Talk:Rape/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Rape is forcible sex with anyone and should be construed legally as such. It is, needless to add, very traumatic. Penalogy should take care of the torture and the compensation aspect. However, the old dictum that the charge of rape is easiest to lay and most difficult to prove has some merit. Often the charge is a cover up for embarassment when it is discovered specially in socities where sexual relations go beyond the matter of only free will. Wanderer61Bold text

I am not sure if this is true but I think it is:

By definition, rape is an act done by a man to a woman. This means that I (a man) can rape but cannot be raped. I am here using the legal definition of "rape".

The word "rape" in colloquial language seems to refer to forcible penetration of the vagina or anus with a penis. I suppose, in this sense of the word, a woman can use a dildo to rape a man. The colloquial sense of the word seems more useful as well.

- Juuitchan

Men rape men too.

I think when they do, it is called "sexual assault" or "forcible sodomy" or something. If a man forces his penis into a second man's anus against the second man's will, does that fall under the category of "rape" *from a legal perspective* ? We have already established that *from a layman's perspective* the answer is yes. -Juuitchan

In the UK men can be raped (it's not called something else). Secretlondon 20:25, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

What would the term by (in the US) for when a woman causes a man to become sexually aroused, against his will, and then forces him into intercourse? This would fit the criteria of a forcible penetration of the vagina by a penis, differing only in that the one with the penis is the victim rather than the assailant. --Corvun 11:37, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

According to dictionary.com, see http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=rape, rape is defined as 1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse. 2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction. 3. Abusive or improper treatment

violation: a rape of justice.

So, according to at least one source, the definition of rape implies nothing about the gender of either party, nor, for that matter, the legality of the act.

-9Jack9.

The definitions of rape vary wildly from state to state, and I would imagine from country to country. I know that in California, you need a penis to actually "rape,", while in Connecticut, even penetration is just a higher degree of sexual assault. The definitions that the Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services training uses consider rape a subset of sexual assault that involves any sort of penetration. Sexual assault is any unwanted touching in a sexual manner. These seem consisten with what I've run across in various activism contexts as well. Andrew 23:48, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree that men can rape other men, and the article should make no assumptions about the genders of the parties involved. I would actually suggest redirecting this article to one (as yet unwritten) with the title "sexual assault", which would describe the concept in all of its manifestations.

We should have pages on both rape and sexual assault -- rape is a subset of sexual assault with special legal status and history.

Removed from article:

The term and concept of rape is often used politically, particularly "on the left" where feminists, social justice and ecology activists may use it in very metaphorical ways. For instance, "verbal rape", "social rape", "Earth rape" or "eco-rape" are common ab/uses of the rape metaphor. In general such usage is intended to enrage opponents or supporters or both, and is a negotiating tactic rather than an attempt to claim true moral equivalence. However, some people really seem to believe such metaphors.

The author seems to be making terms up - out of the billions of webpages Google tracks these terms only showed up in the following amounts:

verbal rape = 136 hits
social rape = 99 hits
Earth rape = 95 hits
eco-rape = 97 hits

Should we even mention terms that are used so spareingly? Doing so gives them more credibility than they deserve and gives the impression that "those on the left" actually use these to a significant degree - which isn't the case.

good point. I hear those terms often. I'd go with any rewrite as long as the general principle is respec

ted. I think the terms show up rarely in WRITTEN material precisely because they are libelous...

The removed text is also very non-NPOV and. The term "on the left" is Americentric at best and ambiguous at worst. With some work, the general statement can be placed back in the article. --maveric149, Wednesday, April 3, 2002

Agreed, "on the left" should go. It only seems to mean something specific in economics anyway.

What is the minimum number of Google references needed to legitimize a term? [1]

---

Per the various allegedly "leftist" terms: it might be prudent to point out that the word "rape" can be used descriptively to indicate forcable action against the unwilling in personificational cases. (The rape of the wetlands; the rape of a country.) As demonstrated by the dictionary definition above, the word rape does not only apply to the act of forced sex. (It's simliar to the word marry or marriage; although the most ocmmon usage is the life bonding of two people, you could also say "I married the two ketchups" to indicate that you poured the contents of one bottle into another.)

Per sexual assault: the laws are ever changing, but here is some factual information of which I am certain:

when a person commits an act that is classified as sexual upon another person without that person's consent, it is rape. This includes oral sex; anal sex; masturbation against the person's will (or anything leading to ejaculation, either by the perpetrator or the victim.) If it is considered, legally, a "sex act," then it was a rape. Sexual assault refers to SEXUAL acts (as opposed to SEX acts) done against someone's will. (For instance, in Washington, D.C., if you grab a man's crotch against his will, he tells you stop, and you do it again, it is considered a third degree sexual assault.)

I hope this provides some clarification. -EB-

Unless some kind of contradictory research can be produced, I have to remove the reference to male-on-male rape being more common than male-on-female rape. It seems like conjecture or at best urban legend to me--- this is a well documented issue, and 1) Male on female rape is at least three times as common as male on male rape, and 2) prison rape rates are extremely low, contrary to popular belief, as most prison sex is consentual and the legendary "gang rapes" that people think are so humorous very rarely actually take place. BarkingDoc

---

I have broken out the handling of rape as a medical emergency into the new topic sexual assault and linked it appropriately. This is the term used in first aid and EMT instruction for this sensitive topic. Please remember that some of the readers of this entry will be reading it because they need information on the subject for urgent personal reasons. I cannot think of a topic where NPOV is more critical not only to the credibility of Wikipedia, but to the common humanity of our readers. clarka

"[T]he consent of the victim is irrelevant as the state has an interest in protecting minor children": is this exactly correct? Isn't it that the victim's actual consent is statutorily viewed as irrelevant because the victim is by statute declared to be incapable of consent? --Daniel C. Boyer 21:57, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What you are talking about could be considered a legal fiction. Consent is a question of fact. The state has deemed that it is irrelevant to the issue of rape. Most would consider that it is not malum in se but malum prohibitum, i.e. something that society has decided is wrong. The child may consent and may be able to consent (as in the case of emancipated children whose contracts are usually found to be binding). The state is saying that the consent is irrelevant; not that the child cannot consent; children consent to legal acts all the time, when they buy candy in store they enter into a consensual contract, etc.. The state has a public order power to prevent rape of minors, it is the act itself that is prohibited; remember that consent is a defense to all these sexual violence crimes; in the case of children they are taking away that defense by statute. Is that clear? — Alex756

Obviously it is a legal fiction. I am just asking whether this should be considered a legal fiction or a "taking away that defense by statute." --Daniel C. Boyer 00:38, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think the minor can, in fact, consent. Therefore what the statute does is take away the consent. You may say that the statute says that the child is incapable to consent to a sexual act at that age, but by putting it in the statute it becomes a question of law and not open to a jury determination. Of course there can be jury nullification. Alex756 05:20, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If someone had the info or was willing to do the research, statutory rape probably deserves its own article, since it is really an entirely different concept from forcable rape. A cross cultural analysis would probably be enlightening as well. BarkingDoc

If the rates of male-on-male rape from non-Western countries is unavailable, then by what standards can it be claimed that the rate in Western countries is "relatively high"? "Relative" to what? Tuf-Kat 03:16, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

Since it appears that the rate of male-on-male rape is higher than the rate of male-on-female rape, perhaps that is what was meant by "relative"? -BuddhaInside

I would like to see more information about the definition of date/acquaintance rape, especially regarding situations where the sexual contact is not necessarily forced, yet there is no informed consent. If it would not violate the NPOV, it would also be useful to have statistics on how many people are raped in their lifetime. (I have heard numbers from one in four to one in nine US women but have no references.) However, due to underreporting, the number is likely to be controvertial. Maybe how many report rape could be acceptable?

--zandperl 01:50, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The groundbreaking study on the issue was performed by the National Institutes of Health in the early 1970's, and established that one in four women had been the victim of some form of sexual assault. The unfortunate truth is that studies attempting to get more specific information (such as the incidence of violent force versus the incidence of coertion by threat) have produced wildly different results, depending a great deal on region, economic background, and (unfortunately) race. To my knowledge, no one has been able to seperate and control for all of these factors, and due to the nature of the debate, every statistic produced is zealously challenged by those who believe rape is not a common occurance. BarkingDoc

The latest studies show the number of completed rapes at 10%-15%. As with any study of this kind, you are inherently limited by the ability of surveys, so you're never going to have truly accurate or even approximately accurate figures (as far as you can verify). If anyone is interested I have come across two interested studies that contain a lot of information, not just on rape itself, but the relationships to the victims, race/ethinicity, physical acts performed, means of struggling, etc... See (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/svcw.htm) [Department of Justice] The Sexual Victimization of College Women</a> and

(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/172837.htm) [National Institute of Justice/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey</a>. In terms of the reporting issue, you have to realize that "reporting" to anonymous survey is different from reporting to police/family/friends. Victims are much more likely to report to an anonymous surveyor. HTH. Nathan J. Yoder 22:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've seen the "Most cultures consider rape a Bad Thing" several times. Does anyone have any evidence of cultures that DON'T consider rape to be a crime? If there aren't any, should this be changed to "All cultures"? Darac 16:10, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The evidence from ancient Greece and Rome is not 100% clear (as is so much of it :-(), but it could be interpreted to mean that we would call rape was to them normal and proper behavior. There are books on the subject, I haven't read them though. Stan 16:46, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I am afriad that there are many cultures, not only ancient but alive and well in the world today, where rape is not only accepted but considered quite honorable. Afghanistan, for example, where kidnapping and raping a girl is considered a respectable way of courting her. And there are even more where rape is definetly not considered a crime. In Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, as well as the African coutries where they practice genital mutilation, there is no such crime as rape. (or, in many cases, the woman who was attacked is considered a criminal: at least a whore. Many in the "modern" world are exiled, imprisoned, or killed for the crime of being raped.) And it has been a long tradition (again, not ancient but fairly current) in most cultures not frowned upon, that soldiers are entitled to rape women while at war. Raping slaves in the U.S. was not considered a crime. Spousal rape is a long contested issue which is still not considered a criminal act. I believe that rape is the subject of heated controversy in every country and culture, but it has never been as simple as being condemned as an evil act. The morality and politics of rape are among the most complicated and contested in all of history. BarkingDoc

Do you have any eveidence to back any of this up? Soldiers raping women is considered a crime - its a war crime as far as I know. Spousal rape is illegal in the UK. Secretlondon 20:25, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

In all fairness, I do not have immediate evidence to back all these notes up, besides what I have read over a long period of time. I will do some research and see what specific items I can find. I do not in any way mean to level accusations against any whole culture of group of people. In general, I only mean to suggest that attitudes toward rape (and even the definition of what constitutes rape) can be dramatically different, and not just in comparison with ancient cultures. BarkingDo

Hmong engagement rape

here is a link to an article Hmong Engagement Rape. I have lived where it was majority Hmong and I can vouch for them that this custom is pretty much extinct amongst the population living here (in the states) these days. It was a topic infrequently discussed however, as it was a striking example of cultural differences, and the moral dilemma's resulting from liberalism/diversity gone wild (you can read more on that in the article if you like). JackLynch 09:11, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Afghanistan

The general lawlessness after departure of the Russians and before the Taleban came in allowed rape and kidnapping of women/girls to happen on a mass basis. But it most certainly was not accepted practice for courting - though many more primitive minded gun-owning young men might have thought so. One of the recurrent positive themes wrt Taleban was they "stopped the raping of the women". And a recurrent negative theme wrt to the new situation is exactly the above - the kidnapping and raping has again started,. Not that anyone wants them back, but the peace and danger-free times had something positive too.

Apart from this - yes there are romantic stories/poems/songs of girls escaping with their lovers from under the strict eyes of fathers and brothers. A consensual "running away" is certainly something featuring high in poetic literature (as it does the world over), but I simply do not know anyone who has done this.the practicalities are simply too difficult and the actual perception of a girl who has run away (rather than going a consensual route) and her lover is probably pretty low. Refdoc 08:34, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

animals

I removed the "other". To consider humans just one animal sepcies among many others is not NPOV.

Refdoc 19:58, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Um, yes it very much IS NPOV. "To consider humans just one animal species among many" is a matter of biological FACT. If humans aren't animals, what are they? Plants? Fungi? Bacteria? Humans are animals as the term "animal" is defined. It's very much NOT NPOV to claim that humans are anything BUT an animal, as doing so requires a religious/philosophical position that exists far outside the limits of objective study. I'm puting it back in, pending a scientific study showing that humans are actually an alien lifeform composed of anti-matter or something else that would make it NPOV to claim that humans aren't animals. --Corvun 11:47, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

drugs

I do not feel that declaring [GHB] or other drugs to be "date rape drugs" is NPOV. These drugs have positive and valid uses, and the use of hypnotics to perpetrate a rape is relatively rare. Calling any drug a "date rape drug" is a reflection of the Drug War mentality and anything but neutral. Jeeves 05:29, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The drugs might have alternate uses, possibly even legitimate ones, but this does not change the fact that they are often used for facilitating a rape. Furthermore, "date rape drug" is a very common term, to not include it would make the article incomplete. The term is flagged by quotes and the qualifier "so called." The point of view is plenty neutral. Andrew 22:01, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

References on your use of the word "often" here? In any case, NPOV on "date rape drugs" would really mean a long diatribe on alcohol, and perhaps a fleeting mention of rohypnol and/or GHB. I would also point out that there is a compelling body of evidence that the Drug-War fanatics were mobilized against GHB as part of the agenda of certain pharmaceutical companies. While this article is obviously not the place to discuss that, I mention it because the status of GHB as a "date rape drug" which is "often used" is highly debatable. Jeeves 23:26, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why not just strike "often"? "Often" compared to what? Every day? Compared to legitimate uses? As a fraction of all incidents of rape? It seems uncontroversial to say that drugs including rohypnol and GHB (so called date-rape drugs) and alcohol are used to facilitate rape.

I'll say it again: there's no such thing as a "date rape drug". The term smacks of American fear politics. Practically any drug could conceivably be used for date rape -- ethanol, halothane, chloroform, sodium pentothal, even LSD. Do we call these drugs "date rape drugs"? If you say "date rape drug", is that what someone will think of? The term is loaded and should not be used. Rohypnol and GHB were the subjects of media scares in the USA in the 1990s. You now see the effectiveness of the machine. Both of these drugs have the effect of producing unconsciousness or relaxation. Ordinary alcohol is still the date-rapist's best friend. I would need to see some real statistics before I would make any conjecture as to drug-assisted rape in any nation. Jeeves 00:06, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My statistics are at school, so I'll edit this post when I can get to them, but there might be a compromise that wouldn't need stats at all. First, though, I would like to clarify my position. I think I might speak for others as well, but the term date rape drug does not mean to me that GHB is only used to rape people, but rather that out of the drugs used to rape people, GHB is a common one. The judgement is not passed on the drug itself , but on the practice of using drugs to rape. However, recently, anti-rape advocates have begun to refer to what used to be called "date rape drugs" as "rape facilitation drugs." Their idea is that date rape sounds too friendly, like something that's to be expected on a normal date. But this also might allieveate your concerns over the possibly loaded nature of the date rape term. And yes, alcahol is definetly included in this, something that might need more emphasis on the page, but is not denied when pointing out that other drugs are used as well. Stats to come, but I'm pretty sure that the politics of the drug war is irrelevant to the issue of drug-facilitated aquaintance rape. Andrew 01:23, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The terms "date rape drug" or "rape drug" are used by media, police and the population at large. There is such a thing. Exploding Boy 08:19, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

The term "date rape drug" is simply a term. Just because people (over)use the term does not grant it any more reality. The fact is that while people are being told that drugs like GHB are used solely for rape-facilitation, every supermarket in the country continues to devote entire house-sized sections of its interior to the sale of alcohol. While I'm sure that it is true that use of GHB and rohypnol would facilitate rape, it seems a little inconsistent to focus on these in particular, when practically mind-altering substance could be used for the same effect. It seems to be something of a scare tactic designed to push people away from using non-governmentally subsidized chemicals. When people think of "date rape drug" if anything comes to mind, in the vast majority of cases, it is GHB or rohypnol, not alcohol, not marijuana, not LSD. It is a loaded term. The only reason that there are any drugs that are specifically designated "date rape" drugs at all is because people have been told that there are drugs used exclusively for this purpose and the term is thereby propagated. piter 02:49, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're reversing the burden of proof. You're asking us to prove the negative that the existence of date rape drugs is not just a lie generated by a government conspiracy. You're also conflating your alternate explanations, first saying that "date rape drugs" are a "scare tactic" to scare people away from "non-governmentally subsidized chemicals", then in the next sentence asking why marijuana and LSD are not classed as "date rape drugs", as if those were government-approved.

Rohypnol was first given the title of a "date rape drug" because it was believed that it induced two effects: first, a state of passive cooperation during the time the drug was in effect; second, loss of memory of the time period in which the drug was in effect. Contrary to your assertions, you can't reliably expect those effects from alcohol, nor marijuana, nor LSD; while an attempt to get someone so drunk they remember nothing might work, it might not: they might remember very well exactly what happened and report it promptly.

Now if you have some factual information about these not being the effects of rohypnol and/or GHB, then by all means, cite your factual information -- and your sources. But simply asserting with no backup that it's all a scare tactic by the guv'mint is not worth the electrons it takes to print it on the screen. And even if the effects of rohypnol and GHB have been exaggerated (for which there is some evidence, I believe) the fact that they are considered "date rape drugs" cannot be ignored, any more than you can ignore the fact that sodium pentathol is called "truth serum" just because it does not actually evoke the truth. -- Antaeus Feldspar

Since this is clearly an area of contention and it's apparently unlikely that either party might fully accept the view of the other, couldn't it suffice to mention both views in the article? Something like including the aforementioned "so-called 'date rape drug,'" but adding something like, "though some who disagree with certain aspects of the United States' drug enforcement policies dispute the term,"? (Note that I haven't actually read the article, so that particular suggestion may or may not make sense in context. I'd actually only come here because this talk page was the only hit returned from a search for 'sodium pentathol. Just saying. :) ) DTM 02:40, 4 October 2'005 (UTC)

warning signs

The section entitled "warning signs" looks somewhat subjective. Can we have a cite for this, or is it a general "nasty people == rapists" list? A lot of these look like personality disorder symptoms; again, cite please? -- Karada 09:59, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The section "Rapist profiles" looks much better thought out: again, which profiles to these warning signs apply to? Perhaps the generic "warning signs" section is best removed, and replaced by more infromation on each profile. -- Karada 10:04, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

alternative theories

I have removed this section because it represents a single, well-defined POV, referring to exactly 1 source. The essence of this section is already covered in the article. Furthermore, some of the statements in this section were completely subjective. It was well-written and interesting, but I do not feel that it is objective enough to be included as-is in the main article. I thought about condensing it, but it still represents a particular viewpoint. Jeeves 02:06, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wrote the (now removed) alternative theories section because the current article focuses on rape entirely from a dominance perspective, and while that is the appreciated standard, there exists strong evolutionary bases for defining rape as a sexually motivated crime. I felt that providing simply a small section at the end was in order.

Also, the book cited is based on additional sources. Would the section stand on its own if I listed those sources as well?

Any comments on producing it as a separate article ("Rape as a sexually motivated phenomenom") and linking it as a reference? mbac 7/13/2004 11:56 EDT.

Also, now that I reread the article, the "Rapist Profiles" section would seem to encompass a theory as well. Shouldn't theories on motivation be separated from the main article which simply describes the act, how it's received, and punishments and other forms? Or rather, motivation should make it clear that there are several theories on rape and then either describe each or provide references to sub-articles?

A separate article might be appropriate, but I felt that the problem was more that there seems to be only one source for that information, and it could be considered controversial. One thing I think we could do is try condensing the section and putting it back in, maybe with a few other sources cited as well? I'm just worried about maintaining objectivity on such a sensitive topic, but it may not even be possible.

As far the motivational theories, my POV hackles rose at that too, but I wasn't sure what to do about it, as I've heard/read references to similar assessments of rapists' motivations over time. Whether this is propaganda or representing some kind of ideological consensus, I have no idea. I think your idea of breaking that part out into sub-articles is a good one though. Jeeves 17:27, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've moved the alternate theories into a separate article "rape as a sexually motivated phenomenom" (better titles anyone?) and linked it at the bottom of the "Rape profiles" section. The rape profiles section should probably be separated out and renamed, but I'll let someone else scratch that itch. mbac 19:29, 13 Jul 2004 UTC

I remember when the book cited came out and though I did not read it myself, one of the oft-made criticisms was that it documented scientific evidence about insect species and then leaped straight from that to human beings. Can someone who's read the book tell us if that's accurate or a mischaracterization? (Most of the people I heard it from would have been against this book for its conclusions, so I don't trust them to have accurately reported the arguments behind the conclusions; at the same time the article seems to be saying that critics argue against the book simply because they don't like its conclusions, and that's not NPOV if there really are problems with how the book reaches those conclusions. -- Antaeus Feldspar

A Merkin concept, mostly unknown in (continental) Europe. RAPE ME AS MUCH AS YOU WANT but the truth is: there is no such concept of date-rape in continental Europe. Never heard of it. Never read about it BUT in Anglosaxon publications.

To clarify: an event is either a rape or not a rape. A "date-rape" is a strange and misguided concept; it's overly broad, and it tends to lower the meaning of rape overall. Such as, by calling everyone a nazi, the meaning of nazi is lowered.

See victimization.

Well, from your Nazi analogy, I'm deducing that you do not believe that "date-rape" is in fact rape. That pretty much sums up why the term was introduced, because people were drawing an artificial distinction between sex forced on someone by a stranger (recognized as rape) and sex forced on someone by a known person (often considered, at worst, a faux pas on the part of the rapist.) As you say, "an event is either a rape or not a rape," and since forced sex is rape, I'm not sure exactly why you are objecting to it being described by a term that emphasizes that it is rape. Antaeus Feldspar 02:24, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Poorly grounded phrases

The following piece is removed from "Punishment" section

There is a small number of countries where rape has and still is considered to be tolerable or even honorable and encouraged. Also in some cultures, a female victim of rape can be punished as a criminal sex offender, even when it is acknowledged that sexual intercourse was forced on her.

The statements sound pretty incredible. IMO "small number of countries" and "some cultures" must be idenified for the statements become more credible and verifiable.

Mikkalai 01:33, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It might have been more courteous to raise your concerns about the accuracy of these claims first and give people a chance to substantiate them, before removing them from the article on the basis that you find them incredible and do not believe them. Antaeus Feldspar 05:23, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have addressed this before. Among the Hmong (traditional culture anyhow), a man arranges a mairraige w a girls father, and then kidnaps and rapes her, keeping her in his hut until she adjusts (see Talk:Rape#Hmong_engagement_rape). And in many muslim countries, a woman is as vigorously or more vigorously punished for being raped than a man is for raping her. Sam [Spade] 05:52, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The issue is not that I find them incredible. The phrases are unencyclopedic, uninformative, and poorly phrased. For example, in the USA there is a serial Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. Some shots depict subcultures in which rape is matter of pride. So shall we count USA among these "small number of countries"? Of course, this is just my picking on phrasing.

But there are more serious concerns. Sam Spade's example with Hmong seemingly gives a confirmation example. But... shall I assume that I can grab a first best girl in a street of Vientiane, rape her, and walk away happily? I'd rather assume that rape is tolerable under certain cultural circumtances. So IMHO even spoken about Hmong the phrase in question is misleading.

And of course, we should speak about normal situation; during any war or other unrest rape becomes kind of de-facto "norm"; even the liberating Operation Overlord in Normandy spilt a several barrels of American semen. I am surprised that this touchy issue is covered so light-handedly and simple-heartedly.

And excuse me, but Sam's phrase about muslim countries sounds like anti-muslim propaganda (in view of today's political situation), if given without any additional support.

Finally, IMO phrases kind of "in some countries..." should be met in encyclopedia with te same contempt as "some historians..." "many people think that...": IMO they are no less weasel words. Mikkalai 07:09, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I understand your concern about removal, but I consider the phrases as they are to be phrased offensively to these "small number of countries" and "some cultures", even if they are not named; kind of: "rapists of the world, welcome to Hmong, you will be honored!" Mikkalai 07:09, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You seem to be intentionally ignoring the facts, for the sake of sensationalism. Did you read where I point out this being part of a hmong marraige ceremony? And do you actually dispute the information I provided about "in some muslim areas"? I assure it was not anti-muslim propoganda (an insinuation I find almost as rude as I find the reference to Law & Order: Special Victims Unit ridiculous ;) Sam [Spade] 18:16, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please don't put stickers unto me. Let me rephrase my position in greater detail. The issue is credibility. In traditional encyclopedia the credibility was guaranteed by the authority and prestige of respectable and known authors. In wikipedia, the credibility is not so transparent, despite the declarations in the open-sourse spirit: the sheer volume of text is so immense. Compare the phrase I can easily add somewhere: "There is a number of countries where murder has and still is considered to be tolerable or even honorable and encouraged." Is it true or false? Is it speaking about countries with death penalty or about cannibal tribes? Without detail, both your and mine phrases are grossly misleading, even if they are true from the pure logical point of view.

And yes, I did read about marriage ceremony. And this raises another concern of the integrity of the article. By definition in the article, rape is criminal assault. How come a criminal activity may be part of mating ceremony? I conclude, the article definition is incomplete. Please re-read my previous arguments in an unbiased way. Unfortunately I have insufficient knowledge to fix the problems I report here.

"I assure it was not anti-muslim propoganda": that's my point: I see no apparent reason to believe you (just like you have all reasons to believe that my sole purpose is to stir some agitation). The only way to dissuade me is to add more detail, to make the statement both more precise and easy to verify (which Muslim areas I have to search? Not in Turkey. Not in Azerbaijan. Not among Crimean Tatars. Not in Palestina?). If you are unwilling to answer constructively and still think I am trolling, good luck. Over and out. Mikkalai 20:18, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think your "trolling" (I reject the usefullness of this term, btw) but I'm not interested in in the questions and debates you raise. I've given the amount of imput I feel is necessary, and welcome you to research further if you see no apparent reason to believe myself or others. Sam [Spade] 04:39, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Victim blaming

I moved the victim blaming material added by User:198.81.26.48 to its own section; hopefully, if it stays, someone can organize the section better and provide actual NPOV information. Antaeus Feldspar 17:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here are some of the statements I removed from the entry today, and why:

The conviction rate for those accused of rape is only 2% and therefore false reports are obviously not the largest problem surrounding this issue. According to RAINN one in six women in the US have been sexually assaulted.

"Not the largest problem surrounding this issue" is not a valid reason that the phenomenon of false reporting should not be described fairly. The frequency of false reporting is a figure under heavy dispute; a particular user who has already made up their own mind cannot simply marginalize a section that they personally believe to be of marginal importance, not unless they have figures so absolutely compelling that they solve the nationwide debate on whether it is in fact marginal or significant.

Dr. Kanin's study finds a false reporting rate of 41%. That is not marginal. Even half that rate would not be marginal. Even a quarter of that rate would not be marginal. User:198.81.26.48, now User:64.12.116.75, does not offer any suggestion as to why Dr. Kanin's results are skewed in a direction that marginalizes their significance; from his/her editing in of Fisher's findings it is clear that he or she has not even bothered to look at Kanin's work and find out how false positives were eliminated. None of the stated reasons has any relevance to the context: they pertain to why victims do not report; by definition, the recanters in Kanin's study report ed.

User:64.12.116.75 does not even address the concept that the conviction rate may be tied to the rate of false reporting, that perhaps some of those cases where conviction did not occur were cases where the accused was not in fact the guilty party.

On the other hand threatening that 98% of rape victims will be prosecuted for reporting a crime simply because they cannot prove it seems cruel.

Yes, this would be cruel. It is also a red herring, since this is not what would happen. Millions of people every years are found not guilty of crimes for which they were brought to trial. If the world worked as User:64.12.116.75 asserts, then every single one of those defendants would be turning around and prosecuting their accusers for false reporting. In the real world, in the actual justice system under which we live, they can only do so if they can make a case to a grand jury that some party, whether the actual accuser or the district attorney's office, acted with reckless disregard or with malice aforethought.

According to several encyclopedia entries rape is the only crime of which the victim must prove his or her innocence.

Which encyclopedia entries are these? This is mere rhetorical flourish. In the court of social opinion, it may be the case that rape victims face the burden of proof. Then again, it may not be: there are almost as many "courts of social opinion" as there are people, and almost as many opinions again about what the "court of social opinion" holds. Let's see some facts on the matter: surveys, case studies, something besides just bare assertion.

On the issue of whether false reports are taken seriously enough by the actual courts, User:64.12.116.75 needs to truly consider that case where the district attorney refused to prosecute a known false report, and stated that his reason for doing so was that if that crime was ever prosecuted, it would discourage people from coming forth. What if a suspect had been picked up based on the "victim's" imagined description? The student's crime was only victimless because the police did not find a subject matching the description she gave within the two weeks that it took her to come forward and confess.

It is well known that rape victims are in reality persecuted more vigorously than their perpetrators. The myths surrounding false accusations are a far more dangerous problem than the 2% that do occur.

This is all unsupported opinion. Weaseling like "It is well known," "in reality", and "the myths" do not disguise the basic fact: This is not verified information, it is merely assertion. User:64.12.116.75 provides no actual evidence to verify that rape victims are persecuted more than those accused of the crime -- in point of fact, he or she doesn't provide enough evidence to support the premise that rape victims are persecuted, let alone the outrageous accusation that they are persecuted more than their accused rapists. (Do I believe that rape victims face persecution? Yes, I do. But there's a difference between what I believe, and what I will post in a Wikipedia article, asserting in the latter case "this is verified information.")

Again, User:64.12.116.75 ignores the fact that the statistic on false allegations that they personally prefer, that of 2%, is a statistic that is highly in dispute. User:64.12.116.75 does not seem to realize, or to be able to accept, that we are not dealing with a zero-sum situation: we do not need to choose between the rights of the victim and the rights of the accused just because the crime is rape; there is not even a need for a sentence asserting that one is of far more significance than the other. Why has User:64.12.116.75 fallen for the propaganda that, on this one crime, the Constitutional right to a fair trial, and to be presumed innocent until a full investigation and a jury trial has proven guilt, must be overturned? Every time that the argument "the crime is so horrible, we cannot afford to give the accused their full rights" has prevailed, the results have been grotesque (witchcraft in Salem, Communism in the Red Scare, the "Satanic panic" in the United States in the 1990s -- all instances where the nature of the crime was considered to justify sacrificing rights of the accused; all infamous epidemics of injustice.)

"Preliminary estimates for 1995 indicate that the public age 12 or older experienced 260,300 rapes and attempted rapes and nearly 95,000 other sexual assaults and threats of sexual assault." according to theViolence Against Women Online Resources

I believe we already have a section for statistics. This should go there.

Verbally or physically harrassing a rape survivor may be considered a hate crime similar to gay bashing.

If someone can provide actual, verified information on this problem, I think this may even deserve a section of its own. In the context where it was placed, it does not belong, because it is nothing more than an attempt to substitute emotionally loaded terms for actual information.

It is widely thought that rape is the only crime of which the victim must prove their innocence.

See above. "It is widely thought" is not good enough. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:33, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In reference to a recent edit by Wyllium. The replacement of the phrase, "Clearly, an environment in which victims who come forward are faced not only with public humiliation but a possible jail sentence illustrates serious problems with our justice system." with "Clearly, an environment in which no one is prosecuted for filing false reports is an environment that encourages the filing of false reports." is pretty rediculous. Calling one a NPOV over the other doesn't work; they state almost exactly opposite things with the exact same sentance structure. I'm not sure what the Wikipedia conventions are on how to reslove this, but Wyllium's statement can't stand unaltered. Either the debate has to be covered from both sides, substantiation has to be produced for one side or the other (keeping in mind that this is not a question of the actual rates of false reporting, but of the effects of policies toward prosecuting false resports), or the issue has to be dropped. Andrew 21:40, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, they're not comparable at all. Here's the version that existed before the anonymous drive-by edit and after Wyllium's reversion:

"Clearly, an environment in which no one is prosecuted for filing false reports is an environment that encourages the filing of false reports."

This is simply logical. If X is an action that people will sometimes be tempted to take, it follows that the removal of negative consequences for X will encourage people to do X. This applies no matter what X is: rape, filing false reports of rape, abuse of Wikipedia, anything. It is in fact illustrated that the principle is endorsed by both sides by pointing out that when X is rape, feminist commentators (including our drive-by anon) assert that rape is obviously encouraged by a system that does prosecute rapists but doesn't do so vigorously enough. If someone wants to argue that "filing false reports" is an exception to that general principle which both sides agree on, they are going to have to defend that exception.

Here, on the other hand, is our drive-by anon's statement:

"Clearly, an environment in which victims who come forward are faced not only with public humiliation but a possible jail sentence illustrates serious problems with our justice system."

This may seem comparable, but it is not. It is a value judgement. Our drive-by anon thinks that it is only a serious problem with our justice system when actual victims of rape are falsely believed to have made false accusations -- not when non-victims really have made false accusations and innocent people have their lives and reputations ruined. Let me spell it out again: what our drive-by anon wishes the article to state is that false accusations of rape are not a problem for our justice system to be concerned about -- but false accusations of false accusations of rape are symptoms of "serious problems with our justice system."

The problem is not that the debate isn't covered from both sides, it's that one side is the untenable proposition "false reports never happen, or if they happen, they happen so seldom that we can just pretend they don't happen at all." The facts are there; the cases are there; it shouldn't need spelling out that, yes, they do happen. Our drive-by anon, who comes by every few weeks with a new IP, is evidence that yes, it does need spelling out. There's only so much you can do to counteract facts; our anon has tried and failed but that doesn't stop him or her from trying again. He or she should not get the article shifted further in his/her favored direction every time he/she comes back, ignores all requests for discussion, completely ignores the current state of the article, and inserts the same biased edits all over. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:36, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Female Rapists/Male Victims

This article seems severely lacking in information regarding the rape and sexual assault of men by women. I'd offer to add some information myself, although unfortunately I don't think I could be NPOV enough due to some rather unpleasant past experiences.

As a starting point, however, I should note that contrary to common belief, a man can be forced into intercourse with a woman against his will. Adrenaline and fondling can lead to sexual arousal even if the man is not consenting to the act (which often leads to extreme humiliation, in that the man feels guilty for allowing himself to become aroused). --Corvun 11:24, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

quoting of statute names?

81.153.93.93, I'm curious as to this edit -- and I should mention that this is the only part of your edits that I have any objection to. You removed the quotes from "causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent", which I was under the impression was the actual name of the statute. I guess my question is two-fold:

Is it the actual name of the statute?

If it is, what's the justification for removing the quotes? (If it is not the name of the statute, then of course the edit makes perfect sense, so that it doesn't give the false impression that it is.)

-- Antaeus Feldspar 16:42, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Suspicious statistic

According to FBI statistics, reporting in the January 11, 1993 edition of Newsweek by Kevin Krajik, at least 33% of men convicted for rape by 1993 were false accused.

I'm not sure how this got missed, but it's a very suspicious statistic, since it was introduced by 66.231.17.107 in this edit, where he/she also misinterpreted Dr. Kanin's statistic of a 41% false report rate in one particular community to mean 41% of all reports of rape. I'm taking it out (it doesn't belong in Punishment anyways; it's probably because it was there that it was missed for so long) but if someone can actually look up the article referred to, it might have some interesting information. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:19, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Victim Blaming

I've changed this bit quite radically. I'm not too happy with what I've ended up with, which I think may need some more work. This is due to my (very) limited knowledge of different legislatures, the concept of provocation in law, and cultural differences.

My reasons for changing were that this section seemed to be mostly about 'false reporting' rather than 'victim blaming'. That issue is addressed elsewhere. I don't think the concept of victim blaming was clearly explained. There was a quote from some website, which seemed very POV and used the vague and rather meaningless expression 'rape myths' (which sometimes rafers to genuine myths - i.e. untruths - but at others seems to mean inconvenient evidence that doesn't fit the ideology of the writer). I tried to explain what victim blaming means and the 'logic' of it. The problem with such explanations is that they can read like justifications. But I think there needs to be an account of why such views are prominent in popular attitudes, how they differ from culture to culture and how this is related to victims's fears about their public image (not wanting to look like a 'slag' - still an important consideration)

I dropped the para on the 'Just world hypothesis', since I can't see its relevance. It would apply to any crime, not specifically rape, or even to accidents, or other injustices in life ('why did so-and-so who smokes 40 a day not get cancer, but my sister did...') This is really the theological problem of evil. I think it distract from the central issue here, which is why 'blaming the victim' has specific importance and resonance in rape cases.

It may also be useful to relate this section to the inverse concept of 'victim virtue' - the notion that victimhood in modern culture often confers a nobility, generating sympathy, support, 'hero' status etc. Paul

"Why not put them both in?"

OK, some context. We had links at the end of the section on "Rape and sexual torture" to humiliation and Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse. An anon (whose only contributions these were) changed the Abu Ghraib link to Human rights in Saddam's Iraq. I kept his other change but reverted back to the Abu Ghraib link.

I thought I had made my reasoning clear in the edit summary of my change, but since Gbleem asks in his edit summary "why not put them both in?" (doing so himself) I'd like to answer.

Simply reinserting the Abu Ghraib link and keeping both was in fact the thing I was first tempted to do, not least because it would cause the fewest complaints. But the logic that led me to revert was this: the Abu Ghraib link should not have been removed. The section is about the use of rape as an act of torture, particularly "as a means to 'soften' detainees for interrogation or to intimidate them into compliance." That is in fact what the soldiers charged in the Abu Ghraib testified they thought their higher-ups meant for them to do -- to sexually abuse the detainees to make them more willing to give up information. No matter what you believe the truth about Abu Ghraib is, whether you believe the superiors gave orders or not or just gave the "will no one rid me of the inconvenient dignity of these troublesome detainees" routine or whether you even think the whole "we were softening them up for interrogation" was just an excuse concocted to cover private amusements, the fact is that the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib is the most prominent and publicized association in recent times of rape and sexual assault committed specifically as an act of torture.

It should have only been removed if it was going to be replaced with a better example. There may well be better examples than Abu Ghraib; the research I did trying to create a decent article for Custodial rape certainly indicates that the problem is endemic in certain countries. And of course, Saddam's use of torture in Iraq, including rape, could hardly be denied except perhaps by Comical Ali. Nevertheless, Saddam's regime was not notable for sexual torture the way that the prison at Abu Ghraib is notable for the sexual abuses visited upon its detainees. Is it an example? Yes. Is it a better example? No. So should it have replaced the Abu Ghraib link? No. It is plain that substituting one link for the other was a way to repeat the often-expressed sentiment "everyone who keeps harping on how barbaric the abuses at Abu Ghraib were forgets that much worse was done by Saddam to his own people." True or false, that sentiment is a red herring. The section is not about who is better or who is worse, or whether two parties that both commit torture to get what they want can be compared to each other morally, or about how the scales balance when such a comparison is made. The section is about rape and sexual torture. If we make a link to Human rights in Saddam's Iraq because Saddam Hussein did torture his own people and because that torture included rape and sexual assault, then for consistency's sake we would be obligated to add all dictators whose tortures of their own people included sexual torture. That's not feasible. Would we even be considering singling out Saddam Hussein out of all torturing dictators to link to in this section, if someone hadn't brought him up to 'counter' Abu Ghraib? If the answer is "No", that's also the answer to whether we should keep the link. -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)