Talk:Rape/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

UN Multi-country Study (informal edit suggestion)

Those with more knowledge of this article may want to introduce content based on the results of an extensive (>10,000 interviews) U.N. study in several Asian and Pacific countries:

• 10 Sept 2013 Report in The Lancet:

Jewkes, Rachel; et al. (2013). "Prevalence of and factors associated with non-partner rape perpetration: findings from the UN Multi-country Cross-sectional Study on Men and Violence in Asia and the Pacific". Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(13)70069-X. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help)

• Discussed more informally in The Washington Post:

Reese, Diana (September 11, 2013). "Violence against women widespread; U.N. study of six Asian countries examines why". The Washington Post.

Also, consider for inclusion in the article Rape statistics. — RCraig09 (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Citation 8

It's a dead link, and needs to be replaced. Spacenut42 (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Etymology of Rape

This article cites an incorrect etymology for the word 'rape' with the meaning of 'forced sexual intercourse'. The etymology cited is for the other English word 'rape', a type of seed often called 'rapeseed': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapeseed. See the difference between "rape (n.1)" and "rape (n.2): http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=rape&searchmode=none I think this oversight is in urgent need of correcting. 122.108.159.229 (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for pointing that out. Someone called User:The Gnome created that bizarre section in August [1]. Rather embarrassing. Obviously it comes from rapere. Content changes like this sometimes gets "lost" when more controversial changes are quickly made after an edit. Paul B (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Place with NO rape

I think it would be interesting to include the article, "It's only A Penis," by Christine Helliwell. Her article describes a place in Gerai, Indonesia, where rape is non-existent. Her article reveals ways in which we may socially condone and create an atmosphere in which rape may occur.

Julia63718 (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

HIV Virgin myth

MrSativa writes "What's required as proof about a highly incendiary myth is research and sound surveys, not media statements by NGOs (including HRW). If Rachel Jewkes cannot find support for it, find someone who can" (edit summary 16:10, 30 September 2013). It appears that even Jewkes a) accepts that the myth exists and b) accepts that there have been cases in which it has been the principal motivation for rape: "The idea that having sex with a virgin cleanses you of AIDS does exist in South Africa and there have been reported cases of this as a motivating factor for child rape, but the predominant evidence suggests that this is infrequently the case," Dr Jewkes says. She quotes Mr Luke Lamprecht, the manager of the Teddy Bear Clinic in Johannesburg, which is the referral point for all child sex abuse cases in the metropolis. According to him, he has only seen one child rape case where the perpetrator believed the myth." [2] [3] Also, the criticism quoted in this article is merely a letter to the editor, not an academic study. Paul B (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Paul Barlow. Like I noted in this article's edit history during this dispute, I discussed this matter with Jmh649 (Doc James), and there are various scholarly sources confirming that the myth exists. Here are the latest edits concerning this matter, with one showing me having added two scholarly sources taken from the HIV/AIDS article (which also covers this topic):[4][5][6]. Additionally, I've considered the aforemetioned criticism that MrSativa added to be WP:Undue weight. Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to add to this, I would dispute the relevance of the Jewkes/Epstein assertion that "this claim is predicated on racist assumptions about the amorality of African men." If you believe that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS your actions are hardly "amoral". Trying to cure AIDS, however misguided ones' ideas about it may be, is surely morally defensible. However, Jewkes apparently considers it to be perfectly acceptable to say that "much of this violence at women and girls might be explained by sex inequalities, a culture of male sexual entitlement, and the climate of relative impunity for rape." Apparently, saying there is a culture of male sexual entitlement and impunity does not impute "amorality" to African men, and nor do assertions that Cape Town gangs are "notoriously brutal". Her position seems to be fundamentally confused and her knee-jerk claims of "racist assumptions" are founded on nothing more than assertion. If this were an academic study of such assumptions, it might be legitimate, but it's only a letter to the editor. Paul B (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

And here are the latest edits concerning this matter:[7][8][9][10][11]. As seen there, MrSativa changed his wording; the main problem is that he is still casting doubt on the fact that the myth exists. The lesser problem, at least a problem to me and you, Paul, is that he is still adding that criticism text; that's an interesting analysis you've given on it. Rather than at all asserting that the act of a male having sex with a female virgin by consensual means in order to cure HIV/AIDS is amoral (whether she knows that he has HIV/AIDS or not), they are arguing that a male raping a woman and especially a girl (in some cases, girls as young as infants) to cure HIV/AIDS is what is amoral; I personally can't argue with that. But I do understand your point on that matter (whether you mean one of those actions or both). Either way, MrSativa needs to stop WP:Edit warring, WP:Editorializing, and rather discuss these matters if he insists on his text being in that section (which he clearly does). He also needs to realize that waiting until he is outside of the WP:3RR time frame and then reverting again is still a blockable offense. Flyer22 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I would say raping woman to cure AIDS is immoral, not just amoral. So is raping a woman due to a sense of "sexual entitlement" or because you can get away with it, which are motivations Jewes apparently thinks do not imply "amorality" at all! But of course this is a marginal issue. There are numerous sources which clearly state as fact that this myth exists, and Jewkes herself is one of those sources. The only point of contention is Jewkes and her co-writers take the view that this is a very rare motivation for rape and/or child abuse, while other commentators think it plays a more significant role. If MrSativa can find a reliable source asserting that the Virgin-myth is itself a myth, then and only then can we add that claim. And, yes, you are right that repeated reverts against consensus and against sources will ultimately lead to sanctions even without violations of 3RR. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The question is not whether the myth exists in anyone's mind. If one person believed it, you could say that 'the myth exists'. But if that person never acted on it, it could have no impact on HIV infection, or child rape.

So the question is one of quantification. How many people believe this myth, and does it have a numerical impact on HIV infection or child abuse. The original text was that it was widespread, 'in many parts of Africa', and that 'many girls' are raped because of it.

So far I have seen no study or survey prove how widespread this myth is, only anecdotal statements.

The real problem is that none of the links that illustrate the presence of the childrape myth (currently 54, 55, 56, and 57) actually lead to research. I would think we can all agree that it is irrelevant whether the child rape myth exists in western observers' minds, don't you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSativa (talk • contribs) 19:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as we are concerned the only question is whether the sources are reliable or not. It is not for us to say that their research is not good enough, unless other researchers have reached that conclusion. I'm not quite sure what kind of "survey" you would expect to prove how widespread the idea is. This is the "Rape" article, so the story is only relevant to the issue of rape as such. Clearly, as has been mentioned, consensual sex of an infected man with with a virgin would be equally likely to faciliate the spread of the disease, but that's not relevant to this article. Your edits tried to add claims, unsupported by any sources, that the very existence of this myth is disputable. And yet it is not disputed by anyone. The only dispute concerns its effect on rape and/or child sex abuse (defined as a form of rape). Obviously the real answer is that we can't say for certain, but that several sources state that the effect is significant. Jewkes et al say it is insignificant, but do not deny that examples exist. Paul B (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Re-reading your comments, I see a kind of blurring of two quite separate claims. The first is the myth that sex with a virgin cures AIDS. You then seem to coflate this with a supposed "child rape myth" that "exists in western observers' minds", referring presumably to the "myth" created (supposedly by 'Westerners') that the virgin-sex belief causes child-rape. The problem with your edits was that you were focussed on disputing the existence of the first myth, the existence of which is not disputed at all. The second alleged myth is a separate issue. It may be true that the virgin-sex belief has not led to a significant increase in child-rape, but we would need good sources to justify this assertion (at the moment all we have are letters to the editor, which themselves offer nothing but anecdotal evidence). But we do have solid sources saying that it either is - or is believed to be - a causal factor. What matters is that we represent the sources correctly. Paul B (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to Paul B's latest comments. I'm back in this section to simply document this latest edit here on this talk page because it completes the latest edits on this matter worth noting and will therefore help serve this section when it's archived. Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Some, often unidentified, aid industry organisations claim that around 60% of combatants in Congo are HIV-infected.[51] However, these selfinterested claims contrast starkly with the very low HIV infection rate in the DRC, recorded by the best scientific information we have, which is the DHS survey, which measures 1.3% HIV prevalence nationwide.[52]"

That must be removed. "Selfinterested claims" is POV and unencyclopedic. It also gives WP:UNDUE to that issue, and it also contains WP:OR. 2A02:2F0A:504F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1AE3 (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That's another of MrSativa's recent POV additions [12]. It should be possible to provide updates and corrections without making judgemental comments about the self-interest of the so-called "aid industry". Incidentally, the 2005 source refers to up to 60% of "combatants" (soldiers in the Congan civil war of the time), not to the population as a whole. There is a reference to a 1/16 HIV rate in Rwanda (but that's not linked to rape). I've no idea whether a 60% infection rate in soldiers in 2005 could map onto a 1.3% infection rate in the population as a whole in 2007. It depends on how many rapes occurred, the rate of infection, and a host of other factors. The original source is journalistic, and I guess they chose the most exaggerated infection figure they could source, for the usual journalistic reasons of hype, but still, we can't just conclude it's utter rubbish because we can't directly connect the 60% in "combatants" to the 1.3% in the population. This also assumes that the 2007 source is reliable. Interestingly the HIV/AIDS in Africa article has a 2011 World Bank source that states there is no reliable information from Congo. Paul B (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"This also assumes that the 2007 source is reliable." The 2007 DHS survey covered over 10,000 people, statistically representative of the general population, and funded by USAID. It is the most reliable source of statistical information about the DRC, second possibly to any population census. You can say 'The World Bank says', but what is their source? You take the assumption that less statistically comprehensive sources are more reliable. For your information, the EDS-RDC was carried out on over 14,000 subjects, by the DRC Ministry of Planning, and funded by USAID. If you find a better source, please let me know, because I will use it in future, instead of the over 10,000 samples strong DHS survey. http://www.measuredhs.com/Who-We-Are/News-Room/First-ever-Demographic-and-Health-Survey-in-DRC-reveals-low-HIV-prevalence-high-fertility.cfm). MrSativa (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Try reading. I did not say it was unreliable. The source is in fact used. I pointed out that there seems to be some uncertainly in a major institution, which might justify looking into the matter futher, if possible. Paul B (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

unreliable source: The United States Department of Justice's definition

The source being used is unreliable because reliable sources must adhere to WP-NPOV. This source does not adhere to WP-NPOV because the United States Department of Justice's definition of rape is as follows: "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim". This definition is biased since it focuses on the penetrator thus obviously skewing the statistics toward male offenders.

The statistics are further more unreliable because the definition of rape in the US justice department before 2012 was "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will" further skewing statistics towards male offenders. Pass a Method talk 19:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverted (and again here, though I didn't mean to revert using a tool, WP:Twinkle or otherwise). We don't remove sources because of what we personally perceive as bias. It is well known how rape has been and is usually defined, as the article makes clear. Many rape statistics in the past and in the future will report rape that exact way because that is how rape is widely defined. In many cases, it is still defined only as vaginal penetration by the penis. And, actually, until 2012, the United States Department of Justice defined rape as "The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will." They broadened the definition to include "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." because, like the article states, "The definition, which had remained unchanged since 1927, was considered outdated and narrow. The updated definition includes any gender of victim and perpetrator, not just women being raped by men, recognizes that rape with an object can be as traumatic as penile/vaginal rape, includes instances in which the victim is unable to give consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity, and recognizes that a victim can be incapacitated and thus unable to consent because of ingestion of drugs or alcohol. However, the definition does not change federal or state criminal codes or impact charging and prosecution on the federal, state or local level; it rather means that rape will be more accurately reported nationwide."

Nowhere does that definition state that the rapist has to be male. And, in fact, it was clearly partly broadened to give space to female perpetrators. But either way, we follow what the sources state...with WP:Due weight. WP:Due weight makes clear (when scrolling down to the Balancing aspects and Giving "equal validity" subsections), there should not be an attempt to give "equal validity" to things that are not on equal footing with regard to coverage among sources. And like the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS essay states, "Wikipedia is a popular site and appears high in the search engine rankings. You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. ... On Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals, or get that to happen first. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. 'Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed.'"

On a side note: I would hope that you are not openly WP:HOUNDING me. It's easy to see where that will lead. Flyer22 (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I also broadened the heading of this section using "The United States Department of Justice's definition" so that it is clear what this discussion is about. Flyer22 (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the updated version in 2012 is broader, but its focus on the penetrator means it still goes againt WP:BIASED which states "Biased sources should be used limited and with utmost caution". Furthermore, the statistics include pre-2012 rapes. Pass a Method talk 20:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

If you did not read all of what I stated above, then you need to read it again and process exactly what I mean by it. We go by what WP:Reliable sources state...with WP:Due weight; the vast majority of sources, not just the United States Department of Justice's definition, define rape as sexual penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth, or as only sexual penetration of the vagina. To use your argument of WP:Biased would be to state that this article is biased because it does not give as much weight to non-penetrative sex acts...despite the fact that rape is hardly ever defined by non-penetrative sex acts. The "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim" definition should not be taken to mean that a woman using a man's penis to penetrate her vagina, anus or mouth is excluded from the definition. After all, the article makes a point of stating: "The updated definition includes any gender of victim and perpetrator, not just women being raped by men." There is no reason to think that only male-on-female, male-on-male and female-on-female activity is included. And your having reverted again is pure silliness, and simply more of the WP:Edit warring that you are known for. Flyer22 (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

But the report dates from 1999 though - not post-2012 rape incidents. Pass a Method talk 21:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

And the sentence makes clear that the source is from 1999. Furthermore, the Definitions section and the Statistics section make clear how rape used to be commonly defined and how it is currently commonly defined. As for the partial revert you made, in what way do you consider excluding the "with 99% of the offenders being male" part to be an improvement? That is a key aspect of that statistic. That stated, I would prefer a significantly more updated statistic than that one in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm still considering whether its an improvement or not. But the 99% statistic is clearly unacceptable. Even the US D of J admits the pre-2012 stats were too narrow. Why would we use such narrow stats in the lede? Makes no sense. Pass a Method talk 21:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No, your misrepresentation of that source is not an improvement. And, no, the 99% statistic is not clearly unacceptable. You speak of "narrow," but again, rape is often still defined that way. And as this article makes clear, some sources consider limiting rape to only vaginal, anal and oral sexual penetration to be narrow as well. But you know what? WP:Due weight and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS tell us what to do in such cases; the WP:Advocacy type of editing that you often engage in, such as in this case, is the exact opposite of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. And so I reverted you twice because of that WP:Advocacy and misapplication of our WP:Reliable sources guideline. As for that statistic being in the lead, I already stated, "I would prefer a significantly more updated statistic than that one in the lead."

I was just told via email that you got an outside opinion on this. ‎Dougweller was not the one who emailed me, but thanks, Dougweller. Flyer22 (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The suggestion that the US BJS source is unreliable would not get very far at WP:RSN, and in fact the rationale provided (that the source fails NPOV) shows advocacy that should not occur at Wikipedia.

It appears that the current situation is that "91% of U.S. rape victims are female and 9% are male" has been restored to the lead, while "with 99% of the offenders being male" has been removed. My inclination is to revert that removal as unjustified, but it could be argued that the information needs to be in the article per WP:LEAD (while now, it's just in the linked sub-article at "Statistics"...not sure about that). Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind moving the part I removed to the statistics section, but i think using it in the lede is not right because the stats are old. Pass a Method talk 12:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The statistics you left in are obviously old as well. You don't get to misrepresent a source because you have a problem with the fact that it is reporting that the vast majority of rapists are men. The vast majority of rapists are men, and experts on rape make it perfectly clear that perceived narrow definitions of rape and the statistics that partly result from that have little to do with that fact. Flyer22 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The term "rape" vs. the term "sexual assault"...again

Many places use the terms rape and sexual assault interchangeably. Some use rape as a subtype of sexual assault were penetration occurs. I would propose that we merged this article to sexual assault and then these distinctions call all be discussed in one place. Agree that as money studies use different definitions the stats are complicated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

James, you have tried to get this article merged with the Sexual assault article three times now, and each time, after extensive discussion, the resounding answer has been "no" because the term rape is far too notable and is generally distinct from sexual assault; it is one form of sexual assault and we should not be conflating them as though they are generally the same thing...no matter that we would be clarifying their definitions with regard to your proposal. Furthermore, given how notable the topic of rape is, meaning how much there is to state about it, the Sexual assault article would be a huge rape article without being titled Rape. Like the last three times I was against this merge proposal and/or conflation, I still am; refer to the aforementioned discussions, now located at Talk:Rape/Archive 11#Merge discussion, Talk:Rape/Archive 12#First sentence and Talk:Rape/Archive 16#Definition of rape / sexual assault. There is hardly anything left for me to state on that subject that is not a repeat of what I've already stated on it. And as seen in that second discussion, fellow WP:MED member WhatamIdoing was also against the conflation and explained well why it is not a good idea. Flyer22 (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Terms are often used interchangeably [13][14]. Anyway this would address the issue raised. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Canada has redefined rape as sexual assault [15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Lots of book state they are "commonly" used interchangeably [16]. When they are used to mean different thing I do agree that sexual assault is usually more broad in scope than rape. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Rape is a legal definition, sexual assault is a medical one per [17]. Sort of like narcotic which is legal and opioid which is medical. They are the same thing. And we have two articles there which IMO should also be merged. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Lots of books also make clear that rape is one form of sexual assault; it is very clear why it just one form of it, considering, for example, forcing a kiss on someone or groping a woman's breast can be termed sexual assault...but is never defined as rape. Like I've stated, we have already been over this topic extensively; hardly anything more for me to state on it. This matter is also already covered in the Definitions section; some time ago, per one of those aforementioned discussions, you added material there to address this. And now you added this material to the lead to address it; I moved your addition and tweaked it, per my WP:Edit summary during that move. Flyer22 (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: I created the section break header The term "rape" vs. the term "sexual assault"...again, because Doc James has taken this discussion as an opportunity to yet again try to get this article merged with the Sexual assault article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is without problems, particularly at Wikipedia. There will always be people using articles or their talk pages as a place to promote a particular position, and even if the imaginative merge mentioned above were to take place (highly unlikely), there would still be people promoting ideas that conflict with DUE/NPOV/RS. While it's obvious to any onlooker what "rape" means, of course those who have to actually deal with legal, medical, and associated issues know that a precise and always-applicable definition is elusive. Nevertheless, there is a gigantic distinction between "rape" and "sexual assault". Johnuniq (talk) 05:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It is true that rape is occasionally used very loosely as a term to include other sexual assaults, and there are some arguments in favour of treating them in law as being a single offence with the court taking the nature and severity in account at sentencing. Nevertheless, there are powerful arguments why Wikipedia should not go down that path. In particular:

1. Common usage does make such a distinction. It may be of great significance to victims.
2. Rolling all sexual assault into a single article would make for a very cumbersome one, and the end result would almost certainly be to split off rape into a separate piece anyway (there are already several sub articles to this one). So we would be back where we started).
3. Insofar as the move may be intended to have an educative effect, there are risks. It might persuade some to regard sexual assault more seriously by emphasising that it can extend to and include rape (but that article does so anyway). But it could also have a contrary impact, by making everything short of rape seem trivial by comparison. We have to be careful in Wikipedia in pushing our own points of view - whilst it is not possible to take a purely neutral view of criminal acts (we would not countenance a section on supposed benefits of rape) it is not necessarily helpful in an international encyclopedia.

--AJHingston (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose merge The articles have distinct information. No reason to merge them both together. And we already had this conversation before. Rape can be referred to as sexual assault, sexual violence, sexual abuse, or numerous other things. Child rape is often called child molestation or child sexual abuse to make it sound less severe and upsetting. Dream Focus 13:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"Definitions" section

The text below is now in that section. (A similar paragraph is also in the section "Consent and sexual offenses" of the Sexual intercourse article; something I noticed and wanted to comment on a while ago, but I forgot about it; this new addition however has reminded me).

"Many, or most, other countries or jurisdictions, however, continue to define rape to cover only acts involving penile penetration of the vagina, treating all other types of non-consensual sexual activity as sexual assault.[31][32] Scotland is among the countries that emphasizes penile penetration, requiring that the sexual assault must have been committed by use of a penis to qualify as rape."

I personally think that "most" should be removed. While it is clear that many countries still use that definition, I'm not sure if it is 'most'; the quote used in the Sexual intercourse article is from a book written more than 20 years ago (used as a source here too). While penile penetration of the vagina is the traditional definition, laws are changing very quickly, with a clear trend to expand the definition of the sexual acts included. (European, Latin American and even many African countries have had recent reforms; while many reforms may not go as far as including penetration with fingers, or even objects, most reforms do include oral & anal penetration with a penis). I think "Many countries or jurisdictions, however, continue to define rape to cover only acts involving penile penetration of the vagina, treating all other types of non-consensual sexual activity as sexual assault" is a better option; it's also an option that can endure in time - even if "most" is still true today, will it still be in a few years? Also Scotland requires penile penetration, but it does not restrict it to the penetration of the vagina, it also includes anal and oral penetration.

The law on rape in Scotland is:[18]

Rape

(1) If a person (“A”), with A's penis—

(a) without another person (“B”) consenting, and

(b) without any reasonable belief that B consents,

penetrates to any extent, either intending to do so or reckless as to whether there is penetration, the vagina, anus or mouth of B then A commits an offence, to be known as the offence of rape. Skydeepblue (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

These are the edits Skydeepblue is referring to, all made today by me:[19][20][21][22][23][24].

Skydeepblue, from what I have studied, rape is indeed still defined only as vaginal penetration by the penis in most parts of the world (with all other sexually violating acts usually being defined as sexual assault or by a similar term). However, I don't feel like debating this matter at this time (and am also busy starting a new WP:Sockpuppet case against prolific sockpuppeter User:Picker78); therefore, I have altered the text back to "many" for now; I'd also originally considered leaving it as "many," but it seemed important to me to emphasize just how much more commonly "penile penetration of the vagina" is defined as rape...as compared to any other sex act. As for "a book written more than 20 years ago," I have to start checking the copyright dates more often since so many books are republished. The first source is dated to 2012; so you must mean the copyright inside of the book that is dated to 1995. The second source is dated to 2013, but the copyright inside of the book dates it to 1992; it's the 2013 one that argues that rape is still defined in most countries as penile-vaginal penetration only. As for Scotland, yes, of course, as the person who added the source, I am aware that its definition of rape is not limited to penile-vaginal penetration; that is why I removed "for example." As can be seen, I also made other tweaks to present that information accurately. Flyer22 (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ottoman Picture is wrong

What kind of a site is this? How can you picture a nation raping a woman? It's not even realistic. Islam does not permit raping. And you're showing rapers as Ottomans! The painting should be removed. At least with not mentioning nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.253.137.32 (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Learn some history. See Bulgarian Horrors. Paul B (talk) 09:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This is actually a propaganda picture, whether or not the incidents took place. I am not sure it is actually in the right place in the article, but it makes the point that rape is often alleged to be used as a weapon of oppression or revenge, and such allegations can be powerful propaganda vehicles in their own right precisely because the behaviour is seen as particularly shocking. I am not sure that this is well expressed in this article, or even in War rape where the same picture appears. We could change the caption and perhaps position to make clear that the picture is not being used as evidence of historical events. --AJHingston (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Is the lede image a good choice?

Is this picture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tizian_094.jpg that is in the lede a really good choice? Personally, I don't think so. It is not very representative, and it doesn't bring much to the article.Skydeepblue (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Marital rape section is WP:Undue weight

Like I stated in this discussion, it needs to be significantly cut back and should (ideally, in my opinion) be merged into Consent section. I stated, "[I]t seems odd that the Marital rape section is a main section of the Definitions section; it's WP:UNDUE WEIGHT with regard to the other specific aspects that don't have their own sections under the Definitions heading. I propose that the Marital rape section be significantly cut down and merged back into the Consent section; it was a part of that section without a subheading before it was significantly expanded earlier [in 2013]. After all, readers can go to the main article, Marital rape, for the in-depth information about it." So I reiterate that the marital rape topic already has a main article, and the section about that topic in the Rape article is nowhere close to appropriate WP:Summary style with regard to that matter, especially after this expansion. Jmh649 (Doc James) agreed with my suggestion on this. Flyer22 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It is, indeed, a very long section; but I think the subject is extremely important, given the fact that the legal recognition of forced sexual intercourse in marriage as rape is a recent one; and it has been the subject of long political debates (often spanning over decades) in most countries; and it is a clear indication of very important changes in the conceptualization of sexual violence - such as the redefinition of sex crimes from crimes against 'morality'/chastity/property crime against the guardian of the woman, to crimes against the self-determination of the victim (this is a very modern concept); the changing social position and role of women; different understanding of marriage, privacy, individual rights etc. I think it helps understand the history of rape itself. However, I am not necessary opposed to shortening the section, if other editors agree. Also, what should be taken out of the section? It would be good to have more people join the discussion here and offer opinions.Skydeepblue (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Skydeepblue. I just now read your reply on this matter and am just now replying to it because I decided to give others time to join in on this discussion (I would see if they did from my WP:Watchlist) before weighing in on it again. As seen, no one other than us has yet weighed in on it. While the topic of marital rape is very important, I don't see why it deserves its own section above some of the forms of rape mentioned at the beginning of the Definitions section. I'm not suggesting that we have a section on any or all of those forms either. I'm not too opposed to keeping the Marital rape section a separate entity, but I do believe that the material that's there would fit better as a paragraph or two in the Consent section, like it did before. Whether it is to stay as a separate section or not, it should definitely be significantly cut down, per WP:Summary style. As for what should be cut, a good rule of thumb is to summarize the section like the lead of the article about the topic does, though not too extensively if the lead is long. Flyer22 (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2014

Hi, could someone please update the link to the "Fourth Annual Report of ICTR to the General Assembly (1999)" (external reference 38 and 161)? The link should be http://www.unictr.org/Portals/0/English%5CAnnualReports%5Ca-54-315.pdf Thanks! 2003:74:CE21:2E01:894D:C84:587C:95D2 (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Mlpearc (open channel) 18:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)