Talk:Laws regarding rape

Rape reporting and world-wide view

Given that there's already a page on rape reporting and the information on it here is both redundant and off-topic, I'm going to delete the section unless someone objects. --JaceCady 01:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else feel that this view does not, and can never, give a worldwide view of the law of rape? Would it not be better to briefly summarise the main elements and the list articles discussing the law in individual states, rather than making broad generalisations as this article does? It is very hard to say "the law of rape is this" as it almost always won't universally be so.

Scots law dispute

This discussion is carrying over from the main article, Rape. Anonymous user, please stop changing this article to remove the one proper legal reference in it. If you have formal references to support your point about Scottish law, please present them. If you do not, please desist. Thank you. -- TinaSparkle 16:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not changing the article, you have no referneces to your 'alleged' facts. Can you answer one question for me, I just want something confirmed, men can be raped by women correct... in scottish law it states 'Women can be prosecuted for rape under the Rape Act 2003, the act is designed to make offences more gender neutral'. Women can be prosecuted and charged for raping men in Scotland, its a fact. I don't mean to sound rude, but am putting across a serious point. Take a look at this link and this link, it states 'Victim' not 'Woman' or 'Man' and perpetrater not 'Man' or 'Woman' meaning either the man or woman can be the perpatrator and/or the victim. The second actually states that 'the reform will encourage thousands more women - and men - each year to report sex attacks and increase the abysmally low conviction rate for rape, which stands at just over 4%'. --88.108.53.172 20:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the links you provided? The BBC article makes no reference to it being possible to charge women with rape. Nor does the Scotsman link, though it mentions that male-male rape may be legally defined at some point in the future. Neither article supports the point you're making.

The bit in the Scotsman that says "more women - and men - each year to report sex attacks" is about sex attacks, not rape. Unconsenting penile penetration of any orifice on a man or a woman other than a vagina is presently defined as sodomy or indecent assault, as the article makes very clear. This Wikipedia article is not about sodomy laws or indecent assault laws; it is about rape laws. To quote from the Scotsman piece:

Under the plans, the definition of rape will be extended to cover any crime of penile penetration. It is also expected to introduce a new crime of 'sexual assault by penetration' to cover other forms of non-penile penetration. Also expected is a new crime of 'sexual assault by touching', under which offenders could be prosecuted for groping someone without their consent.

The definition of rape may be expanded to include any act of penile penetration, but this would still mean that it was impossible for a woman to commit rape. Unless, of course, she had a penis. Women generally don't. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - we can't include possible changes to the law in the future in this piece.

You seem to want me to say that men can be raped by women. It doesn't matter what I think, and nor does it matter what you think: Scottish law, as it stands, says that only men can perpetrate rape and only women can be the victims of it. This article is about rape laws, not your opinion or mine. There is some suggestion that the Scots may change the law so that men can also be defined as the victims of rape, though this has not yet taken place. There is no suggestion that women could be defined as the rapists in any situation.

There is no such thing as the Rape Act 2003. There is a Sexual Offences Act 2003 in English and Welsh law, not Scottish law, and it states unambiguously that rape is committed by men against women. You can read it at the British Government's Office of Public Sector Information, here: [1]

In Scotland, there was a Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003, but it made no reference to rape being gender-ambiguous; rather the opposite, in fact. You can read it also at OPSI, here: [2]

The Scottish legal system's current views on rape are stated very clearly in a PDF from the Scottish Parliament's website. It's available here: [3]

I quote:

Rape is a gender-specific crime. In Scotland, it can only be committed by males upon females, which appears to mean by persons biologically male at birth upon persons born biologically female. It is, therefore, a crime of specific personal violence perpetrated on females.

I really don't see that there's any way you could mistake this for a law that says women can perpetrate rape and men can have it perpetrated on them. And I don't know where you're getting your ideas from - they certainly aren't supported by the evidence you have provided. Please stop changing this page to include blatantly wrong information: it is a form of vandalism, and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. -- TinaSparkle 22:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You really don't understand do you, there are laws in Scotland that do state if a man is raped or sexually assaulted by a woman the charges are the same to that as rape. If there was no law in place to state this, women would be raping and sexually assalting men all over the place; it is a problem worldwide already. My case is made and point is put foward. You didn't answer my above comment so I will assume from that, that you are some sort of feminist and 'trying' not to believe that men are victims of rape by women. I also notice that another user, not related to me changed something in the 'Rape' artcle referencing that men are now becoming victims of rape and that laws are changing to counteract this. That is fact. By the way, what does the Wikipedia article on Rape state right at the top of the page? This; "Rape is a form of assault involving the non-consensual sexual violation of the sexual, anal, or oral organs of another person's body. The victim can be of either sex, as can the assailant.". My case is at rest. --88.108.53.172 10:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If your case is at rest, I fear you may be losing. References to other Wikipedia articles do not qualify as references to reliable sources! You clearly have an interest in pushing the line that female rape of men is epidemic. If you wish to believe that, you are entitled to do so. But, if you can't back it up with reliable sources, such an assertion has no place on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, you have provided no references to any Scottish laws to demonstrate your belief that rapists can be defined as female in Scotland.

Look, let me make the position extremely clear: my concern re this page is to have it accurately reflect the state of the laws about rape worldwide. If the law in Scotland says that both men and women can be rapists, that is a fascinating and important fact and needs to be in the article. However, according to all available sources, the law in Scotland says that only men can be rapists. If you can find any reliable sources to support your argument, please present them, and I will be very happy to have them added to the article or to add them myself. If you are right about the state of the law in Scotland, it should be very easy to prove it from the Scottish Parliament or OPSI websites, and I will concede the point and offer you an apology. If you discover in the course of your researches that I am correct, I hope you will do me the same courtesy. -- TinaSparkle 14:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

88.108.53.172 you are getting confused between the definition of rape you find in a dictionary, on Wikipedia, on in your head, and the Scots legal definition of rape.

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

16:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

But a woman can be charged with engaging in a sexual act without his consent, which equates and the charges are the same as rape. --88.110.121.26 22:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I think is mentioned in the article, that would be indecent assault, which is a form of aggravated assault. She would be charged with aggravated assault. The charge would read something like "at 12 X street, y town, on 29th May at roughly 5am, you did (whatever) and you did indecently assault him." there would be no mention of rape, as in Scots law rape is only penile penetration of the vagina without active consent. I'm sure we all agree that the law isn't very good, but that's what it is and that's what Wikipedia has to say it is. If you don't believe me why not walk into a bookshop and open a book on Scots criminal law? Or else you can email me and i will send you my lecture notes on the subject. Or else you could trust me? Balfron 11:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this enough for you? Read the first page. (The actus reus means the physical act. A crime consists of two things; a physical act and a mental thought process (or lack of). http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/pdf_res_notes/rn01-46.pdf 11:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OK I see you ignored our discussion here and went ahead with an edit stating untrue things. I edited it out again... 19:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

OK now you have given me some sort of warning, accusing me of vandalism and "removing sourced points". Your edit is wrong, and is not sourced. I have removed it once again, and seek support from the rest of the community. Once again, you are wrong, and you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your statement. Please can you give some sort of source backing up your view before editing. Please also can you discuss things here instead of just starting an edit war. 15:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

B, I'm entirely in support of you. I have removed this incorrect edit again. If the vandalism continues, we may need to consider having this page protected. A general message to anonymous users: Please note that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and you may not add potential future events; please also note that all additions to this article must be verifiable and sourced to reliable sources. If you can't provide proper references to formal legal sources for points in this article, it is not appropriate to add them. This article is not an opinion piece and may not represent anything other than an accurate account of the legal position on rape laws: that means no futurology, no advocacy, no opinion. This rule is vital everywhere on Wikipedia but is particularly important on a controversial subject like this. -- TinaSparkle 15:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

More fun in Canada

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/rape-victim-inviting-so-no-jail--rape-victim-inviting-so-no-jail-116801578.html

Add clothes to conduct for Canadian entry. Hcobb (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

History (Scotland)

Removed

"Women's organiastions have stated in 2009 that figures showed that only 3% of rape allegations in Scotland ended in conviction."

(1) Irrevalent to article title (2) Violates wp:rs should use primary sources

Zimbazumba (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Rape statistics and reporting

All entries concerning rape reporting and statistics do no belong here and should be removed. This is about rape law. Unless others can argue otherwise I will remove in 24hrs

Zimbazumba (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Law" as a general subject includes the enforcement of law and the public perception of law; and the outcome of these. A comparison of rape reporting and conviction rates can be enlightening. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. As you well know pretty well the same discussion has been held over at Talk:Feminism. There are many things that could be considered equally enlightening eg false rape accusations, MRA views on rape laws, feminist views on rape laws, rape laws in war, rape kits, legal attitudes to homosexual rape, methods of rape investigation, police attitudes to rape laws, application of rape laws in prison, rape laws as a political tool, use/misuse of rape conviction statistics. We can go on all day.

Do you really want to argue this? If so, my further response will be a cut and paste of Cailil's comments from Talk:Feminism followed by a post at NPOVN if required.

Zimbazumba (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Your global statement at the top of this thread is too broad to let stand. We cannot state categorically that "all entries concerning rape reporting and statistics" do not belong. Appropriate ones may belong, depending on context. Binksternet (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

My statement was "..all entries concerning rape reporting and statistics [in this page] do no belong here and should be removed."

Zimbazumba (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I came to this page to see how rape laws are enforced in various countries, and I'm sure many other people did too. If they aren't here, what page (if one) do they belong on? P ø r k (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

How about a hypothetical page called enforcement of laws regarding rape or the like? James500 (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Earlier, I would have asked how does this article not show how rape laws are enforced in different countries, but I see that a section on punishment was recently added. Without that section, I still feel that this article shows how rape laws are enforced. I mean, if it talks about the different rape laws in different countries, how is that not also talking about enforcement? I don't see a different article being needed. This article does need a bit more expansion to cover more counties, though. Flyer22 (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Redirects

Can I suggest that the redirects Rape (law) and Rape (crime) should point at this page instead of pointing at rape. I feel that to a substantial degree that article is as much as or more about the sociological/behavioural fact of forcible intercourse etc rather than than the law relating to rape.James500 (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, it is as much or more about criminology as it is about criminal law.James500 (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As no one has objected, I have now effected these redirects.James500 (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Dispute about the introduction to this article

The following text is from the page Talk:Rape and has been pasted onto this page because it relates to proposed changes to this article.

Text copied from Talk:Rape

Now will you change your definition of rape from the name of a statutory crime in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and other countries in the Laws regarding rape article? That definition completely gives more weight to other countries than the United States, for example. Flyer22 (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

My intention is to expand the list until it includes every jurisdiction that has an offence called rape. Something of this nature will be necessary as the article should contain complete details of all offences of rape (probably moved to sub articles for each jurisdiction as at Rape in English law) If the list becomes too long, I will probably fix it by substituting words to the effect of "in the jurisdictions listed in section such and such of this article below" possibly with an internal link i.e. "in the countries listed here" where the word "here" is linked.James500 (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it seems you are okay with the new lead. Good. Glad we got that sorted out. But as for the Laws regarding rape article, I still state that the initial definition of rape should be clear/should reflect the general definition, as this article does. There should be no emphasis on any particular countries for the initial definition. Flyer22 (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as the criminal law is concerned there is no general definition of the word "rape". The definition of the word "rape" is whatever the statute, that happens to be in force at that place and at that time, says that it is - nothing more and nothing less. The definition of legal terms of art is, right or wrong, not done in a teleological manner.James500 (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as criminal law and most definitions of rape go, there is a general definition of rape. As I stated above, "Every dictionary we pick up defines it as forced sexual intercourse/intercourse or some other sexual activity carried out against a person without [that person's] consent. [Consent can mean expressed consent or otherwise.] Most definitions define it that way, period." That goes for most legal definitions of rape as well. What is so difficult about defining the lead of the Laws regarding rape article that way? It's not as though rape is ever considered to be "sexual acts with consent." People under the age of consent are, by law, deemed too young to consent. People who are mentally incapacitated are deemed unfit to consent. People tricked into sleeping with someone by impersonation may be considered to not have consented. "Consent" is most definitely the main issue in regards to rape. In the first past discussion I linked you to above (how we achieved consensus that first time), editors researched just about every definition of rape. While rape is usually defined as a sexual assault, rape being defined as "any sexual assault" is the exception, not the rule. The Laws regarding rape article should reflect this one in its initial definition. The same problem with your definition of the term in this article is the same problem with your definition of the term in that article. I objected to it being the main/initial definition, and I'm not okay with it being the initial definition in a different article related to rape either. The lead just looks plain messy. I will be tweaking that lead later, whether I have to put "usually defined" backed up by reliable sources or whatever. Flyer22 (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Dictionaries are not sources of law. They cannot tell you what the legal meaning of the word rape or any other word is.James500 (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What concerns me is this:

• You appear to be asserting that there is a single legal definition of rape. There isn't.
• You appear to be asserting that that the definitions of rape in various statutes etc can be conflated. They can't.

If you were going to talk about the definition of rape, you would absolutely have to talk about it being "usually defined" or, more probably, "most frequently defined" as something (with those words at the start before you say anything else). That said, I have serious doubts that you are going to find out what it is most frequently defined as by looking at dictionaries.

• Another user, Espoo, told me something to the effect that modern dictionaries record the most common usage of a word and are not interested in whether it is being used correctly.James500 (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's look at Webster's definition: Where's the mens rea? At most they have stated the actus reus. I thought it looked funny. This sort of mistake doesn't bode well.

Also, what I wrote is not messy.James500 (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

James500, will you stop trying to teach me what rape is and isn't? This is a topic I have studied extensively, among other sexual topics, and need no lesson in. You are wrong when you say dictionary sources cannot tell you what the legal meaning of the word rape or any other word is. Dictionary sources tell us what the legal meaning of words are all the time. Further, there are legal dictionaries, as displayed on this talk page before, and I included a legal dictionary version of one in this article's lead. I could also get a hold of more specific, "praised" ones. Or encyclopedias. You act as though I am only relying on dictionary sources for my stance. I said, "That goes for most legal definitions of rape as well." I also said, "In the first past discussion I linked you to above (how we achieved consensus that first time), editors researched just about every definition of rape." I am not asserting that there is a single definition of rape. I am not conflating anything. I am asserting that rape is "sex without consent." What some states or jurisdictions define as "sex" and therefore "rape"...does not negate the basic definition of rape -- which is "sex without consent."

What concerns me is this:

• You appear to be asserting that rape is something that is quite difficult to define. It isn't. It all comes down to sex without consent. And whether it is called "rape" or "unlawful sexual intercourse" or has no name at all, it is still rape.
• You appear to be asserting that the definitions of rape in various statutes etc. are so distinct that "rape" has lost its meaning. It hasn't. When someone goes to a police station, and says, "I was raped," we all know what they mean, or assume we know what they mean -- "Sex performed on me without my consent." Whether that state does or doesn't define a particular sex act as rape is beside the point, as "sex without consent" is still viewed as rape...no matter what any particular state or jurisdiction calls it. That is why all these other expressions, such as "unlawful sexual intercourse," are just seen as another definition/aspect of rape and is why we go over it in the Definitions section.

I would not have to state "usually defined" or "most frequently defined" when defining the basic definition of rape, which is "sex without consent," just as I have done in this article. Just as the Sexual assault article currently states, "...is an assault of a sexual nature on another person, or any sexual act committed without consent." I am quite aware that modern dictionaries record the most common usage of a word and sometimes are not interested in whether it is being used correctly. But then again, I did say the "general use," now didn't I? And these dictionaries are not incorrect in defining rape. Any lawyer would state that these dictionaries in fact have it right on this one, but that "what constitutes 'sex' varies and therefore what constitutes 'rape' varies." But, as I stated, I am not simply talking about dictionary sources.

And, yes, what you wrote is messy, per WP:LEAD. You don't define the term straight-up. And, yes, per statements above, it can be defined straight-up. You go into all these country and jurisdictions aspects first, and even assigned a "which" tag to the end of the "and other countries" part (among others), as though every country going by this should be specified in the lead, which is just messy. And then the lead goes past the "no more than four paragraphs" standard. It's a mess. One I will be fixing later. But I am not interested in debating all of this with you any further. You can maintain what you believe, as I cannot take that away from you, and I will maintain what I believe. Flyer22 (talk)

• The article is about the subject rape itself, not the legal definition of it. Make an article called Rape (legal) if you want. Or list of rape laws by nation and state which links to what the law is in each nation. Dream Focus 16:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Dream Focus, I agree that this article is about the subject of rape itself, but that includes the legal definition. That is what rape encompasses. After all, what is rape if not pertaining to law? True, rape is about forcing sex on a person either way. But the act is usually viewed as a crime, which means it usually concerns law. Thus, a Rape (legal) article would be redundant. Most of what is in here could also go in that article. And if all the legal aspects of rape were removed from this article, where would that leave this article? Not in a very good place. I don't see how there is any way to build on an article titled Rape without it being connected to law. A List of rape laws by nation and state sounds good, though. Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I mean, the opening statement doesn't have to include any legal definition at all. Some states don't even call it "rape" anymore, but say "sexual assault". Sexual activity of any kind with a person without valid consent is rape. If Afghanistan you can legally buy a seven year old boy for a sex slave. If you only go by the legal definition of rape, in their nation that wouldn't be considered rape. So we'd be listing the legal definition of just certain countries. Best not to have the lead defining what it means in any nation's legal terms, but of course give examples of the difference in rape laws around the world in the article itself. Dream Focus 18:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, good points. Although if "sexual activity of any kind" includes "only the fondling of the breasts or the buttocks," for example, I personally wouldn't call that rape. But my personal opinion is not the issue. What has been stated here about defining the term is. So, again, good points. That is why we agreed to remove "In criminal law" from the beginning definition. I do feel that saying "The term is most often defined in criminal law," as the lead currently does, is fine, though. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Dream Focus, I was not talking about the definition in this article. I was talking about Flyer22's proposal to amend the definition at the start of Laws regarding rape. This discussion is taking place in the wrong forum. My understanding is that that makes any conclusion formed about that article from this discussion invalid. Could we please discuss the article Laws regarding rape on the page Talk:Laws regarding rape and not here.James500 (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Either way, we were talking about the definition of rape. I understand your point about this being the wrong place to discuss what should go into the other article. I don't have much more to state on that matter, however. I only have a problem with that article's lead not giving the definition of rape in relation to consent first and then going into all the state/jurisdiction stuff. And of course the lead having too many tags and not being four paragraphs or less. Once I tweak that lead (whenever that will be), that is if you don't beat me to the cleanup first, and you have any objections to my tweaks, we can/should discuss it there. Flyer22 (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Continuation of the dispute on this page

Flyer22, I will respond to your comments shortly. James500 (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Flyer22, you say that the article does not begin with a definition of the word "rape". The following passage is a definition of the word rape:

Rape is the name of a statutory crime in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland, California, New York State and other countries. The word rape is a legal term of art used in the definition of the offence of sexual violation in New Zealand.

That definition is factually accurate, though the words "in other countries" need to be expanded.James500 (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

James, I already stated that I don't have much more to state to you about this. I also stated when I would reply on this talk page, so I am not sure why you are forcing this discussion on me. My reasons for objecting to the way the definition is...is something I have already gone over...and is the same reason I objected to that definition in the Rape article. I did not state that the article does not begin with a definition of the word rape. Above, I stated, "I only have a problem with [this] article's lead not giving the definition of rape in relation to consent first and then going into all the state/jurisdiction stuff." To me, the lead should give that clear-cut definition first. And, yes, that is clear-cut, as rape is about committing a sexual act against someone without that's person's consent, and every rape case is based on whether or not consent was involved. Otherwise....it's not rape. You are not going to change my mind on what I feel should be done with this article's lead.

Frankly, I wanted a break from this discussion. And I definitely don't like spending most of my day/night debating something on Wikipedia...or anywhere for that matter. But I will alert others of this discussion at one of the same WikiProjects I alerted others to about the Rape article (WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Law too, though the latter isn't as active). This is not a WP:FORUM, and I do not feel like debating with you my belief on what rape generally is/how rape is generally defined. What I asked for in regards to the lead is not something I even feel needs to/should be debated. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22, I am not using this page as a WP:Forum. I am not debating your beliefs about anything. I am not interested in your beliefs. I am questioning your proposal to make changes to this article. If you want to take a break from this discussion, I am not in any way stopping you. I am not compelling you to reply to me. I am not even asking you to reply. You keep choosing to do so because you seem to be determined to have the last word. To the point of telling me to shut up. If you don't want to reply, then don't reply. No one is making you do anything.James500 (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The other discussion had started to dissolve into a forum atmosphere. We were debating each other's beliefs -- the general definition bit. And continuing debate of our feelings here about what rape is...is pretty much the same. If you are not compelling me to reply to you or even asking me to reply, then you would not have brought this discussion here...when I made it clear that I was pretty much done. I did not tell you to shut up or imply that. I stated that I didn't/don't have much more to state on the matter. That I would tweak the lead, and then if you had any objections to it, we could discuss that here. At that time. Your bringing the discussion here after I stated that I was pretty much done speaks to you wanting the last word, not me. Unless you wanted others to weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to reply further. At all. Under any circumstances. No matter what you write next. I do not feel that it would be constructive.James500 (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Per this ref it should be historical term [4] Pg 255 as many / most are changing to the term sexual assault. Canada stoped using the term rape in 1983 and replaced it with three degrees of sexual assault [5]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not historical, it is still used in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.James500 (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

And still in enough places in the United States. Flyer22 (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Definition

This has been added to the start of the article:

Rape is the name of a statutory crime that is legally defined as the act of having sexual intercourse with someone forcibly and against their will.

Why I am going to alter this:

• It implies that rape is the name of a crime everywhere. That is not true, e.g. Canada, where the term is not used.
• It implies that that crime is always statutory: that assertion requires a source.
• "Sexual intercourse": This expression has been used as a legal term of art with a very specific meaning (and not only that but more than one) that is not applicable to all jurisdictions e.g s 44 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and see R v Gaston 73 Cr App R 164, CA (coitus or buggery) and the alternative definition under, IIRC s 7 of, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 (coitus only). For example, s 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 includes acts (oral sex) that would not be sexual intercourse within either of those definitions.
• "Forcibly":There is no requirement of force under, for example, s 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; that offence can be committed by stealth, for example against a sleeping person, by threats, by lies about the nature of the act or the identity of the defendant.
• "Against their will": There is not a requirement in all jurisdictions that the victim has adverted to and is aware of what is going on; a person who is asleep could be said not to have a will about anything, which is why in Scotland that was formerly treated as clandestine injury to women and not rape; s 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, for example only speaks about an abscence of consent.
• It implies that mens rea is not part of the definition.

James500 (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I see it was a very new user (Rtgd9125) who altered the lead. Hmm. I'm not sure what to make of this user. He or she just popped up and started editing rape articles. But we all gotta start somewhere. Hopefully, this editor does not become a problem. All I'll say about the "will" part is that it is generally seen as the same as "without their consent." The latter is used interchangeably with "against their will" in rape definitions all the time. Now some may argue that a man engaging in sex with his wife while she is asleep is not rape, but if the woman feels that it is rape...since she did not consent to the act...then it is rape, or whatever offense it happens to be titled in whatever state/jurisdiction. "Forcibly" also doesn't have to mean "physically forced," but I do understand your point about using "forcibly." Other examples would need to be given to make clear the different ways in which people can be raped, like we currently do for the initial definition of the Rape article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry folks, my edits will not be a problem. Just thought I would contribute where I can. I agree with Flyer22 in that "against will" and "without their consent" implies the same thing. Also, "forcibly" does not imply the use of physical force- it implies whatever the victim felt was inappropriate in that particular circumstance (no matter if it was a strong amount of force used or the smallest amount of force used). I think that the lead of the article should make mention of a standard definition of rape that you can find in any law book, hence, the aforementioned definition is one such definition. Rtgd9125 (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Against the will: I have noticed that this article contains the following passage:

CA: "A Penal Code 261 pc "rape" occurs...under California rape law...when an individual engages in sexual intercourse with another person when the sexual act is accomplished (1) against that person's will, or (2) without that person’s consent.."

(my emphasis). I don't know where to get a copy of that statute. I shall check the page history now. James500 (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that the phrases are usually used interchangeably in regards to rape, such as with the definitions provided on the Rape talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

But I'm thinking they're sometimes distinguished because "against their will" easily implies "by physical force." I mean, if it is an underage person, or mentally disabled person, and they "consent," it can be argued as not being against their will...but rather as "without their consent," as such persons are often viewed as incapable of granting valid consent in these cases. Flyer22 (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The lead is still problematic

The following paragraph defines rape as only sexual intercourse without any mention of consent (not to mention, the lead is no place for all these definitions):

Rape has on occasion been defined in terms of "having carnal knowledge of" a woman, or "having sexual intercourse with" a woman (including a girl) specifically, or either a woman or a man (including a girl or a boy) generally, or engaging in sexual intercourse with a person (which term includes a hermaphrodite who might arguably be neither a woman nor a man) or having "sexual connection" with a person effected by penile penetration of that person's genetalia, or penile penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth (these terms construed as including surgically constructed organs) of a person.

Reply: The words "in terms of" were intended to make it plain that this passage is only discussing one aspect of the definition (the physical act). I concede that they might be ambiguous, but I am not sure that a more explicit form of words is possible. How about putting the elements of the definition under the headings "actus reus" (the sexual act), "attendant circumstances" (e.g. absence of consent) and "mens rea"?James500 (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That is problematic because rape is about sex without consent. Simply having sex with someone is not rape. And on that note, the following paragraph is problematic as well:

Rape has on occasion been defined so as to require proof that the sexual act in question was done without the victim's consent or against their will, or of either of those things as alternatives. Conversely, it has on occasion been defined (in relation to individuals beneath a certain age) in terms that make no reference to consent and that are intended to be construed to mean that the consent of the victim is irrelevant to the guilt of the defendant.

That paragraphs makes it seem as though consent only rarely plays a role in rape. When, actually, consent always plays a role in rape (in some form or another). Otherwise, it is not rape. And there is no "occasionally" in regards to consent being seen as invalid in the case of a person below the age of consent (statutory rape).

Further, you have lengthened the lead...even after I pointed out the "no more than four paragraphs" standards made clear in WP:LEAD. I know you have issues with Wikipedia: Manual of Style, but we generally should not go against it...unless there is a really good reason to do so. There is no really good reason to do so in this case.

All in all, the lead still needs major cleanup. You still have not given a valid reason why you have not defined the lead first and foremost as "sex without a person's consent," as the main article does. Because as I have stated more than once now, that is what rape is. If consent is present, then it is not rape. "Consent" covers "valid consent" as well, such as underaged persons or mentally-impaired persons.

I also feel that I need to remind you that what goes on in England and Wales does not determine what goes on in the rest of the world. This and other articles about general topics should not be largely formatted due to the happenings in England and Wales. That's like me going around and Americanizing a whole bunch of law-related articles in great detail. This article should represent a worldwide view, and should not lean more so toward one specific set of laws.

I have decided to leave this article mostly up to you for now, as I do not need the stress/drama of edit wars and lengthy discussions (I have enough of that on Wikipedia already). Whether you take my advice or not, I am sure that the lead will be eventually formatted in the way I stated that it should be. Someone will come along and do just that, likely before me, and I will support it. Flyer22 (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I made this edit, and I'm going to make more later. Turns out that I cannot just sit back and let you continue to ignore this. I ask that you please stop using law aspects that apply to the United Kingdom in ways that make it seem as though these are general law aspects (as in applying to most parts of the world). Although, as I stated in that edit summary, I am pretty sure that rape is about consent in the United Kingdom as well. This reference here is an example of that, despite it saying consent was irrelevent: '...section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 creates the offence of "rape of a child under 13". It contains no reference to consent. After describing the sexual act the offence prohibits, paragraph 14 of the explanatory notes to the Act say "whether or not the child consented to this act is irrelevant". Well, of course, whether or not the child consented is irrelevant. This is because their consent is invalid. It does not count as consent. This means that it was still "sex without consent." I am not sure what your issues are with providing the consent definition of rape first -- seeing as that is the only consistent definition of rape -- but I will be doing that. Then I will be trimming the lead, or at least combining some of these paragraphs so that there are not six of them. Flyer22 (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If the draftsman of the Act had wanted to create a conclusive presumption that a child under 13 was incapable of consenting to intercourse, I am inclined to think that he would have put it in section 76 with the other conclusive presumptions about consent. Section 74 speaks of a person who "has the ... capacity to make that choice" but says nothing further. The wording of the explanatory notes to the Act seems to me to clearly imply that whoever wrote them thought that it was possible for a child under 13 to consent that activity. In any event, this should be settled by reference to case law on the Act.

If you feel that the lead is too long, you should create a new section headed "definitions" or the like, not delete the material relating to alternative definitions, which actually needs to be expanded.James500 (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, my understanding is that what is termed statutory rape is an American invention. Before 2003 it certainly was a defence to rape of a girl under 16 that she consented, notwithstanding that by virtue of section 14(2) her consent was no defence to indecent assault: see, for example, R v Hodgson and others [1973] QB 565, 57 Cr App R 502, CA (what I am looking at right now is paragraph 20-14 of the 1999 edition of Archbold where that case is briefly discussed). I agree that the way that the two offences were inconsistent with each other was bizarre, but that is just the way that it was then.James500 (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Crown Prosecution Service guidance on section 5 is here: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sexual_offences_act/#Section_5_Rape

James500 (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And their guidance on consent is here: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sexual_offences_act/#Consent

You will notice that they say, at the start: "Under the Act the non-consensual offences are sections 1-4" (and not section 5).James500 (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I changed it again because it is still defining rape in general as only occasionally being about consent, which is false. I originally altered it to "In the United Kingdom" because that reference only pertains to the United Kingdom. If you want it to say "In the United Kingdom and California," then go for it...as long there is a reference that actually says rape is only occasionally defined by consent in California. Because, as stated higher, law aspects that apply to the United Kingdom or a specific part of the world should not be used as though they generally apply everywhere else. My main point is that rape is defined as "sex without consent." That is clear from the Rape article. The sections you are referring me to show the same thing (even if you consider it as only my interpretation). A child or otherwise underage person (or a mentally disabled person), under law, cannot consent to sex. Since their "consent" is seen as irrelevant/invalid, it is not consent. That is the same as in America, and I believe is why the Sexual offences act#Consent section you showed me disregards consent; it is in reference to those types of situations, and goes on to try to determine what consent can mean. I will be placing all the consent information first, starting with the definition of rape ("sexual activity without consent" and what "consent" can mean) and seeing if I can combine other parts of the lead without making a Definitions section. I don't mind you making a Definitions section if you want, but the lead should first and foremost define rape as sex without consent. It should not have readers confused about what rape actually is. Right now, it is defining all these things without even defining the term in its most basic, accurate definition. Flyer22 (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the lead to this. It defines rape the same way as the Rape article does (without the "usually involving sexual intercourse" bit), and still keeps all the stuff you already had in the first paragraph. The second paragraph goes over the fact that what defines rape varies, and how this is also the case for what defines consent: it also keeps your information about how the Sexual Offences Act 2003 creates the offence of "rape of a child under 13" and does not specifically mention "consent." I created the Terms and general definitions section to add all the other stuff there because there was/is no way to keep it all in the lead without the lead looking messy and undefined. I added the "general" to "definitions" because it turns out that this entire article is about definitions. Flyer22 (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your assertion that the effect of section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is that a child under 13 is, as a matter of law in England and Wales, deemed to be incapable of consent, is completely unsourced. Find a source that says this explicitly and unambiguously or I will remove any assertion to that effect from the article on grounds of WP:SOURCE and WP:OR.James500 (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not an assertion. It's right there in the links you provided me with, from what I can see. If consent is irrelevant in the case of rape, that means there is no consent. It certainly works that way in the United States. What is rape, if consent is valid after all? Further, I didn't add it anywhere in the article that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 says a child under 13 is incapable of consent. I left in your information that says their consent is irrelevant.

And as for your removal of the word "general" from the heading, I added it there because it is general information about the definition of rape. This is why these are "general definitions." They aren't definitions specifically pertaining to individual states/countries. At least they weren't until you added the Sexual Offences Act 2003 information about children under 13 and their consenting there as well, as a subsection...even though it's already covered lower. (I like the way you've tackled that section, though, since it starts out with information about consent and without making it seem like an occasional issue.) Anyway, it seemed silly to me to have a section titled Terms and definitions, as if all the definitions are in that section, when, actually, all the other sections are about definitions as well. This is why I added "general" to the heading...because that section is (and should be) a summary while the other sections go into detail about the definitions relating to their state/country. But I'm not going to fight over the "general" heading bit. What makes sense to me clearly often doesn't make sense to you. Flyer22 (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that you are putting a gloss on what the CPS have said and I think that would be OR.

I did not mean to allege that you had added that assertion anywhere in the article. I thought that you were about to.

James500 (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that you are interpreting the words to your own belief as well. How is the Sexual Offences Act 2003 considering the consent of a child under 13 irrelevant any different than the United States saying that a child's consent is irrelevant because there is no consent? Because make no mistake about it, if the consent is considered irrelevant, then there is no consent. If a person saying "yes" to sex is considered irrelevant in a rape case, then it means their saying "yes" does not count. The law is specifically saying they are unable to consent. By saying that their consent is irrelevant, they are saying that this person is unable to consent to the act. Someone saying, "You can say 'yes' to the act all you want but it won't count/is invalid" is most definitely taking away their right to say "yes." This equals "unable to consent." I don't view it as a gloss/or "my spin" at all. You haven't demonstrated to me that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is any different in its take on consent (regarding minors and mentally disabled people) than the United States. That's all I was saying on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I could only respond to your claim that "consent irrelevant" necessarily means "consent cannot possibly be present" by repeating what I have already said. James500 (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Still not a claim, as far as I'm concerned...per what I stated (and what is shown) above. If "consent is irrelevant" in the matter of rape, that means "consent is not present" because the consent is invalid/does not count. Nothing can convince me otherwise -- that the two things are not the same when it comes to law in regards to rape. Flyer22 (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Nothing can convince you? James500 (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're fetching for. What is so confusing about what I stated? Why do you insist that rape can exist with consent, when no law anywhere defines rape that way? Not even the one you pointed me to. It specifically says "whether or not the child consented to this act is irrelevant" -- the same thing the United States says regarding child molestation and statutory rape cases, because the child/teenager's consent is discarded. How do you then take that to mean "consent is still valid"? Obviously, it's not valid if a child under thirteen cannot consent to sex with a significantly older person without that person being charged with/convicted of rape. How can anything still be rape if there is consent involved? Minors under the age of consent and mentally-disabled people don't count, considering that their consent is deemed irrelevant/invalid. Do you honestly think your laws state that a far-gone, mentally-disabled person is capable of consent? Because I don't see that anywhere. Even in rape by deception cases, consent is still the issue -- whether or not the consent was valid, etc. So I don't know how you can continue to argue that "Yeah, a person can be raped even when consent is present." It is well-known that certain types of consent are deemed irrelevant/invalid in rape cases. That's what I mean. Nothing can convince me that sex with consent is rape. What is rape, if even sex with consent can be considered rape? This is why there are laws disregarding types of consent, such as consent given by prepubescent children. In the eyes of the law, there is no true consent in such cases.

All that said, I don't know why we are even still on this subject. We've already tackled the issues I had with the lead, and I don't have any huge issues with what you have done with this article thus far. I still feel that you should be careful not to make certain things too UK-centered, due to your mostly using UK law sources. But the same can be said for American Wikipedians (me included); we often make things too US-centered here because these are the laws and things we are used to. It's what we're familiar with. That, of course, causes the article to mostly represent one point of view, world-wise, and then someone tags the article or section with "not representing a worldwide view." Flyer22 (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Needs New Section sealing with rape laws in India.

Been working on Issues of rape - rape culture - rape cases concerning India.

Noted omission of any reference to India. The issue is quite fascinating, and very large, with a number of issues dating back to 1860 - and on going amendment.

It's a significant issue and needs to be included to address Systemic Bias.

Where is the best place to start? Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Changed United States: Federal Law section

I changed the section so that it appropriately represents the content of the source (section title and including the full definition). I looked at the source because I found it odd that just immediately above it was stated that there was no federal law mentioning rape. Ismarc (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You also added some text while changing the title. I tweaked the text. Flyer22 (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I did, which is what I meant by including the full definition. If you have a look at the source, "is guilty of rape and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct." is on its own line, independent of point 5, applying to all of the above points and "the perpetrator' doesn't appear anywhere. Reviewing it again, it looks like each point is just slightly different than the source (likely due to when it was previously accessed). I've updated the entire section to be a direct quotation of the cite as it appears at this time. Ismarc (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I see, and saw your tweaks. Thanks for fixing this and explaining. Flyer22 (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I originally didn't look at the start of that section to give the "is" part context. It's late here for me (where I currently live), currently 11:40 PM, so I'll blame that error of mine on the lateness (my eyes not being as fresh as they are otherwise). Flyer22 (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Section on the Netherlands

This section is very unhelpful because, first of all, it does not cite the text of the law, so we can read what the definition of rape is. Secondly, the section is a detailed overview of all sexual offenses in the country - but this article is only about the criminal offense of rape. Some of the text may belong in other articles - such as laws regarding child sexual abuse, sexual harassment etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A3F3 (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I see no objections, here, so I'm removing that section.188.25.173.247 (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in "Punishment" section

"In early ancient Rome, ancient China, and other cultures, a pressure has existed which has led women to commit suicide after becoming victims of rape. The iconic Roman instance is that of Lucretia."
There is zero reason to believe that Lucretia committed suicide due to pressure or shame "of being raped". In fact, just about the entire Kingdom sympathized with her and avenged her. The main theme of that story is how humiliating the rape was and that she knew that, since it was the king's son, she couldn't do anything about it. So the shame was of the rape itself, not the fact that she was raped. And insinuating some kind of pressure on her is insane since everyone around her was so horrified by her suicide that they started a revolt. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)