Tedeschi's work provided reluctant testimony that the view predominates, at least within academic circles. It's not a rigorous measure, but reluctant testimony seems a good second best. As long as that opposing expert POV is kept, or something similar, I'm fine with what's there now. --Ryan Wise 19:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We should remove that "attribution needed" tag from the word "most" there and add the cite that also spots most as being true in this case. I'll go do that now. Flyer22 19:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"female assailant" and "acute stress disorder"

"

or may involve the forcing of a vagina or anus onto a penis by a female assailant.

"

Shouldn't gender be non-specific? No need for "female assailant".

Also, "acute stress disorder" should be "post traumatic stress disorder" which is common in sexual assault/rape/abuse etc.

LaraS (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Only females have vaginas. Paul B (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent enhansements notified for further appraisal and enhansement

, including reference from a prior edition of Encyclopedia Britannica.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

Um...I'm completely against your recent edits to this article. Those edits completely redefine what rape is and put a different (inaccurate) spin on it. Those are not improvements. Flyer22 02:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The article acknowledges diverse concepts about what is and is not part of the rape experience, which it did not as much do so previously. There are improvements in copyediting, terminology, additional relevant categorisations and referencing from WP:RS (Encyclopaedia Brittannica on the issue). And remember not to wholesale revert/suppress because you have an issue about a definition that you could have just finetuned.Bosharivale 02:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, your substantial changes - which you are still marking as "minor" edits, by the way - are interjecting substantial amounts of point-of-view language and redefining rape as "self-expression" in the lead, which one would suggest is rather an incorrect way of defining it. The inclusion of the word "alleged" throughout the article is questionable, as is the change of the word "victim" to "complainant." This suggests that your belief is a person who has been raped is not a victim of a crime, which is incorrect. You have also changed the section on the effects of rape to completely twist it around and make it about false allegations - that is not what the article is about. If you feel that you have some beneficial edits you can make to this article, please discuss them here, as this is a major change for an article with a heated history. I will revert to the previous version, as this one is unbalanced and inaccurate. Feel free to bring up suggestions for improvements that do not go counter to editing guidelines here. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What am I talking about? What are you talking about? I am talking about what Tony Fox has just summed up so beautifully. Thank you, Tony. I am now going to go check out the Date rape article and remove any inaccuracies I see there as well. Flyer22 03:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What's -not- self-expressive about coercing another person to sex? Tell us. Everything's self-expressive about that and it's in no way controversial to admit that people do rape to say something as much as for any other reason. 'Victim' is a glariningly inappropriate and non-neutral term in these contexts and simply must go. The use of it validates only the POV of the complainant whereas we aim to be a neutral, unpresumptive and nonjudgmental reference source so we have no choice other than to prefentially employ the terms 'complainant', 'accused', 'initiating sex participant', and 'noninitiating sex participant' here and in the related articles.

I encourage you to think about it from both perspectives. A person has a regretted sexual experience attempts to smear another as there rapist when, hello, there is another side to the story and its not all so simple, and not apt to this ridiculous 'victim' vs 'rapist' reactive labelling. There are shades of responsibility and accountability between the partnered participants. I shouldn't need to remind that this happens countless times as seen in the cited low investigation, prosecution, and conviction rates for the allegation of it. A person who feels they have been raped (remember, it's a subjective experience) at the end of it all usually proves not be the victim of a crime but is definitely a participant in sex. I have NPOV-proofed the language to reflect this. Your wholesale reversions completely misapply WP:BOLD (it's for boldness in developing content, not stifling it) and just sweep away a lot of useful referenced content and categorisations. Don't be doing that.Bosharivale 04:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What the ....? What's -not- self-expressive about coercing another person to sex, you ask? Rape is NOT a self-expressive act of coercing another person to sex...unless you are talking about statutory rape, and that is not what the lead of this article is talking about. Your definition is not even defined as that in the scholarly field. The word Victim is POV? Are you kidding me?! Right now I need to take a deep breath and cool down, because all of that mess (yes, mess) you have just stated has my blood boiling. I am usually an easy person to work with and don't lose my cool easily. But here "listening" to you? *Steps away* for a bit. Flyer22 05:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Bosharivale, several users have asked you to discuss changes here before making them. Your choice of language is questionable and without reliable citation. It has been discussed here and on your user page. Please try to maintain consensus when making major changes, particularly those that invlove taking liberties with definitions. I am going to revert your changes. Please reconsider your approach, working with consensus makes for a happier and more productive environment. Thank you. Phyesalis 04:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you make a compromise proposal rather than all this repetitive un-WP:BOLD and unpersuasive content raping? That really would be the right way to go forward and resolve this. I'm willing to concede that all of the self-expression, violence, and evolutionary natural selection aspects of the subject should get fair coverage in the lead. The new categorisations should stay unless there's cogent reasoning why they do not apply, but perhaps some of the see-also articles can be removed. In my opinion the Encyclopaedia Brittanica stuff about testing the complainants story is important and not otherwise referred to, married women wanting to extend rape allegations against their lawful husbands is a very controversial development, and there needs to be a small section if not an independent article about the consequences of rape allegations and smears for those who are subjected to them as well as their families. I'm willing to work to come together on this. Are you?Bosharivale 04:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Willing to work together? You? You sure don't show it. You keep changing the lead of this article to a VERY inacurrate definition, you keep marking those edits of yours as minor, when they aren't...and worse...you keep changing this article to that POV version of yours without consensus here. But, really, there can be no consensus for your version because it is inaccurate. Just because some men are falsely accused of rape does not mean that the definition of rape should be changed to that outrageousness that you are injecting into this article. If you want a small section, if not an independent article about the consequences of rape allegations and smears for those who are subjected to them, as well as their families, then go about that...with valid citations, but do not try to change the definition of rape and act as though victims of rape are not truly victims. If you continue this direction of editing, I will take this to an administrator or some form of higher-up to see about either getting you to listen or blocked from editing Misplaced Pages...temporarily or permanently. Flyer22 04:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The simple fact is that your edits - the wholesale changes you have been making - entirely violate a large number of guidelines; while some portions may be of benefit to the article, such as some of the categorizations, the wording changes are skewing the article away from neutral point of view. I challenge you to provide us with a reliable source that states that rape is a form of self-expression, as a starting point. I'm leaving it there for the moment; other editors may wish to change it if they so desire. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, things seem to be getting a bit tense here. Bosharivale, thank you for your conciliatory attitude. However, you have made a number of contraversial edits. Removing the links to Comfort women and trafficking is not appropriate. These are legitimate links. Please do not remove them again. WP applauds boldness, but only when it is well-sourced. Please review WP:R for an overview of acceptable sources. Perhaps it would be best if Bosharivale, Tony and Flyer step back for a day or two. (I won't add any content either.) This would give you time to look up sources for the content you would like to add, B. It would give Flyer time to work on Date Rape, and Tony and I would be free to pursue other interests. Sound good? Phyesalis 06:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Kind of a moot point; Bosharivale has been blocked as a sock of User:DavidYork71. That's one way to solve the problem. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to look at the Date Rape article

I am not an expert on rape, and it looks like there are a lot of people who watch this article carefully who are much more knowledgable about rape than I am. Could someone please look at the date rape article? It is biased to the point of inaccuracy and it seems that some of the same users whose misogynist comments are getting edited out of this article are doing whatever they want with the date rape article.--Madscientistgirl 03:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it. Flyer22 03:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Definition: Rape not always 'assault', though never not (albeit sometimes assaultative) 'self-expression'

I've read the discussion between Bosharivale and Flyer22 above where the latter went rather out of line to vilify the former's thoughtful contributions as a 'mess'. Bosharivale raised the very important nuance that, across the broader animal kingdom and the broader context of human experience inclusive of organised warfare and biological natural selection, rape essentially manifests self-expression and not necessarily assault.

If you restrict rape to just 'an assault' that activates only the human legalistic/criminal justice paridigm and ignores the aspects of rape being something that has been observed across many animal species as an effective breeding and survival strategy - being applied in warfare and group situations. So when a pack of (say) bonobos acts to coerce sex from one of its females its unhelpful to always say "oh that's rape, therefore an assault". Realising threat and social pressure she may have submitted to the biological group self-expression without being attacked and without that kind of rape needing to be fitted into the contrivance that is the assault-concept.

I propose to make immediate change to bring back the 'assaultative self-expression' definition and get rid of the less useful, unhelpfully narrow, and unreferenced 'assault that forces sex' definition that is presently sitting there.

Also, a lot of useful categorisations have been lost as well as the information re testing veracity of complainants of this phenomena. Could we have it all back? Comment please. Cheers.81.177.16.151 16:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Out of line, was I? You're out of line. And I very much assume that you are Bosharivale. To say that rape is "self-expression" is like saying that murder is. Oh, yes, when a man rapes a woman, it's him having coerced sex out of her? Ridiculous. No different than saying that when someone murders someone, the victim coerced the attack. The way you define rape is not what it is and is not how it is defined by experts and scholars. I'm not interested in your POV, and other editors have shown distaste for it as well. A male lion, for instance, who does not get the concept of rape (of course), cannot be compared to a human male who clearly knows that he is hurting the woman and it is an act against her will when he is raping her. Your POV will not be inserted into this article. You can propose it as much as you want. Flyer22 18:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Rape necessary involves sex and sex (in humans and other species) is a mode of self-expression (emotional expression, genetic expression, power-expression, expression of autonomy and independence, etc). Why can't you concede that?

You were 'out of line' in the sense of losing composure and then indulging incivility when civility was being afforded you, that's all that's being said there and you're encouraged to reflect on it.

I hope you'd agree that its an unhealthy development to see attempts to silence some quarters of the discourse and that those sorts of attempts should be to every possible extent resisted.

So acknowledging as you do that rape is a broader concept than just a feminolegalistic-anthropocentric one, and acknowledging as you do that (say) lions and other species are brought into this, then it must be acknowledged that the basic definition must be the one with the broadest applicability. That's obviously the 'self-expression/assaultative expression' (the socio-biological evolutionary definition) definition - not the 'assault + nonconsent' (the human feminist ideology definition) one.

For how is it appropriate to suggest that the 'assault' and 'consent' concepts have applicability to nonhuman participants in rape when for them it is purely a behaviour that's a self-expression? It isn't.

And even as a human myself I know that if I participated in rape it would be purely as a self-expressive act with no consideration of 'assault' or 'consent' coming into the matter. Many rapists report the same thinking at it has been documented in extensive post-event interviews conducted with. Plus the undisputed fact that most subjective rape allegations predicated on the concepts underlying the HFI definition prove not to be objectively sustainable and not to be the basis of a conviction or finding of rape. For non-initiating participants, 'assault' and 'consent' often do not even occur to them except as afterthoughts following regretted sexual experiences that they then wish to characterise as rape. This also has been documented in published professional & clinical reviews based upon extensive interviewing of such participants. So therein the ideological definition that you cling to defending fails even in the human sex interaction context.

So where are we? For the reasons above I say the broader and more basic definition is the way to go, I welcome more views on this and I want to thank you for for having expressed yours, sis. It's a good and worthwhile discussion to be having.

81.177.16.151 06:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anon. If you read the conversation, then you understand that this is a contraversial change that is being proposed, one that so far has failed to find consensus. Further changes without in language without appropriate citation will most likely be considered uncivil. Also, talk page discussion are not for general debate. Conversation should be restricted to article issues. If you would like to propose this change, you will need to find a reliable and verifiable source to cite it. Until that time, continuing to discuss the issue is disruptive. Phyesalis 06:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You won't succeed in silencing by labelling reasoned discussion 'disruption'. Sure it disrupts your presumptions of thought.

Address the logic. You haven't yet. The defining of an animal behaviour and evolutionary strategy should not be tied to anthropocentric and legalistic concepts of 'consent' and 'assault' that most of the time don't even occur in the minds of human participants in that behaviour. As a basic statement, what is wrong or controversial about that?81.177.16.151 06:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to address your logic, it is OR and unsuitable material for advancing an argument about contraverial and contested changes. If you can provide a reliable and verifiable source, then I need only address the manner in which it is represented. This is not the appropriate place to air one's personal philosophy. Please refrain from general commentary unsupported by documentation. Phyesalis 06:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Harman, Danna A woman on trial for Rwanda's massacre Pauline Nyiramasuhuko is the first woman charged with genocide and using rape as a crime against humanity. Christian Science Monitor, Mar 7, 2003
2. Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape. William Morrow & Company, 1993

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists, unused
• NA-Class sociology pages
• NA-importance sociology pages
• NA-Class medicine pages
• NA-importance medicine pages
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• NA-Class Gender studies pages
• NA-importance Gender studies pages
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• NA-Class law pages
• NA-importance law pages
• WikiProject Law articles