Talk:Rape/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

this article is so conflicted

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

Rape of men by women, by perpetrator

Where in the reference [1] are these stats given? Mdwh (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

UK statistics

Can we use [2] to support the statistics section? --Aaronshavit (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a reliable source to me. It's a blog, but it's written by the home editor of the BBC and published by the BBC; both convey sufficient reliability. Another source linked within that source may be useful as well: HomeOfficeStatisticalBulletin --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

most rapes are committed by persons known to the victim?

"Studies have found that most rapes are committed by persons known to the victim, and that only 2% are committed by strangers."

Okay, I read the reference thoroughly (I think) and I don't see anything in the citation that gives this statistic, or anything like it.

Atom (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A.E. or B.E?

This article originated with British English with the Oxford spelling

Please see National Varieties of English

Based on policy, someone should make the articlke consistent with that variety.

Atom (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Autism

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

Is...that a book? 88.105.100.134 (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jquandar! Thanks for the information! Do you know where we can find a place to verify it. As in, a reliable source. Thanks again! --mboverload@ 11:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it's a short story, formerly mentioned in this article [3], but recently deleted. It looks like it was probably written by Jquandar, who had it posted on his/her user page until it was deleted by admins. Paul B (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the deleted story from the edited article was based on real circumstances......?

I got a very bad feeling about this. Especially when it comes to socially-inept persons being bought into a certain spotlight. Potentially with a malicious intent.

Personally, I do not like the way User:Jquandar highlighted and presented this issue. Shin-chan01 (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

request to add a resource under external links

Would you please consider adding the National Sexual Assault Hotline to your external links? We provide help to victims of rape, sexual assault and incest.

• National Sexual Assault Hotline operated by RAINN

thanks 2000L (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC) RAINN

Seperate!

It's a nescessety to seperate the non relation rapist and victim generally. The freudian perspektive for example connects the both in the battlefield of urges, but there is no real relation between the both. The rapist interest isn't personal, he relates to an object, no person, not even a dog is in his/her view. So the object can be changed without any loss for the rapist. On the other hand the victim needs to realize that's not father, brother or another familiar person, who had abused. No symbolic figure acts like that. (W)Right: there is a law, and this depends on natural relationship. Pschychology may function as an excuse for violence and there is none. What does backbusting' mean?!--88.77.209.230 (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC) If there is an ego.....--Hum-ri (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow? very badly written. Very serious issue, deserves much better. Really starts off bad and does get better but not much. All you people who know more please write. I would like a better timeline. You know an anthropological perspective and run from there to Rome. I can't do it as I lack the knowledge. But someone please at least fix what we have here? This is so bad. If most of wiki was this bad I would not tell friends to look.== unsigned == Disorder is spelled wrong, as "disoder". It needs to be fixed sometime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.46.224 (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it.

"The Israelite, Greek, Persian and Roman troops would routinely rape women and boys in the conquered towns."

Since when did Israelites rape children?! Apart from the Old Testament (Jewish Bible) verse that states that homosexuals must be killed, I REALLY doubt they would have raped children. I can see soldiers raping women, but male children?! I would like to see some evidence to these shady 'facts'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.162.21.26 (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed so that it says war rape was common of ancient civilizations in general, without naming any civilizations. --ScWizard (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Please either remove false sentence, or edit it to remove the falsehood

The following sentence appears in the section False accusation:

"The classification of "false reporting" makes no distinction between women who wilfully misreport and women who mistakenly identify innocent men."

It is attributed to the following source: Hazelwood, R. R., & Burgess, A. W. (2001). Practical aspects of rape investigation: a multidisciplinary approach. CRC series in practical aspects of criminal and forensic investigations. CRC Press. ISBN 0849300762 - p.178 It may be true of some situation encountered by Hazelwood and Burgess; it is absolutely false in the manner it is presented here, where it is implied that no one who talks about false reporting makes this distinction. The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, to name just one prominent example already in the section, do not classify an incident as a false report unless the investigation into the incident determines that no offense occurred. If an investigation indicated that a rape victim (shouldn't we be referring to them as "victims" and "perpetrators", rather than "women" and "men"?) had in fact been raped, it would not be counted as a false report, even if it became manifestly clear that the individual accused of committing the crime could not have been the actual perpetrator.

As a side note, I also question whether Agnes Loebeck and Kristie Brown should be listed where they are. In the former case, there is some question of whether Loebeck identified the right perpetrator, but no evidence indicates that the report of an offense was false; in the latter case, even the Supreme Court that overturned his conviction for aggravated child molestation let his conviction for misdemeanor statutory rape stand. Wouldn't Victoria Price and Ruby Bates be a better choice? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't reasonably call someone a "victim" in a sentence about false reporting, since they are the ones who may be committing a crime. My understading is that the statistics on this issue are overwhelmingly drawn frm female complainants, but since you seem to have valuable information, add it. It's worth noting that is is not a simply either/or between lying and misidentifying. In some cases it is a question of what constitutes rape in law. Woman may believe they have been raped but what they say happened may not be defined as rape in law. Paul B (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Your first point is taken; I suggest we replace "woman" with "complainant" rather than "victim".

As for your subsequent points, I am frankly puzzled. They don't seem to answer the objection that I have raised, namely that the article makes the blanket statement "the classification of 'false reporting' does not consider this distinction" and as a blanket statement that statement is false. Yes, it may be true that some cases raise the question of what constitutes rape in law; what does that have to do with the fact that our article makes a provably false blanket statement? The distinction is between those who willfully misreport and those who are mistaken in their identification of the perpetrator; there is nothing in there about those who are mistaken about the legal classification of rape. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Identifying the wrong perpetrator is still a false accusation of rape (whether through malice or error). The accusation isn't that the complainant was raped, the accusation is that a specific person committed rape. False accusations are thus different from false reporting, yet the paragraph confounds these two issues, using the two terms interchangeably. Suggest this be addressed. Also we shouldn't say the extent is "unknown," since that is an assertion that directly contradicts sources, but rather that it is "disputed." Blackworm (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Changed to disputed. You're right saying something is unknown and then saying "people give numbers from 2% to 50%" definitely looks weird.

As for you other point could you either be bold and make those changes yourself, or say specifically what changes you'd like to see on this page? --ScWizard (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your change. It's unclear to me what specific changes are needed since I'd have to read the sources to determine which they're discussing (false accusations or false reports). Some of the sources are not easily available. It also seems odd that we state "2% to 50%" but later cite a source that states that rates up to 90% have been claimed. I'll be bold and try to rephrase some things if and when I get the time, and of course I invite others to do so as well. Blackworm (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Myths section?

It would take a lot of effort and research, but I would really like to eventually see a section that goes something like "common myths concerning rape." One question I have on the matter is what kind of citation do I need to demonstrate that something is a common myth? --ScWizard (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is interested in verifiability, not truth, therefore the best you can do is find a reliable source that claims a common myth about rape, and cite it and attribute the view to the author (e.g., "Smith states that a common myth is...."). Blackworm (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Propose External Resource for Men Falsely Accused of Rape

SEPT-25th-2008

I know this is a sensitive topic so I felt it appropriate to bring the proposal to the talk page first. I'd like to propose adding the following external link to the bottom of the page. It links to a resource with first-hand accounts from men who have been falsely accused of sexual assault (rape) and how this has affected their freedom, life--as well as relationships with their friends, family, significant others. Here is my recommended proposal and would appreciate a more senior member of the community making the edit as they feel appropriate:

PROPOSED LINK to be added to bottom "External Link" section:

• Gender Male - False Accusations of Sexual Abuse Chilling first-hand accounts from men falsely accused of rape--and it's affect on their lives.

Or a shorter link:

• False Accusations of Sexual Abuse Support resources and first-hand reports.

• • That website feels link a spamfarm. -- Banjeboi 00:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That link gives undo weight to one point of view. See Wikipedia:External_links#Avoid_undue_weight_on_particular_points_of_view

So please don't add it --ScWizard (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is mistaken. The policy says that "On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view". It does not say that links which only put one point of view should be excluded. Indeed, you have actually contravened the policy by removing a link that gave one point of view, thus overbalancing the number of links, so that they now exclude a legitimate pov. Having said that - the website in question is simply a number of stories that may be made up for all we know. The relevant pov should be represented by a better link. Paul B (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. However the external links down there at the moment are neutral point of view, so adding a link like that would have unbalanced the external links section. --ScWizard (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no inherent problem with such a support site in general, though the proposed link isn't a support site, just a collection of stories which I agree would represent undue weight. Also I agree that it looks to be a spamfarm. Mdwh (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. However the external links down there at the moment are neutral point of view, so adding a link like that would have unbalanced the external links section. --ScWizard (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely disagree with the removal of this link. As someone affected by just this sort of situation, I came to wikipedia looking for exactly this information. I wanted to learn more about how others were affected by false rape claims/allegations. I have even been in contact and received support from other users on the site. That I had to hunt in the history and talk pages to find the information I was looking for was unfortunate. I was shocked and disheartened to see something so important to this complex issue was removed. The number of stories--not to mention the severity of the reports--are astounding. I'm not sure I understand the link/spam/farm argument; I do see Google Ads on the site. Is that the problem? I see these ads on every site these days. It didn't even cross my mind. If you are at all conflicted by the content, I encourage you to read the stories yourself. Can you honestly tell me this isn't extremely relevant to the article? I also disagree that the stories posted constitute a minority or opposing opinion on any part of the article. It is merely additional information regarding the affect and use of false rape claims, which I believe compliment, and in no way discredit the seriousness of the true act and subsequent crime.

Please, please consider adding the link back to this article. I really believe it's the right thing to do for those people like me who are trying to sort through the world's information to help put together a potentially shattered existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.247.24 (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree with the removal. I agree that the site provided additional insight into the concept of rape, it's affect on society, and other manifestations (e.g. false accusations and their frequency/severity). There is nothing in the content of this link that suggests its a minority point of view, thus it cannot possibly bias the other two links. It's not a point of view at all. It's a related concept. Rape is a concept and allegedly false accusations of this concept are frequent and potentially hazardous to our communities. Including this information creates a more complete article.

The site falls into the guidelines of what should be linked because it "contain[s] neutral and accurate material" that contains relevant first-hand stories or accounts (much like "reviews and interviews") that don't belong in the article itself. The site is not a citable resource to its nature, but it "contains information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." (the knowledgeable sources being those directly affected by false accusations.)

I do agree the original link is too long. We should go with:

• False Accusations of Sexual Abuse Support resources and first-hand reports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.45.4 (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Attribution of "virulent meme"

I oppose this edit. The characterization of the idea: "at least some women are prone to masochism and deception" as a harmful, "virulent meme" must be attributed to the author -- otherwise Wikipedia would be making that characterization (and the argument), violating WP:NPOV. Also, the view that feminist activity with regard to rape includes the "elimination of harmful rape myths" needs similar attribution, for the same reason. Blackworm (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Also the equation between "harmful rape myths" and the parenthetical remark that immediately follows it, "(attitudes and beliefs conducive to sexual violence)," needs work. How about, e.g., "Feminists believe that certain attitudes and beliefs are conducive to sexual violence, and these include harmful rape myths that they campaign to eliminate." Is that more like what the source says? A quote from the source may be useful here. Blackworm (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I undid your original edit because it attributed the entire sentence in question to the Buddie & Miller article, when in fact this citation only refers to the phrase "at least some women are prone to masochism and deception." This phrase does not quote directly from the article, but rather summarizes rape myths listed in a more cumbersome form therein (which could be substantiated with numerous other sources, if so necessary). This sentence in no way violates NPOV, as it endorses no particuliar argument; as Wikipedia advises one ought to, it describes contradictory points-of-view from a neutral perspective.

It surprises me to see you challenge the assertion that "feminist activity... includes the elimination of harmful rape myths", espescially since most (if not all) feminist publications on the subject have this explicit purpose. A quick Google search elicited this quotation: "Despite years of feminist work to refute rape myths, misogyny informs most public and private discussions about rape" [4]. Though the independent clause may itself be biased, does not this source's assertion that there have been "years of feminist work to refute rape myths" verify the statement in contention, that "feminist activity... includes the elimination of harmful rape myths"?

I do not understand your opposition to the parenthetical phrase "attitudes and beliefs conducive to sexual violence". It employs a neutral psychological vocabulary to clarify both what a rape myth is, and why it is potentially harmful. Although you provide an alternative, you do not explain your opposition to the original.

Please elaborate if you wish us to further evaluate your arguments. MannaOfTheMessiah (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You are stating bluntly that a rape myth is an "attitude and belief conducive to sexual violence?" That is an opinion. I challenge it. I can provide a counter example. One myth about rape is that less than 5% of victims are male. In fact, almost 10% of victims are male. I do not see feminists working to refute that myth. I do not see how that myth is an "attitude and belief conducive to sexual violence." Blackworm (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that a misconception about the proportion of rape victims who are male (assuming such a thing can be objectively measured) is not an "attitude and(/or) belief conducive to sexual violence"; it is merely a belief, one with no relevance to this subarticle's subject, Victim Blame. The phrase "attitudes and beliefs conducive to sexual violence" defines the term "harmful rape myths"; while a rape myth is an "attitude or belief", a harmful rape myth is an "attitude or belief conducive to sexual violence". If you would like to start a seperate subarticle on the subject of innocuous rape myths, you are free to do so. MannaOfTheMessiah (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe all rape myths are harmful. If you attribute the belief that some rape myths are harmful, and others are not harmful, to feminists, then all is well. But you cannot make the implicit claim that only rape myths opposed by feminists are harmful. I hope that is understandable and meets with your approval. Blackworm (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The sentence under contention makes no such claim.MannaOfTheMessiah (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The sentence is currently:

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

The first part of the sentence clearly implies that only attitudes and beliefs conducive to sexual violence are harmful rape myths (it in fact defines the latter as the former). If we inserted "what they view as" before "harmful rape myths," then the equation between "attitudes and beliefs conducive to sexual violence" and "harmful rape myths" would be correctly attributed to feminists, rather than asserted as fact by Wikipedia.

The second part of the sentence implies that the claimed public contention that "at least some women are prone to masochism and deception" is at least incorrect, or is at worst a harmful rape myth. This opinion again must be attributed to feminists or another source, otherwise we (Wikipedia) are claiming that the contention is a "virulent meme" and a "harmful rape myth," violating WP:NPOV. We must attribute views to their adherents, not state them as fact. Blackworm (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Since some people, male and female, are indeed prone to masochism or to deception, it is wholly inappropriate to list the belief that such tendencies exist as linked to "rape myths". This is like saying that the belief that "at least some men are prone to masochism and deception" is a myth. Paul B (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've read the article. The content of the section bore little relationship to what it actually said, which in any case is the opinion of the authors, not undisputed fact. I've quoted the relevant section on victim blaming and a brief summary of their conclusion that both blame and sympathy often go together. Paul B (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit needed: The word However is spelled hiowever. 65.127.223.98 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Paul B (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Just stating facts without complicating them

I do not understand the reasoning of changing the lead or the Statistics section from clearly stating that most rape victims are women to instead say this "so and so study from 1999" reports...

I get the point of the Statistics section adding on to that, but I still feel that that fact (rapes mostly being committed by men against women) should be stated first in that section, then added on to. I mean, does anyone here honestly believe that this has significantly changed somehow and that most rape victims are now men or even close to it?

Also, the changing of simply stating that most rape victims are raped by people they know to instead state "In one survey of women, two percent of respondents who stated they were sexually assaulted said that the assault was perpetrated by a stranger" has not done any good that I can see. Flyer22 (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention, the percentages were also included in the simpler way of wording. Flyer22 (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Typo in first paragraph

It should be "With or [b]without[/b] penetration". The bolded word is omitted. 89.138.159.106 (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

IP, I would not say that that's a typo. If you notice, in the first section of this article (Definitions), it says, "Though definitions vary, rape is defined in most jurisdictions as sexual intercourse, or other forms of sexual penetration, by one person ("the accused" or "the perpetrator") with or against another person ("the victim") without the consent of the victim."

Yes, sexual intercourse can mean non-penetrative sex acts, but it does not often mean that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Kanin Report in False Accusation section

I find the use of the Kanin studies as is to be incomplete at best and misrepresentative at worse. While correctly quoting Eugene Kanin ("...admitted they were false") it neglects to note the methodology from which he drew his conclusions - ie., the use or suggestion of a polygraph. It's crucial to the reader to know this considering whatever opinions of - not to mention legal, statistical, functional and ethical facts regarding - the use of polygraphs.

I shall edit the section myself to be inclusive of the methodology while pushing neither a pro or anti-polygraph stance, nor a *this many* or *that many* false rape accusation stance.NeoApsara (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Kabin states that in the jurisdiction in question the police made what he calls a "serious offer to polygraph the complainants and the suspects". That's all. The fact that a blog poster has extrapolated from that a personal interpretation of what she imagines this to imply is irrelevant. Paul B (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a blogger, though I'm amused by the audacity to suggest such. I'm a student of myomassology and social-psychology who did research into investigative tactics of police offcials and others in authority and instances when coercive or intimidating (tasers, polygraphs, other physical violence) measures were taken resulting in them having pegged the "wrong guy", hence my knowledge on the subject after studies and several Google and library searches.

Additionally that isn't "all"; Dr. Kanin notes in the same study it was solely the word of the alleged victim - not alleged perpetrator nor any evidence - from which he drew his conclusions. However he indeed noted use of polygraphs. All is included so all is relevent - even if it isn't to your idea of it's impact.NeoApsara (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Who said you were a blog poster? I'm amused by your audacity to suggest that such was said.

It's what I deduced, what would one expect..?

However, you do repeat word for word the the phrase "the use or suggestion of a polygraph" which first appeared in a 2008 blog.

That is when it first appeared? Statistically some of the alleged victims were likely to take up the polygraph, hence use or suggested use. It's grammatically correct.

Hence the reference to the personal interpretation of a blog poster - an interpretation you are replicating.

It appears to me you suggested I was replicating a blogger's exact words above, not an interpretation. Anybody with a decent degree of comprehension skills would interpret the availability of a polygraph as, logically, some having used it and some not.

Suggested use of a polygraph is not "physical violence" by any reasonable estimation, especially when it is an offer.

I didn't suggest it was physical violence, I suggested it could be used to coerce or intimmidate. As I suggested physical violence could in addition to the use of tasers being so.

I'm inspired by your expertise in "google and library searches", but the capacity to google and read a catalogue does make an expert.

Actually, no it doesn't, which is pretty convenient considering I said I was a student. However I'm bemused by your sorry attempt at being a smart-alec.

I meant "that's all" in relation to polygraphs. The word of the victim was already mentioned in the summary.

The polygraph issue wasn't.

As for evidence, now you are misrepresenting by creative extrapolation. There is no suggestion that the police ignored physical evidence or that reports were not investigated.

I never suggested the police ignored it, I simply repeated what Dr. Kanin said himself - it was concluded to be false solely on her word.

Indeed even in the this study the majority of reports are not deemed false. Paul B (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

For all we know they're all false. Or, maybe they were all true! But that doesn't matter as we didn't conduct the study, nor would be permitted to edit had we done so. The issue is the content of the article being inclusively representative of the study conducted. In which the polygraphs are relevent.NeoApsara (talk)

Kanin states that all reports were thoroughly investigated. There are so many non sequitors and evasions in your responses that it would be pointless to discuss them. However, it's worth noting that your blogger source manages by amazing imagination to turn the concept of thoroughly investigated into the suggestion that they couldn't be bothered to investigate them! According to Kanin a report was recorded as false only if the complainant said it was, not if she simply decided not to pursue the case, which is a different matter altogether. Paul B (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not real interested on your comments regarding my reply style nor am I sure what you're talking about in the third sentence nor why you brought up blogging again. However I put nothing in the section suggesting Kanin didn't say they claims were all investigated, I again stated that the claims were concluded to be false because the alleged victim said they were false. That is what Kanin said and that is why I included it. Don't understand what exactly your problem is but it seems to have nothing to do with what I've edited in so I've lost interest.NeoApsara (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Rape Education and Prevention

It seems a little odd that there are no articles on rape education and/or prevention. Certainly there are such efforts out there: [5] [6] [7] (Googling "+rape +prevention +education" gets 342,000 hits.) Perhaps this/these topic(s) is/are worthy of an article? 216.185.29.69 (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Just found Initiatives to prevent sexual violence, but it's Euro-centric I think. Simesa (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Asked the RAINN folks to help me write aticles for rape education, rape prevention and rape crisis counselor. Simesa (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Arizona has a large website at [8] - I've asked them to collaborate as well. Simesa (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing important bits

Something should probably be mentioned about how some people (women and men both) see rape as really erotic. As for a citation I could just say "well pick up a random book in the 'romance' section at your local bookstore damnit." Also one of the (female) researchers in this article even goes as far as to say:

Women want to be thrown up against a wall but not truly endangered.

Now I'm not going to claim that "women want x", but clearly some girls find "ravishing" sexy, and there is certainly a perception that some girls find "ravishing" sexy, so the article should reflect that in some way. --130.245.193.204 (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Other things that could be grabbed from that article are stuff like:

She has confronted clinical research reporting not only genital arousal but also the occasional occurrence of orgasm during sexual assault.

Chivers, like a handful of other sexologists, has arrived at an evolutionary hypothesis that stresses the difference between reflexive sexual readiness and desire. Genital lubrication, she writes in her upcoming paper in Archives of Sexual Behavior, is necessary “to reduce discomfort, and the possibility of injury, during vaginal penetration. . . . Ancestral women who did not show an automatic vaginal response to sexual cues may have been more likely to experience injuries during unwanted vaginal penetration that resulted in illness, infertility or even death, and thus would be less likely to have passed on this trait to their offspring.”

And then that could be put in the context of why some people rapists think women "want" to get raped. --130.245.193.204 (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem with "consent" section

Under "consent" the article states "consent can always be withdrawn before the actual sexual intercourse takes place." This should really read "consent can always be withdrawn at any time." Continuing initially consensual sexual relations after consent has been withdrawn is rape. See, for example, In re John Z., 60 P.3d 183, (Sup. Ct. Cal. 2003). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.196.182 (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for your valuable input. --ScWizard (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

She did not say "no" so it must mean "yes"

Does anyone know the term for this? I know that in Illinois criminals could get off by saying that "she did not say no". I know a term for this exists and I cannot remember it. -PatPeter 22:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I found it, the definition is "Passive Assent". -PatPeter 18:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding legal definiton in Scotland

In the article it states that "In Scotland, rape is a gender-specific crime, meaning it can only be committed by males upon females." I was led to believe that this was the law in the entire United Kingdom not just Scotland as stated in this link [9]. Can anyone confirm this or am I misreading my own source? --Kurushi (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Addition To Rape Statistics

In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man. In other words, on average, every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man. In my opinion this is a sad state of affairs that deserves attention. Sweeping it under the rug doesn't help the thousands of woman who will be raped if nothing is done.

• [10] The source is U.S. Department of Justice report "Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005."Brutanti (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• This is not what the report states. The report states that these women perceived the race of their offender as black. I think an article showing the difficulties in identifying race would be relevant here. Additionally, it would also be fair to note that the majority of assaults were conducted by white men.

In fact, it would be important to determine what exactly the purpose of this statistic is. If you are trying to objectively compare the data, it may be best to just show the table. If you're making a broader discussion of race dynamics, it may be useful to also describe the total number of African-American reports (approx. 36,620).

All in all, I believe that the statistic is a "sad state of affairs". However, without responsible context or discussion it seems out of place, and vaguely incendiary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.62.147 (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• On the one hand, I agree with you that it should be included, since it is clearly relevant and apparently official (although I have not had the chance to actually look through it so I am taking your word for it), but there are two things which make me wonder. The first is that it is an American stat and while this is usually okay, the article needs to avoid a concentration on one country, and the second is that because it is a racial (and therefore contentious) issue, I'm not sure whether it's too red reg to a bull-ish. Sky83 (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

isn't this an article on just rape. So its not all about the United states or which race does the most rapes in that particular country.Why don't you just create a new more specific article instead of concentrating on the broader category rape article.Judas james (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Rape Statistics for Men

{{editsemiprotected}} The links for both the table and the following section (77, 78) do not support the text. Can someone either find appropriate credible links or remove these sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.62.147 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 12 March 2009

We can discuss that, however, please only add the editsemiprotected template when you have a specific addition to propose. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The Section on interacial rape is based in bad statistics

Those entries in the linked table have an asterix on them saying "estimates based on 10 or fewer cases" The are obviously nonsense - no one would believe that no white men raped black women in the year 2005

I would add that they were no doubt posted for the purpose of a racist agenda. I don't have a an account to revert a locked page, but please, someone do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.43.2 (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the section, not solely because it does not nearly adequately discuss the subject but also because it does not represent what the source says (for one thing, Table 42 does not correlate gender). Also, the 2006 data is out and we should be citing that. Simesa (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have added more discussion of the subject, eliminated gender, and added the 2006 data.Brutanti (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The table itself (in both years) notes that the number of zero is not reliable. Also, you don't really discuss anything (such as why the very noticeable difference between 2005 and 2006), just crunch two numbers. And it's not explained why this particular aspect of the statistics is more significant than other aspects. This really isn't an encyclopedic-level section as presented, so I'm going to delete it again. Please see your Talk page. Simesa (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• C'mon, why are you making me jump through hoops when the other statistics in the article don't meet the high bar you have set?

It wouldn't be because you don't like statistics that portray blacks in a negative light, would it?

You would attack statistics that portrayed whites negatively, right?Brutanti (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The other statistics in this article are mostly based on [11]; if you have a criticism of the methodology in that paper we should consider it.

I don't see any reason why I wouldn't comment on an obvious inaccuracy involving anyone. Simesa (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Why must I explain why "this particular aspect of the statistics is more significant than other aspects?"

Do any of the other statistics in this article have explanations for their inclusion?

Why do you have a problem with these statistics?

Why don't you explain why this particular aspect of the statistics is less significant than other aspects?Brutanti (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The other statistics seem to attempt to portray a reasonably-complete picture, thus avoiding any editor-introduced bias. WP:POV seems to be involved, esp. "Writing about people solely from the perspective of someone who perceives those people as a "problem"." Simesa (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)