Talk:Non statutory female on male rape

Global Deletion

I apologize if I came off as harsh in my talk page -- I was originally going to refer the article to wikipedia:AFD, but since the article is very young, and you seem to have invested quite a bit of time, it may seem a bit hasty. As it stands, the article isn't very encyclopedic, and my reasons for nominating it for deletion would be to call attention to it from a more experienced userbase capable of turning this article into something encyclopedic (beyond my capability, I assure you.) I am fairly certain that the resulting vote would be a Keep, since the article addresses a very interesting topic. For now, keeping this article with the existing tags will have to do. Also note that I was originally planning to post this in your talk page, but it's probably better to get the article's talk page started. -Etafly 16:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough. It is an interesting and pretty unique subject, and I hope others would help make it more encyclopedic. Where are votes taken place and how do I follow their status? -Lwc4life 18:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This page seems pretty redundant, it is all covered in the page Rape by gender and the editor has added similar pages on other wiki's that were quickly deleted because it was clear he had an obsession with the concept of female on male rape. On top of the the description in Rape By Gender is more descriptive than this. I say it should be deleted --Seth Turner 22:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If you mean what I think, the other wiki (as opposed to wikiS) was about the entertainment aspects of this subject (per the goal of that wiki). You know, the same ones that got censored in here because Wikipedia is not a dedicated entertainment encyclopedia, which was why the other wiki was more suitable, even though neither way works with you. As for your personal opinions, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks -Raybnay 13:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• It didn't get censored. See: WP:NOT#CENSORED. I removed the section because it wasn't encyclopedic. It was in hope that the article would eventually gain focus on the actual topic, rather than serve as a repository of trivia for the rape enthusiast. I stated my reason below. If you have objections to its removal, please discuss it. -Etafly 13:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've listed the page. Feel free to join the discussion. -Etafly 18:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The deletion of the Joyce McKinney story

Bastique has deleted the entire section about Joyce McKinney due to two unrelated reasons.

His first reason was that she "was convicted of Kidnapping, not rape." But who says a court conviction is a requirement to be included in this page? After all, the whole point is that this situation raises a lot of questions about how society views it. You can also use this case to compare it to the more recent case, and thus showing how things changed over the years. Besides, it's not like there are many related stories that shine over Joyce's.

His second reason was "the source is a fictionalized account". What stands behind that statement, I have no idea. I mean, for all I know he may be right, but since he doesn't back up his statement, it's just as good as saying it was a real account. If it was the specific site I based it on originally, then just Google up her name and you'd find hundreds of sites (and dozens of newsgroup items) and this is even though it happened so far back as in 1978. For example, here it is in Slate. -Lwc4life 18:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Number of google hits does not equal a reliable source. Slate.com is full of editorial contents, opinion pieces, and does not necessarily become reliable. Please do not add potentially libelous material to an article about a living person unless there are substantial newspaper accounts, and if it is noteworthy. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Cary Bass ^demandez 18:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What constitutes a reliable source? A site with a newspaper logo? Also keep in mind the more outdated stories are, the more chance you'd only find them in special archive sites. -Lwc4life 00:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. A newspaper. Not an opinion peice. Else every peice of opinionated crap out there counts a fact and gets included in articles. Wikipedia is not an attack site. Wikipedia is not a rag. Please keep conjecture out of articles. Cary Bass ^demandez 12:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you know every newspaper in the world? Once it's neither a US brand name (like CNN) nor a local newspaper that you happen to know (if you don't live in the US), then you have no way to tell if it's a real newspaper. -Lwc4life 09:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This news story from the Times (UK) might help as a reliable reference. It includes as comment several details of the original case. -- Solipsist (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

This article is in dire need of clean-up. It smacks of having a great deal of original research, lacks the formal tone needed for an encyclopedia article, has almost no sources for the most relevant data, lacks any information regarding the psychological ramifications of the act (as well as why reports of it might be rare), and has way too many pop media listing at the bottom. --Lendorien 19:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have attempted to rewrite parts of this to get rid of the ridiculous amount of headings that were involved and formalize the tone a little. It still needs editing and desperately needs sourcing as the whole things comes off as original research. I did work on the media listings and culled most of them except for two more current ones. Help with the rest would be appreciated. --Lendorien 20:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• When I tagged the page last month, I didn't know where to start. Thanks for breaking the ice -- I've reworked the first section, removing the instructional and needlessly detailed material, and a few unnecessary unsourced statements. It's still far from encyclopedic. This section, while still requiring technical attention, needs less emphasis. What should be emphasized, however, are the psychological aspects of this type of rape. In all honesty, the article still comes off (albeit less so than before) as a page dedicated to non statutory female on male rape fantasy. This will continue to be the case until the psychological effects are featured. To this end, some statistics would also help legitimize this article. -Etafly 00:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Your improvements are good ones. It's always hard to cut stuff out of an article. I know how it can help is someone breaks the ice. I'll try to cast around online for scholarly studies on the subject. There must be one or two around. This is not my forte as I just came from the cleanup list and it looked like something I could make an impact on, but I'll see what I can come up with. I'll list a couple relevant articles below.--Lendorien 20:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

In Popular Entertainment

This seems to be the main focus (and possibly the purpose) of the article. Should this section even exist? Perhaps it should be mentioned in passing and a list should be linked externally at the bottom of the page. Its encyclopedic merit is highly suspect. -Etafly 01:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If this section is kept, it should include references to the scenes between Jennifer Jason Leigh and Stephen Weber in "Single White Female" and between Paulina Porizkova and Thomas Janes in "Thursday."216.82.114.69 00:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably should add the oral sex imposed on Hugh Jackman, as a distraction when John Travolta is putting his hacking skills to the test, in "Swordfish."216.82.114.69 17:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm electing to remove this section for reasons stated above. Unless the article has enough encyclopedic content on the topic, this section completely unbalances the article, effectively making it a repository of rape trivia (excuse that juxtaposition). If you want to, create a separate article, like "List of fictional female on male rapes." I'd probably list it for deletion, though. ;) -Etafly 08:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to stress I had nothing to do with the re-added section. The anonymous user that re-added it also got the wrong link to the episode called "Ridicule". But I'm afraid to fix it and immediately get flamed again by the kind souls around here. -Lwc4life 18:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

National Center for Victims of Crime

I have completely removed this source: ref name="MaleRape">"Male Rape". The National Center for Victims of Crime. 1999. Retrieved 2007-04-21.</ref

The report in question discusses ONLY males raped by males. In addition to the complete absence of any reference to female sexual victimization of males and long sections about males raping males, in defining its terms it says: "Rape of males is any kind of sexual assault that involves forced penetration of the anus or mouth by a penis, finger or any other object." Mdbrownmsw 15:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree this governmental source was written with another subject in mind, it just so happens to have relevant parts for this subject. For example:

All sexual assault is an act of aggression, regardless of the gender or age of the victim or the assailant. Neither sexual desire nor sexual deprivation is the primary motivating force behind sexual assault. It is not about sexual gratification, but rather a sexual aggressor using somebody else as a means of expressing their own power and control.

Or

There are some states that now use gender-neutral terms to define acts of forced anal, vaginal or oral intercourse. Also, some states no longer use the terms "rape" and "sodomy," rather all sex crimes are described as sexual assaults or criminal sexual conduct of various degrees depending on the use and amount of force or coercion on the part of the assailant.

Of course, this is a complicated decision, which is why you should state your opinion, while someone else like me states theirs, and then let other people vote. Consensus of impartial people is the official policy in Wikipedia, is it not? -Raybnay 17:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The source in question was cited for:

"This form of rape is not as commonly known as male on female rape, as men are likely to under-report the crime."

and

"In some cases, the victim's penis may involuntarily be aroused into an erect state, failing to constitute consent in and of itself."

The source does not support these statements.

The only things the source says that could be applied to this topic, essentially, is that rape is about power/control. This was not asserted.

This article seems to have been created as a way for various editors to exchange their fantasies, something that wikipedia certainly is not. I have been working to clean up the neglected pseudo-encyclopedic aspects of the article. Next will be the culling of the ever-growing list of "examples".

Mdbrownmsw 16:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Elements that increase the odds of reporting

I have just remove this entire section. The source originally referred to [1] was a site reviewing a book that cited the study mentioned, not the study. Further, that review listed the elements as likely indicators that the victim would feel negatively about the experience, NOT elements that would increase the odds of reporting. In short, the section was based on a misreading of a site reviewing a book citing an article (rather than a reading of an article, as claimed). Mdbrownmsw 12:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a little more complicated than claiming "the editor said 1+1=3 when it's 2!". The way it is now, you did not claim, but decided on your own that your interpretation must be the only correct one. Wikipedia is about consensus. You have every right to voice your opinion about mass removing something, but no right at all to enforce it like a self ruler. If you have think you have a point, claim it and then ask for a vote. -Raybnay 17:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actual examples in the news

For whatever reason, it seems this article evokes strong emotions by some people who oppose it. But even more so, it has pretty much emptied ever since it became property of Mdbrownmsw (who took it a personal mission to sit guard and mass censor it without even a single vote in the talk page). I will give her one thing - although they are sometimes circular and/or misleading, she does try to find valid reasons for her self decided censorship. Except one time she slipped up: I defy anyone to justify her deleting actual examples in the news due to "No rationale for listing": See Revision as of 12:43, 13 September 2007. I say it is not only rational, but I cannot think up of anything less rational for a social change that happens before our very eyes than actual (sourced) examples in the news.

Anyway, I can only hope the above will not stir up even more strong emotions, as it was not my intention. -Raybnay 17:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the random examples because the individuals and the individual cases were not notable.

I did not subject ANY of my edits to votes. "Polling is generally discouraged, except in specialized processes such as AFD." per Wikipedia:Consensus. See also: WP:BOLD,[2],[3]

As for your opinions of me, please assume good faith.

Mdbrownmsw 17:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I seriously do not understand you. One moment you casually write "This article seems to have been created as a way for various editors to exchange their fantasies", but when it comes to yourself then you casually write "please assume good faith".

Also, what about "This means that polling alone is not considered a means of decision-making". The point is Wikipedia asks for general agreement and understanding...i.e. consensus. -Raybnay 12:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You feel there are personal attacks at every turn here and "mass censorship". I disagree. The Mediation Cabal you started on these very issues also disagreed.[4]

You feel that Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus in practice calls for putting lots of edits to a vote. I disagree (emphasis added):

"So in summary, wikipedia decision making is not based on formal vote counting ("Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy"). This means that polling alone is not considered a means of decision-making, and it is certainly not a binding vote, and you do not need to abide by polls per se. Polling is generally discouraged, except in specialized processes such as AFD." Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus in practice

The article was started as a long, rambling piece featuring lots of descriptions, many focusing on scenes in various movies.[5]

The original editor's history is a long string of descriptions of sex scenes in various movies and adding "...known for her large natural breasts" (with a link to "Breast fettishism") to numerous starlets' and models' articles.

Other contributors to the article have done one of two things: 1) attempted to polish up the pseudo-encyclopedic section, weeding out bad cites, wiping out speculative descriptions, etc. or 2) adding supposed examples in various movies, comic books and animea. I do not see labeling this "a way for various editors to exchange their fantasies" to be lacking in good faith.

I do find a lack of good faith in "a personal mission to sit guard and mass censor", "circular and/or misleading ... reasons for her self decided censorship", calling my edits "(ir)rational", "decided on your own that your interpretation must be the only correct one", "no right at all to enforce it like a self ruler", etc.

Incidentally, your edit history starts in the middle of an exchange on another user's talk page, then focuses entirely on this discussion, with no edits to articles at all. Also, the first three edits are in mid April, then a 6 month break until resuming the discussion here. What's the story?

Mdbrownmsw 14:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

For the curious:[6]

Mdbrownmsw 14:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Another interesting piece is comparing your censorship history to that of 194.112.32.101, but I won't expose more because this "encyclopedic" talk page is already way over the line. -Raybnay 13:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I was completely unaware that I was being accused of personal attacks. I wonder how any of my contributions here can be perceived as such. I wouldn't even have seen this page had you not mentioned it in passing. I'm actually somewhat offended. Gj. -Etafly 02:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, then don't be offended, but if using an encyclopedic talk page to "expose" fellow human beings and analyze their personality is not a personal attack, then I fear to see you take part in a real one. -Raybnay 13:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please show me where I've done that. In fact, your tendency to accuse anyone who removes unencyclopedic content (read: editing) of cencorship is about the only semblance of personal attack I can divulge from this talk page. -Etafly 13:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You are mixing two totally unrelated things that happened to be mentioned in the same complaint. As for the personal attacks, did you not notice the main complaint was about Seth Turner and that it says you only attacked indirectly (especially since there was already a direct attack, where's the "assume good faith" in "a page dedicated to...fantasy")? -Raybnay 19:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't shown me my "indirect personal attack." And I hardly think calling my edits an attempt to censor wikipedia is an act of good faith. -Etafly —Preceding comment was added at 20:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(especially since there was already a direct attack, where's the "assume good faith" in "a page dedicated to...fantasy")?

-Raybnay 17:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

On the topic at hand, however, I must say that I also disagree with your (Mdbrownmsw) removal of the aforementioned media references by branding them as non-notable. As far as this article's concerned, they're highly notable. If this article is to stand, it needs that content. It's all it has. Otherwise, this article should simply be deleted, as it is bereft of any useful content. I've actually been in favour of this since the beginning, but I felt that it should be given a chance. Also, if no actual sources other than a few scattered media reports can be found on the subject, does that not violate WP:OR? -Etafly 02:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say that in a topic that lacks so much information, first hand news accounts should be welcomed. I personally do not see any reason they should not, female on male rape is such a rare occurence that in an article such as this each occurence is notable. That is my opinion. --Kyle112 23:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The World According to Garp

While the "Examples in fiction" section is still likely to lose most or all of its content (as non of it seems to be sourcable to reliable sources calling the activities non-statutory female on male rape), the Garp ref has an interim issue. Looking around, I found that Garp, Sr. was in a persistent vegitative state when the incident occurred. A later editor added "though this could be seen more of a case of statutory rape". So the question is, since someone in a vegitative state cannot consent to sex is it "rape" or "statutory rape"? I'll be doing some digging on this one... Mdbrownmsw 13:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• I previously deleted said section before it mysteriously cropped up again. My rationale is stated above. Since I have not seen any rationale for re-establishing this content (other than the attempt to insinuate that it's removal is somehow a censorship conspiracy), I'll save you the trouble and delete it again. Cheers. -Etafly 13:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of that history. I am attempting to define the boundry to prevent the re-emergance of this section. By demanding that they "cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article", we can strike these examples whenever they re-arise.

In any case, the Garp case would fail, as my addition[7] to Statutory rape demonstrates.

Mdbrownmsw 14:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Your efforts are highly appreciated, and I like your idea of placing a commented notice in the article, however, I think the boundary should not be on the technicality of truly being an example of non-statutory female on male rape, but rather, one of encyclopedic relevance. It's, after all, akin to having a fiction section titled "List of Fictional Holocaust Survivors" here. Just because it happened on the O.C (or something), it doesn't make it noteworthy in an article about what's supposed to be a real, non-fictional crime. Perhaps we can somehow work that in. Cheers -Etafly 02:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there are several criteria. My comment is meant to be one high hurdle: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Examples of primary sources include... artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs."

This is not an exception that proves the rule. "No parking M-F 4PM - 6PM" implies it's legal at other times. A law against parking on narrow streets does not imply it's legal to park on an expressway.

Reliable sources saying any of the examples was non-statutory rape is as likely as a reliable source saying dogs are flightless mammals.

Whomever created this article (check out that original version!) seems to have created this "subject". Does it happen? Sure, but all of the sources say it's quite rare and their are no sources giving significant coverage to it. The "topic" does not exist.

Opinion: is the death knell for this article WP:OR?

Mdbrownmsw 17:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding WP:OR, I mentioned that in my above reply. I do think that this article violates WP:NOR, and there's not much one could do to dispute that. If you want to nominate it for deletion, I'm in full agreement. Best regards, -Etafly 17:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Rape with a stick?

This article should mention the possibility of females anal raping a man with a stick or some other object. --The monkeyhate 14:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Your mission, then, is to find a reliable source directly stating that in relation to Non statutory female on male rape. Good luck. - Mdbrownmsw 17:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Difficulties facing female on male rape

I created this section, and it was deleted by someone who claimed it to be pure speculation.

I will have you know that I have seen and read stuff for all the claims in the section, and so I readded it with some sources that I have found. I will of course keep looking to source the rest, but by all means I will do it if prompted.

If you have a specific problem with a statement in there, please do not just simply delete it, put a citation needed sign and I will make sure to look back for my sources as best I could. I got most my information from a book I read, but I cannot find much on that book so it doesn't make a good reference, though I am sure I could find articles on the studies it cites.

If you feel that the section's tone is speculative or confrontational, please feel free to change it to appear less so, but try not to remove the main ideas, as I have said, I have sourced a lot of it now and will continue to do so. --Kyle112 03:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This is all original research. Your sources need to be secondary sources on the topic of non statutory female on male rape. Everything here is synthesis. You make a claim, and back it up with various sources.

• "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

Examples:

1. "Fear and anxiety are some of the underlying conditions for not being able to get an erection [1]" -- Your source has nothing to do with rape. It has to do with erectile dysfunction. You're synthesizing a completely unrelated source to put forth your own theories about the subject of the article.
2. "Females typically do not have as much muscle as males[3], which leads to difficulties in taking down and restraining a victim." -- note the location of the cite. You state a premise, cited and factual, then you make your own inference, uncited. Pure synthesis.
3. "When females find a way to make rape pleasurable for themselves, it takes them much longer to orgasm then males[4], from 10-25 minutes on average compared to 2-7 for men, meaning that act would take much longer and be less likely to gain them pleasurable results, while males on average can get it over with within a couple minutes and escape relatively quickly." -- This is all complete speculation, and your source is again completely out of context.

Every claim in this section follows this precise pattern. In short, nothing in this section can stay. It's all OR. -Etafly 05:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed section again. None of the sources refer to non-statutory female on male rape, the topic of this article. Reliable sources "that provide information directly related to the topic of the article" WP:OR - Mdbrownmsw 17:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Fair enough. I would say it is very well founded OR, and I have half a mind to do some deeper research and surveys and publish some of this stuff, but as of now there is little to no information on female on male non-statutory rape. Sorry for any trouble I have caused. --Kyle112 22:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• No trouble at all. I hope this doesn't discourage future editing on your part. I admire the effort. As your grasp of the policies settle in, I'm sure your edits will grow more and more formidable. Cheers -Etafly 22:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

References to many of the works of fiction found

http://www.amazon.com/gp/imdb/keyword/non-statutory-female-on-male-rape

Though details on the situation are not here, they could easily be found in reviews or plot summaries, by me if I have to. --Kyle112 03:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The link you provided takes me to a search page on Amazon reading "Looking for something? We're sorry. There are no movies associated with 'Non Statutory Female On Male Rape'" I'm not entirely sure why.

That said, I think I know what you were finding. The link you posted (http://www.amazon.com/gp/imdb/keyword/non-statutory-female-on-male-rape) shows that amazon uses imdb.com to search for keywords for movies. Essentially, the results you likely saw are the same as you would ge by searching imdb.com for "Non Statutory Female On Male Rape". Bingo, a reliable source, right? Nope.

You see, imdb is, essentially, a wiki: "the bulk of our information is submitted by people in the industry and visitors like you" and "our service is provided for the information of users only. It is not provided with the intention that users rely upon the information for any purposes."

If you do the search on imdb, look for the link telling you about the "Movie Keywords Analyzer" and among other things, it tells you "Most importantly, help us improve IMDb by adding/updating/editing/deleting keywords from our database!"

Specifically, "Trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence." Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources

Mdbrownmsw 18:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, then what is wrong with these sources:

http://www.mutantreviewers.com/r40days40nights.html (for 40 Days and 40 Nights)

http://www.timeout.com/film/newyork/reviews/79392/Thursday.html (Thursday)

http://britamtvdvds.blogspot.com/2007/07/porterhouse-blue-mini-series-tv-dvd.html (Porterhouse Blue)

http://www.littlereview.com/getcritical/interviews/lauren.htm (Men Cry Bullets)

http://www.tvsquad.com/2007/01/22/desperate-housewives-come-play-wiz-me/ (Desperate Housewives Episode)

I think you would have to be a very difficult person to say none of those are valid, because I certaintly do not see any sources saying a rape didn't happen in those shows. And I have actually personally seen the episode with the desperate housewives rape, and 40 days and 40 nights. --Kyle112 23:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying that these are not "valid" sources or that they do not say a rape occured. What I (for one) am saying is that they are not sources that fit the criteria of Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and that they do not say that a rape occured that was non-statutory and female on male and that the movie's reference to it is culturally significant.

We need the sources to "provide information directly related to the topic of the article" per Wikipedia:No original research. None of them say (or even imply) that it was non-statutory. They might clear this particular hurdle for an article on Female on male rape. As an article about rape would not clear this hurdle for inclusion in Female on male rape, so these sources do not make it for this article.

Next, are they Wikipedia:Reliable sources "written by reliable third parties, or found in reliable publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? One author is "a Penn State alumnus and fan, a fuel scientist in a former and future life, and a stay-at-home mom in the present".[8]. One site was founded by "bored college students with a lack of proper grammar fundamentals" who prefer to "hunker down in our friends’ basements, talking about films the way we talk about them in real life" where, rather than reviewing significal cultural references, they reveiw "runt rejects", "orphans" and "off-beat, odd films" and they prefer to "yammer about them loudly and with much theatrical hysteria".[9]

Two of the sources are blogs, which are inherently NOT reliable sources. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Are_weblogs_reliable_sources.3F

While all of these sources are probably sufficient for many uses outside of wikipedia, they simply are not sufficient inside wikipedia.

Mdbrownmsw 03:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Emphasis on Motives for Rape

The article refers to the anatomic difficulties of genital-to-genital rape of men by women, and goes on to say that the only techniques then available for rape of men by women are "generally...not pleasurable for the female, which takes away one of the motives for rape". In Nicholas Groth's typology of rapists, "opportunistic" rapists who are primarily motivated by sexual pleasure represent only a tiny minority of all rapists. Per the second of these links, nearly 75% of rapes are motivated by the needs to exert power over or cause physical pain to the victim. Given that, this article's emphasis on rape as a sexually-motivated crime seems unwarranted.

--warmfuzzygrrl 14:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)