Talk:Rape/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

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 Wikipedia's function and in this case, the article would be absurdly long, and it would confuse readers. This should be an overview article.

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

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 [1] 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[2]. 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 [3].

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 [4] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ^talk 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 Wikipedia standards. Neither is "the internet" - you need to reference things formally on Wikipedia. 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 [5], at the Office of Public Sector Information [6] for anything between, or via the Scottish Parliament website [7] 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 Wikipedia article. I think this on the grounds of Wikipedia not being a directory of information, and of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, though I am concerned about the implications as regards the Wikipedia guidelines I listed above. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia's guidelines.

I'm sure you will appreciate that Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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/wiki/Talk:Incest#The_links_in_question) pertaining the Incest article and came to the agreement that while Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Several problems with "causes of rape" section

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

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