Talk:Rape/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Canadian rape survey

I went looking for an online source for the Canadian survey which, according to Luca, states that "one in three women has experienced a sexual assault." I found an article about a similar study in the US which stated that 27% of women had been raped.(canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/IWF_One_In_Four_Rape_Stat_27APR06.aspx) However, one of the questions was "Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?" which of course would label anyone who has ever had too much to drink, had sex, and then regretted it later as a victim of rape. Infact, one in three of the "victims" of "attempted rape" had sex with their assailants later. I believe the the statistic as it is presented currently is misleading, and have added tags until we can qualify it with information regarding the methodology. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Rape by use of drugs or alcohol, is still rape under the law. Dream Focus 02:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Most of the victims didn't even refer to the event as rape. So some percent of those women answering "yes" to that question were victims of rape, but certainly not 100%. The article I linked says that if that question is discarded from the calculations, about 5% of women have experienced a sexual assault. So you can consider 5% a rough lower bound, and 27% a hilariously inaccurate upperbound. Single digit would be my guess. Hell, with statistics like "one in three" you could perform a trivial and accurate informal poll to refute it. Ask your friends how many have been "sexually assaulted." On average, if you have 3 female friends, at one must have been raped, or almost raped, right? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame that you haven't read the Home Office study which you felt qualified to describe (incorrectly) in the section "false accusation." A quote from this study:

"The most frequently cited research was conducted by Statistics Canada in 1992, which involved a national random sample of 12,300 women and used telephone interviews. Whilst most publicity has been given to the domestic violence findings, considerable data were collected on rape and sexual assault (Johnson and Sacco, 1995). The BCS findings on known men and repeat assaults were echoed, but a far higher prevalence rate was found (over one in three reported a sexual assault) and a lower reporting rate to the police (6% compared to 25% for domestic violence in this study)."[1]

Your opinion of reliable sources is irrelevant. If you have doubts about a specific scientific approach used by the researchers in studies of attrition, please get a degree in psychology or sociology and publish your criticism in a peer reviewed journal. Then we can take it into account. Until then, we can't. Also, taking cues from the IWF won't lend more authority to your comments. The reverse is true, actually.TheLuca (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If you refuse to add information regarding the methodology of this survey, then I will remove it per WP:WEIGHT. If this is "the most frequently cited research" in Canada, then we can find additional online sources for verification. If we can only find it in one place, adding it here is undue weight. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from threatening me or any other editor. It makes your contributions seem even more questionable. I will have to remind you again that we report what sources say. Your opinion of the sources or the position advanced by the sources is irrelevant. This means that you can continue to question the methodology but your opinion doesn't matter unless you publish it in a peer reviewed journal or some other reliable source.

As for your opinion that the methodology is problematic (your opinion being, again, irrelevant): "In Canada (reference to Johnson & Sacco, 1995), highly sophisticated methods have been developed to gauge the amount of unreported sexual crime"[2]

The study is cited in 143 scholarly articles. This is the most frequently cited research in Canada. Even without this additional information, the Kelly, Lovett, & Regan (2005) study which was commissioned by the British Home Office is a very reliable source and according to this source:

"The most frequently cited research was conducted by Statistics Canada in 1992, which involved a national random sample of 12,300 women and used telephone interviews. Whilst most publicity has been given to the domestic violence findings, considerable data were collected on rape and sexual assault (Johnson and Sacco, 1995). The BCS findings on known men and repeat assaults were echoed, but a far higher prevalence rate was found (over one in three reported a sexual assault) and a lower reporting rate to the police (6% compared to 25% for domestic violence in this study)."[3]

This is almost identical to what I wrote: "The most frequently cited research was conducted by Statistics Canada in 1992, which involved a national random sample of 12,300 women (Johnson and Sacco, 1995). The research found that over one in three women had experienced a sexual assault and that only 6% of sexual assaults were reported to the police."

So please stop wasting our time and remove that tag. TheLuca (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Luca, we've been through this before. I suppose you thought that 2% figure was accurate because it was reported everywhere. Turns out it was just a random figure some judge made up on the spot. Then you thought the FBI figure was the authoritative source. They ignored dropped cases. Now you have some source saying, "no, seriously, THIS one is accurate." Do you have access to the primary source? Why don't you demonstrate your good faith and objectivity by either describing to me or adding to the article their methodology, specifically what questions they've asked? If it is convincing, this will only strengthen your case, right? Or do you have something to hide? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

An explanation: This is Wikipedia. Not your blog. We report what reliable sources say. If reliable sources say that the 2% figure is the most cited figure, then it is our job to say so. The large Australian study that I added to the section "false accusation" found 2.1% reports that were classified as false by the police. The huge UK study found that 3% of reports were false. I'll add two to three other large studies in the next days to support the 2% figure.

It isn't your job to opine of what is accurate or not. Your opinion is irrelevant. We report what sources say, regardless of whether you classify their points as "accurate" or not.

Once again: Your approval or disapproval of the methodology of research is irrelevant. The Kelly, Lovett, & Regan (2005) study which was commissioned by the British Home Office is a reliable source and it cites the Statistics Canada study. Your opinion of the Statistics Canada study does not matter.

Your misrepresentation of the Home Office study and your insistence on deleting the Australian study is a breach of WP:NPOV. Add that to your continued edit-warring and you have a very disruptive editor. TheLuca (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No. We're not going to fill this article with every study you can possibly find stating the numbers you like. This is exactly what WP:WEIGHT was created to prevent. We've hit the big ones, as we are required to do. And once we can establish the methodology of this frequently reported Canadian, I will remove the tags and we can call the article complete. I don't know why you're accusing me of treating this article like my "blog" as I am not the one adding every obscure study I can find to it. I'm only balancing the one-sided information that you're adding. Again, you should move some of this to Rape statistics. We have enough information as it is. Maybe too much. I can understand if you want maximum visibility on a topic that from your edit history I can see you are very passionate about. But we can't cover everything as indepth as you want on any page. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, this article doesn't belong to you. Second, please read WP:WEIGHT as you seem to have no idea what it means.

Since the Home Office, FBI, and Australian study are the most important, international, and most frequently cited studies I suggest we delete everything else and go with those three.

Your opinion of the methodology of the Canada Statistics study is irrelevant. The study is cited by a reliable source. And this is it. Your insistence that your approval of the methodology of research is a necessary condition for inclusion, is infantile at best and in violation of Wikipedia rules at worst.

No, you are misrepresenting research (Home Office study) and deleting important research (Australian study) because you want to advance a certain POV. Since there are about 50 studies which found 2% and only one study which found 41%, the section should be dedicated to the 2% studies. The section as it is right now is a breach of WP:WEIGHT and WP:OR (because you misrepresented the UK study to advance your POV).TheLuca (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Luca, I just can't determine whether you don't understand these statistics or you just don't care. The number of cases that are dropped before they are formally investigated is crucial when you produce estimates for false accusations out of all allegations, including the dropped cases. If you were able to produce a number of false allegations out of investigated cases, I would have nothing to say. But that's not what you've added here. Let me give you an example. Let's say I have 100 allegations of rape, allegation being defined by a woman has made a call to the police and reported she had been raped. 40 of those never go farther than a report regarding that call. 60 are investigated. I determine that 8 are "unfounded." That means I am sure that 8 of 60 are unfounded, and it increases the percent to 13%. Now, I would expect that there is a higher frequency of false allegations among that 40% who never pursued it further than the initial phone call. Taking that into consideration, the number would be even higher. Then taking the ambiguity of the definition of "unfounded" into consideration would lower the actual number. We're left with neither an upperbound, nor a lowerbound. We can't determine to what degree the number goes up or down. Thus if we want to be accurate in our reporting, we need to explain both limitations. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm giving up on googling this "one in three" figure. I can't find the questions they asked anywhere, nor the article itself. I'm afraid I don't trust you to report what they say accurately or objectively, so I'll have to delete it unless you can find the methodology somewhere. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"The largest and most rigorous study was commissioned by the British Home Office and based on 2,643 sexual assault cases." Translation: 2,643 cases were investigated and of these 9% were classified by the police as false. Here a direct quote from the study: '"Nine per cent of reported cases were designated false, with a high proportion of these involving 16- to 25-year-olds. However, closer analysis of this category applying Home Office counting rules reduces this to three per cent." For whatever reason, you failed to mention the 3% figure.

Investigation begins with reporting. This is the first investigative step. Then those cases are "no crimed" for several reasons and others proceed. Read the Home Office study and educate yourself. Cases are dropped due to many reasons, the least important one being false reports. There is absolutely no reason to include information about "dropped" cases and cases "cleared by exceptional means" in a section about false allegation (i.e., not "dropped" or "cleared by exceptional means").

I can also see that you seem to have trouble with basic mathematical knowledge. You get percentages instead of numbers. TO use your infantile example: It's not 8 out of 60 but 8% out of 60. So what's up with 13% And what's up with your original research?

"Now, I would expect that there is a higher frequency of false allegations among that 40% who never pursued it further than the initial phone call." Original research. There are many reasons why complainants choose withdraw their complaint and false reports are the least likely. In fact, it could very well be, that in your example there would be no false report in the 40 cases where complainants withdrew.

While the limitation of "unfounded" has been explained by reliable sources and, hence, included in the article, your original research cannot be included in the article. I am sorry. TheLuca (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"Let's say I have 100 allegations of rape." 100 is a number. 8 is a number. 8 out of 100 is 8%. 8 out of 60 is 13.3%. Perhaps you should read my example more slowly and with less rage. It's such a shame whenever someone so intelligent allows herself to be so blinded. Where's your evidence that the least important reason for a case to be dropped is that it is a false accusation? These cases haven't even been investigated. Are you seriously telling me that you believe more false accusers actually persist through an investigation than drop the case? Would you listen to yourself? Are you really trying to represent reality here or just trying to "beat" me? Wikipedia is not about winning. I suppose you think that your crusade has only benevolent goals, but in trivializing the number of false accusations, you are not only help rape victims, you hurt the falsely accused. You probably have it in your head that I'm the bad guy, but really I'm just trying to be fair. We have two groups here that need our objectivity, and by pushing either way too far, we are doing them and all of our readers a disservice. I really hope you can calm down and re-evaluate your position on this matter. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The studies which are included in the article provide percentages. To use you example: 100 cases were investigated. 8% of those investigated cases (including the dropped ones) were false. There is no reason to think that 8% out of 60 cases are wrong because he investigation covered 100 instead of 60 cases. To determine the rate of false allegations in a sample of 60 (instead of 100) you would need a different study. The results of one study aren't generalizable to other studies. So your original research about 60 cases is a waste of my time.

It is a shame that an editor who has been misrepresenting research and trying to conflate false allegations with dropped and withdrawn cases feels qualified to lecture me on anything.

This study by the Home Office: [4] Yes, you remember it. It's the one you've been trying to misrepresent. 2,643 sexual assault cases were investigated. Of these, only 3% were false. The vast majority of all investigated were dropped. Even is we assume that all false reports were in this dropped group, false reports would still be the least important reason for withdrawal or clearance.

As I said, your misrepresentation of research, your conflation of false allegations with dropped or cleared reports, and your insistence that your original research has more validity that reliable sources says all about your "objectivity" and your credibility. TheLuca (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting how AzureFury has changed the subject from the Canadian study to false allegations of rape? So he still continues to insist that nobody is allowed to add material from reliable sources unless he approves of it (his reason for disputing and threatening to delete the most frequently cited Canadian rape study) and simultaneously he keeps misrepresenting research and conflating false allegations with dropped cases.

AzureFury, my "crusade" here has the goal to correct violations of WP:OR and correct your misrepresentation of research and make sure that you don't conflate false allegations with dropped or withdrawn cases ("There is also a tendency to conflate false allegations with retractions and withdrawals, as if in all such cases no sexual assault occurred. This reproduces an investigative culture in which elements that might permit a designation of a false complaint are emphasised (later sections reveal how this also feeds into withdrawals and designation of ‘insufficient evidence’), at the expense of a careful investigation, in which the evidence collected is evaluated."). Also, I think it's important to make you understand that this is Wikipedia. Reliable sources (like the Home Office study) have more validity than your opinion.TheLuca (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It was my mistake to try to appeal to your rationality. Let us play the bureaucratic game. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it was your mistake to misrepresent the Home Office study and violate WP:NPOV, to conflate false allegations with dropped and cleared cases and to object to reliable sources based on your original research. Perhaps you should look up "bureaucratic."

I ask you once again to stop conflating false allegations with dropped and cleared cases. I ask you to stop misrepresenting the Home Office study. And I ask you to accept the fact that your objections to the most frequently cited Canadian rape study are irrelevant. I basically ask you to stop violating Wikipedia rules. TheLuca (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Your credibility is forever marred by your attempts here. TheLuca (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Consent and Force

The first sentence of this article only qualifies rape as without consent, but in most jurisdictions in the US force is more important than consent. This means she must fight back or show that she had a reasonable fear preventing her from fighting back. In New York and Nebraska no actually means no and is enough. In New Jersey and Wisconsin the woman must give an affirmative through words or deeds. But outside of those minority jurisdictions physical resistance by the woman is essential. There is a movement in law to take the focus off of the victims actions and put it on the defendants actions, see State in the interest of M.T.S., 129 N.J. 422. Because the victims resistance is so essential to prove rape, and because in the 1979 Department of Justice study more than 80% of the woman who fought back avoided rape, this should be included and highlighted in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.3.215 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps in the Rape in the United States article. This is for a worldwide view. And we already discussed before using the dictionary's definition of rape. Dream Focus 00:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a common view globally with some countries being harsher about the force requirement than the US. See M.C. vs. Bulgaria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.3.215 (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Work on section 'false accusation'

I rewrote the section false accusation. I corrected the misrepresentation of the Home Office study which actually found a rate of 3% after applying the official criteria for establishing a false allegation (while the police officers classified reports as false as they saw fit). I added an large Australian study. I rewrote parts of the Kanin report to stay even closer to the sources. And I tagged a part as off-topic which discusses clearance by "exceptional means" or something like that and seems to make the mistake of confusing victim withdrawals with false allegations.

I think the section is too long. And I suggest to leave only the UK, Australian, and FBI studies. TheLuca (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that all sources use "allegation" instead of "accusation." I propose that the title of the section should be changed.TheLuca (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Created a separate section for war rape

War was listed as a "cause" of rape. This is incorrect. The causal factor is the reduced likelihood of detection and punishment during war because the criminal justice system tends to malfunction in times of war. So there is no causal relationship between war and rape. And therefore, war can't be listed as a "cause" of rape. I created a separate section for war rape. TheLuca (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

War rape has its own article already. And in many cases soldiers are told they won't be prosecuted for rape, such as what Stalin did in World War 2, stating they would not be held accountable for any crimes they did against the German people. Dream Focus 00:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. However, war isn't a "cause" of rape. There is a correlative, but not a causal relationship between rape and war. Hence, war can't be listed as a "cause" of rape anyway. This is why I moved the section. TheLuca (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved reporting and investigation to new section "prosecution"

The section "prevention and management" has three points: reporting, investigation, and long-time treatment. Reporting isn't prevention or management. Same goes for investigation. Therefore, I created a new section, "prosecution," for the two points reporting and investigation. I added another point, conviction. I created a new section "prevention and treatment" and moved the point "long-term treatment" there. TheLuca (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Case studies used for examples

• In a portion of a tape obtained by "Primetime," Wilson, then 17 and an honor student and star athlete who was homecoming king, is seen having intercourse with a 17-year-old girl, who was seen earlier on the bathroom floor. During the sex act, she appears to be sleepy or intoxicated but never asks Wilson to stop. Later on in the tape, she is seen being pulled off the bed.

She is unable to speak or stand on her own, but hey, since she didn't ask them to stop, the jury decided it wasn't rape, even with video footage. The news story talks about how outrages it is, not because they got away with this rape, but were instead found guilty of having oral sex with an underage girl on the tape also. [5] I'm thinking listing the trouble they have prosecuting cases where alcohol was involved, and linking to various high rated news programs, would be good for the article. Opinions please. Dream Focus 20:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Examples like this are definitely worth adding, as long as they have received lots of coverage. I worry we are tackling this in the wrong place, there is an article on false allegations after all.. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Dream Focus, AzureFury has been misrepresenting research to inflate the rate of false rape allegations. He has been conflating false allegations with dropped and lost cases to suggest that no crime occurred. As the Home Office study points out, "There is also a tendency to conflate false allegations with retractions and withdrawals, as if in all such cases no sexual assault occurred. This reproduces an investigative culture in which elements that might permit a designation of a false complaint are emphasised (later sections reveal how this also feeds into withdrawals and designation of ‘insufficient evidence’), at the expense of a careful investigation, in which the evidence collected is evaluated." You can hardly expect him to support the inclusion of such information. TheLuca (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

She says after I said I supported inclusion. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck is cookie vandalism

And why am I being accused of it? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape&diff=next&oldid=389380175

I've edited the article to say:

A 2006 review by Philip Rumney in the Cambridge Law Journal found one small (545-case) study that could be a source of the 2% figure

because the I read the Rumney study, and in it, I find only 1 small study (Hursch; 545 cases) identified as a possible source of the 2% figure. Feel free to name any other studies I have missed, if any that do so. The closest I found to an add'l study is some hearsay from a judge with no reference to any study (Cooke).

Perhaps it's a terminology issue, Luca. It's true that other studies Rumney found provide numbers close to the 2% figure, but none of them could be considered sources for the 2% figure.

Heartening, IMO: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8115219.stm

Glad to see the larger studies getting more prominence as I suggested. I wish we had better stats. (Better, as in not higher or lower, but based on a clear and sensible definition of false. But in the US, it's impossible to have good nationwide stats as the definition of rape is different in different states. Perhaps there are good stats for one of the world's larger states US's larger states (CA, TX, or NY) that we can use instead.

--W☯W ^t/c 20:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. It's not everyday that I see profanity in talk page titles made by registered editors and not IP editors. Thanks for making me grin. Flyer22 (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, find this offensive... Just kidding. I also found it refreshing to find some blunt-language with all the passive-aggressive sniping at people under a banner of civility that I see around WP. WP is not censored and I, for one, don't consider profanity uncivil either in the right context. I found that BBC story pretty shocking btw... but, perhaps this person can explain the cookie vandalism issue:?--Cybermud (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL!!! Perhaps that person can, Cybermud. Priceless! Flyer22 (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

hors293 stats

I just changed the 9% to 8% to match what was actually in the study. (e.g. "There were 216 cases classified as false allegations: as a proportion of all 2,643 cases reported to the police this amounts to 8 per cent")

Where is the 3% in the study? Doing some SYNthesis on the 3%. 216 cases classified as false allegations, 120 of them had pro formas with explanations, of which in "53 cases the police stated that the complainant admitted the complaint was false, most commonly within days of the initial accusation; 28 cases involved retractions" ... "three non co-operation and in 56 cases the decision was made by the police on evidential grounds." 53+28=81, 3+56=59, 81+59=140. So is that 120 with explanations or 140? Or are the 28 a subset of the 53?

OK, WTF? On page xi (in the summary), it says "Nine per cent of reported cases were designated false"! Well, 216 / 2643 ~= 8.17% At least I find the 3% # there too: "However, closer analysis of this category applying Home Office counting rules reduces this to three per cent." But this apparent error doesn't give me confidence in the report!

More detail is on p. 53:"The authors’ analysis suggests that the designation of false allegations in a number of cases was uncertain according to Home Office counting rules, and if these were excluded, would reduce the proportion of false complaints to three per cent of reported cases." Would love to know how they got to 3%. 53 / 2643 = 2%. 81 / 2643 = 3%. 81 / 2643 *(216/120) = 5.5%...

--W☯W ^t/c 21:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

trouble rape victims had with police

• New York Magazine Jun 23, 1975, has an article in it which you can read through Google book search: [6]. Shows how the police handled, or mishandled rape cases, acting hostile to the victim. When they started letting women officers handle this, more women came forward, and they got those who showed up to report something to talk to them. Dream Focus 23:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I do see that. My problem wasn't with a claim that when women officers started handling rape cases they did a better job though, but rather that the 2% statistic it included is controversial and was stated without qualification or attribution and conflicts with other information in the article. Perhaps it can be rewritten to acknowledge that women officers handling rape cases were better at getting convictions, getting women to come forward and helping victims tell their stories without the added controversial statistic that says women basically never lie about rape.--Cybermud (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

First sentence

In a continuation of a long tradition of debate on this topic and, more specifically, building upon the discussion that seemed to trail off without consensushere

To re-iterate from the prior discussion a rape is a sexual assault, but a sexual assault is not a rape. Red is a color, but color is not a red. If you've any background in set theoryorobject oriented programming this concept should be clear.

These, first sentences, are pretty poor:

In criminal law, rape is an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with another person without that person'sconsent. Outside of law, the term is often used interchangeably with sexual assault,[1][2][3] a closely related (but in most jurisdictions technically distinct) form of assault typically including rape and other forms of non-consensual sexual activity.[4][5]

Ostensibly this sentence gives the impression that it is trying to compare and contrast the legal definition of rape with that which is in common usage. While a worthwhile goal this effort falls completely flat. For starters, "sexual assault" is much more of a legal term than rape is. Secondly, and more importantly, while the second sentence begins with "Outside the law..." it contains the parenthetical "(but in most jurisdictions technically distinct.)" Either we're "outside of the law" or dealing with legal definitions "in most jurisdictions" but not both.

Now I may not be representative of anyone but myself, but I do not use sexual assault and rape interchangeably (though I am prone to using legal jargon), but I would also be surprised if anyone did except perhaps someone politically motivated to say something like "all men" (or at least as many as possible) are rapists. Rape is to sexual assault what murder is to regular assault. Not every sexual assault is rape and not every assault is murder. In fact the latter is an extremely small subset of the former and represents its most extreme manifestation.

Three references are provided to support this interchangeability. The first is a book I do not have. The second is a broken web link and the third actually says (emphasis mine):

"The terms rape, sexual assault, sexual abuse, and sexual violence are often used interchangeably. However, these terms may have very different meanings and implications in varying situations and locations.11 The first two tend to be defined legally, with rape often being more narrowly defined than sexual assault. Legal definitions may vary from medical and social definitions and can also vary between countries"

Based on my own intuition and reason and, having checked the references, I don't think the second sentence is appropriate and should be removed altogether. Though I do think more can be said on the shifting definitions of rape. In particular terms like "verbal rape," "mental rape," "emotional rape," are not uncommon, nor is it rare for rape studies to include some extremely non-intuitive things as rape or even include some very broadly defined instances of "attempted rape" in the, even more broadly defined, group of "rape victims." As an aside, though I expect I can source it short order, such rhetorical acrobatics trivialize rape and re-victimize rape victims by making them respond to, or be the subject of, questions as to what they really mean when they say the are "rape victim". It should go without saying that when the word "rape" can mean anything, it really means nothing.--Cybermud (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• We had this discussion before. Webster dictionary[7]defines it at as

unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent

Other definitions are also there. And what is unlawful, that is, illegal, in one country may not be in another. Do other countries call it "rape" more than "sexual assault?" Do notable books including textbooks published on it refer to it as both? What about coverage in the news media? The terms are interchangeable, so its fine. The fact that "rape" is used in slang doesn't change its proper meaning. The dictionary defines "sexual assault" the same as it does rape.[8] Same thing. DreamFocus 02:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Even using the definitions offered by Merriam Webster they are not the same thing. For rape it says (in the only definition of 10 entries that comes close to what we are treating):

"Definition of RAPE

1 an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force

2 unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent — compare sexual assault,statutory rape

3 an outrageous violation"

For Sexual Assault it says:

"illegal sexual contact that usually involves force upon a person without consent or is inflicted upon a person who is incapable of giving consent (as because of age or physical or mental incapacity) or who places the assailant (as a doctor) in a position of trust or authority"

It does list rape as a synonym for sexual assualt, but it also lists "outrage" as a synonym for rape.

More to the point this entire article is about rape not sexual assault. If they really are the same (and I don't think they are by any stretch) the articles should be merged (or at least have the same content.) Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) the lead should reflect the article. It also bears mentioning that Wikipedia is not a dictionary (I also like to link thisblack woman article every time I cite that WP policy) --Cybermud (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in regards to the manual of style, I think making the terms interchangeable does somewhat reflect the article. It also says "child sexual abuse" is a form of rape, which I think is wrong for all of the same reasons. The Definitions section does a better job (and the lead should reflect it) where it says "The term sexual assault is closely related to rape. Some jurisdictions define "rape" to cover only acts involving penile penetration of the vagina, treating all other types of non-consensual sexual activity as sexual assault." Though it also has problems with how it says, "For example, Michigan, United States uses the term "criminal sexual conduct".[8]" MI penal codes are not using CSC as synonymous with rape (which is what the statement, in context, implies.) They use it as synonymous with "sexual assault" with an array of degrees of CSC from what could be public urination to actual rape (interesting how I can say "actual rape" and be pretty sure people are clear on my meaning btw.) Likewise Florida uses the term "sexual battery" for the crime of rape. Which comes back to a point I alluded to earlier, rape is oftentimes not the technical legal term used in the statute because it's a word that enjoys popular usage (hence the use of words like larceny and embezzlement for what we commonly call theft or stealing or illegal removal/retention and custodial interference for parental child abduction.)

Another point about dictionaries, I actually just looked up rape in my Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed. and it exclusively defines rape as intercourse between a man and woman where the woman does not consent and is not the wife (6th ed. is 19 years old though... the latest edition is something like $300.)

I don't think anyone here would disagree that someone groping someone else's genitals while passing them in a subway would be committing a clear case of sexual assault (in most legal and laymen's terms.) I also don't think most of you would disagree with me when I say the same act is not rape. You can call all rapes sexual assaults but you can't call all sexual assaults rapes (ie, they are not interchangeable.)--Cybermud (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• I fixed my link to Webster dictionary. Rape has more than one definition, the third one listed is the definition I quoted, which is also EXACTLY the same definition, word for word, for "sexual assault". See rape and sexual assault. And I don't care what was used as a term 19 years ago, we're talking about how people refer to it under the law, modern dictionaries, textbooks, and in the news media. Dream Focus 09:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Webster's also defines rape as an herb or plant. To summarize my point though, since it appears that you missed it, I don't particularly care what the abridged definition of Websters says, or any dictionary... and neither does Wikipedia. In any case, since the article pains itself at taking a legal view of the topic with a criminal law sidebar and the first sentence starts with "In criminal law.." if you're particularly fond of dictionaries, Black's Law Dictionary is the definitive dictionary for legal terms and is routinely cited by judges and lawyers across the English speaking world. BLD may have modified its definition of rape since my edition, but that is pure speculation on my part and irrelevant in any case.--Cybermud (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That Black's Law Dictionary has been around since 1891, and I'm sure many terms have changed over time. You said the version you have is 19 years ago, so I don't see as how that would be considered a reliable source. We need to find someone with a more recent version, since I find it unlikely anyone uses a 19 year old version of it anymore. A website by the federal government(Justice Department, FBI, etc.), or various state websites defining the term, or using "sexual assault" and "rape" interchangeably in their official documents, would resolve this issue. Dream Focus 04:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Nineteen years isn't a whole lot of time when it comes to a word as well established, understood and popularly used as rape. But I'm not saying we should use BLD's definition either. Men can be raped and so can married women, making BLD's legal definition of rape overly narrow (In contrast to M&W broadly defining rape as an "outrage.") My point was the unsuitability of dictionary definitions generally (and BLD 6th edition still trumps M&W abridged online for a legal definition any day -- so if you want to use a dictionary you have to use it or a newer edition of it.)--Cybermud (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

My only problem with the current lead is that it doesn't clarify that sexual assault and rape are not always the same thing. A stranger grabbing a woman's breast without her permission is sexual assault, but it surely is not rape. The lead thus needs to be tweaked a bit. Flyer22 (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked it to this. Flyer22 (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. That is even better.--Cybermud (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)