Talk:Rape/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

pov tag

I added the pov tag to the article to reflect concerns I have this article contains falsehoods, misrepresentation, and misreporting designed to pander to the gender-feminist political positions on rape. Many authors within and without feminism have weighed in on the manipulation of rape rhetoric, rape reporting and rape representation by Establishment femininists. The debate about rape incidence is ongoing with several authors suggesting that men rape men more frequently than men rape women today due to the drastic decline of rape in the US. However any pov that counters prevailing feminist political pov is usually censored or silenced here. That is why I tagged the article. Anacapa 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Content like the following [1] is what seems to be 'problematic' to some editors intent on pandering to the 'woman as victim-saint' line in this article. However, NPOV goes both ways. Women are gaining increasing notoriety for female-male rapes as well.

The issues I have include reverse-sexism in the definition, pandering to feminist political agenda, using "men's rights say" or other slandering to conceal or silence official reports of female-male rape, reporting incidence as fact when there is much debate about rape reporting and in general taking the standard feminist fearmongering line against all reports to the contrary. Many feminist authors have debunked feminist fearmongering and myth making about rape. To censor or ignore their concerns is pandering to pov. Anacapa 03:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I edited/added content below which is as much a part of rape as anything else in this article. However, I anticipate that those editors who take a male-bashing reverse-sexist POV about rape will again try to censor such content which flies in the face of their shamelessly sexist victim-saint ideologies. This is the very kind of reverse-sexist censorship I am concerned about here. To those editors who are busy accusing me of POV I ask that you check your own before you make me the bad guy here.

The word rape originates from the Latin verb rapere: to seize or take by force. The word originally had no sexual connotation and is still used generically in English. The history of rape, and the alterations of its meaning, is quite complex. The Latin term for the act of rape itself is raptus. Historically, rape has been seen (incorrectly) as a 'female' issue. Rape is now considered to be a crime committed against members of either sex, by either sex. That said, most historical accounts of rape refer to male-female forms of rape.

Male-male rape has historically been shrouded in secrecy, probably due to the stigma men associate with being raped by other men. Male-male rape is commonly thought to occur inside correctional institutions where reporting is difficult or impossible. Today, male-male rape is seen as common in the United States, but is rarely reported, acknowledged or prosecuted due to the settings in which it occurs.

Female-male rape has historically been considered impossible due to the fact that male erectile response is required for woman to rape a man, thus making female-male sexual coercion appear impossible. However, it is now known that males can experience sexual arousal during rape, that women can and do rape men, and that the consequences to the male survivor are serious. Although research of female-male rape is rare, recent mass media reports have shown that it is more common than once thought. Many authors have noted significant social and legal doublestandards that inhibit equitable reporting, prosecution and sentencing of women who rape men and boys.

Historically, the the rape of females by females has been considered a taboo topic. Rape of women and girls by women is the final frontier of rape research and reporting. However, a number of reports show that female-female rape is a reality.

Many developments in law took place during the twentieth century. These included landmark decisions by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda that defined (male-female) rape as an institutionalized weapon of war and a crime of genocide. Although rape as a war crime is primarily committed by men, in 2003, the first woman was prosecuted for using (male-female) rape as a crime against humanity.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anacapa (talk • contribs) 04:10, 30 May 2007

I moved POV tag to section u cited above. If u really think whole article should be tagged - feel free to put it back. TestPilot 05:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Rapist

I noticed the rapist article needs some work and I feel way out of my league. I've committed a cardinal sin in creating a section only to contain an external link, but I'm not sure how to edit the information so it's not just a copy-paste... most of what I do is cleanup stuff usually. Someone please take over for me! Kuronue 22:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

"Most experts believe the primary cause of rape is an aggressive desire to dominate the victim rather than an attempt to achieve sexual fulfillment.[citation needed]"

If you're going to quote "most experts" as saying a sexual act isn't about sex and put it in the opening paragraph, a citation for this statement should be the foremost priority for improving the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.167.147.162 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC).

I think the claim of "most experts" is accurate. There are literally thousands of articles written on this subject. The above statement "a sexual act isn't about sex..." is telling. The author believes that rape is a sexual act, but rape isn't sex; it is sexual in nature. The traditional definition of rape was carnal knowledge by force or duress. "Most experts" are looking at the motivation behind the use of force or duress and they ask the question, "Why is the criminal using the force, what does he seek to gain or gratify in himself by using force?" The statement of "most experts" is actually very conservative. The idea that rape is about sex is held most frequently by non-experts who are not familiar with the law review, criminology, and psychology articles written on the subject. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of experts in several different fields have come to the consensus that rapists seek gratification through domination over their victims. This is what they teach at police academies, law schools, and psychology classes. Some high school health textbooks from 10 years ago say the same thing: rape=control. The mental state of control is related to many other crimes such as domestic violence and stalking. This is why the frequency of women who are the victims of first time domestic violence or rape is higher for those who have been stalked than it is for the majority of the population. If you want the proof, look at the legislative history of any state that has an anti-stalking statute. The purpose of such a statute is to prevent sexual violence against the victim. Stalking is not primarily about sexual gratification, but its link to rape is clear. The claim of "most experts" is accurate and does not require a quotation. A simple google search should have been this person's first clue that they spoke too soon. Legis Nuntius 22:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the claim has been sourced nicely now, I am unsure what the purpose of the above outburst is. However, it still needs to be contradicted: One of Wikipedia's core policies is that even accurate claims do need sourcing, unless it is a claim that no reasonable reader could possibly doubt. That is, we do not source a claim that the sky is blue or water is wet, but claims that are marginally more doubtful than that do need to be attributed and sourced. You acknowledge that much of the general population does believes that rape is about sex. That alone warrants sourcing of any claim otherwise. Telling readers to do "simple google searches" is not an acceptable substitute for sourcing a challengeable claim. Wikipedia does not accept random websites as trustworthy sources, and we should not expect our readers to do that either. –Henning Makholm 23:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the above "outburst", as you call it, was to debate the position that rape is sex rather than an act of domination. If you read the wikipedia policy on talk page guidelines, you will see that discussion of rape on the rape talk page is an appropriate topic. Discussion of wikipedia policies is not and I would ask that you put such discussions on my talk page. I am not certain that labeling someone's post as an "outburst" falls within wikipedia's guidelines. I have never come across an article from a reputable source that makes the assertion that rapists rape because they want to have sex. How would one begin such a search? Possibly with this website.[2]It is ironic that wikipedia is most often one of the top ten results on a search engine. Does this imply that wikipedia should not accept itself as a "trustworthy source"? Legis Nuntius 19:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want to "debate the position that rape is sex rather than an act of domination"? Nobody seems to have asserted that position, and anyway Wikipedia is not a debating society. It certainly is an appropriate use of a talk page to discuss how Wikipedia policies apply to the article in question. You seem to be saying that simply because the claim is true it should not be sourced. That is an utter and complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia's sourcing policy. The policy of sourcing claims apply to true claims as well as false claims - in fact it applies more to true claims, because demonstrably false claims should not be sourced; they should be removed (or replaced with a true claim that so-and-so says such-and-such). Your failure to find a respectable sources for a different claim than the one in the article has absolutely no bearing on whether we need to source the claim that actually does appear in the article. Finally: No, Wikipedia articles do not count as a respectable source for the purpose of writing Wikipedia. –Henning Makholm 20:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The above anonymous user failed to find the reference at the bottom of the article, and instead posted the above challenge. There is no reason to cite it in the introduction. It is common criminal defense that a date rape was just sex. This user characterized rape as a "sexual act". It is the public policy of this country to debunk the rape myth that men can have an uncontrollable need to sexually gratify themselves and therefore cannot stop when told "no." I was justified in challenging a claim similar to the same line of thinking. Such thinking needs to be debated and not defended. Your tone of calling a post an "outburst in need of contradiction" and your post immediately above borders on an ad hominem. Your above statement mischaracterizes my posts and then proceeds to argue against that position. A "failure to find a respectable source" is a good reason to use google, that was my point. "Your failure to find a respectable source for a claim has absolutely no bearing" and "I understand that you did not find a source, but I do not think that relates", what is the difference? Tone. Tone speaks to the credibility of an argument because of the ad hominem fallacy. Be mindful of tone. The anonymous user's post was not very tactful because a rape victim could see the above claim: rape = sexual act, after her assailant claimed the rape was just sex. Someone unfamiliar with American rape prosecutions or the American public education system may not have seen that inference. The anonymous user makes the declaration that his claim is the "foremost priority for improving the article" when this claim is baseless and not tactful. I assert that before someone challenges facts on a sensitive topic that they should at least do a google search before they declare their claim as a foremost priority. Possibly, they should read the entire article before declaring what the foremost priority for that article is. The rape page is different from other wikipedia articles; it requires greater tact. I do not think this anonymous user is deserving of further defense. If you think otherwise, contact a wikipedia moderator and remove this discussion to my talk page. Legis Nuntius 03:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not a "common defence" that date rape is "just sex". The defence is to claim consent, not to claim that non-consensual acts are "just sex". There is no defence in law that rape is a sexual act and it is absurd to suggest that there is. Your argument creates a false anthithesis between "sex" and "act of domination". By implying that violating and dominating acts of sex are somehow impossible, you are the one who is sustaining a dangerous myth. An example is your misapplication of archaic terms like "carnal knowledge", as though this is somehow something different from "sex". You are the one who is obfuscaing matters by conflating sex as an act with sensuality. Paul B 09:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion Mr. Barlow! I think you are confused both by what I wrote and American law. The difference between sex and rape in most jurisdictions is a lack of consent; others still require a showing of continual resistance or the use of force. Others require sexual contact, while others require penetration or intercourse. The legal defense would be tailored to the specific jurisdiction. The defense given by the perpetrator on the police report in a date rape case is "yes we had sex but it was sex, it wasn't rape." A police report typically does not give a legal defense such as "Perp stated that sexual penetrative genital contact did occur and he was not mistaken as to belief of informed consent and circumstances from the perspective of a reasonably objective standard were such that he was not recklessly mistaken as to alleged lack of informed consent." But, from your familiarity with American law classes and police reports you already know this. I think you are confused about the legal definition of "carnal knowledge". I refer you to the article, where I give the legal definition and cite the criminal law treatise in which it may be found. I believe that your dictionary or sense of the English language may not coincide exactly with 17th century legal definitions of the word. Such a topic rarely comes up in an American criminal law class, so the confusion is understandable. It would be nigh impossible to find in a google search, so I would not refer you there, and I sincerely doubt you have an interest in researching the usage of "archaic terms" through the centuries. I took the rest of your comment as a little muddled. "Conflating sex as an act with sensuality?" Not sure where you got that one. I took such quotes as "you are the one who is sustaining a dangerous myth" as an attempt at provocation. Regardless, thanks for your sudden contribution to the discussion on interpreting my previous posts. This string of comments is becoming less about rape and more about my previous posts, in which case I believe it is time for a moderator to get involved. Legis Nuntius 20:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the meaning of the word "sex" is determined by "American law" (though I see no evidence here that the word is so enshrined in law. Your examples are about interpreting colloquial expressions from defendants). Perhaps you are not aware that a)the meaning of words is determined by usage. b) that there are a number of other jurisdictions in this world, and Wikipedia is supposed to reflect a worldwide view. On a), the primary meaning of the word "sex" has changed over the centuries, but it currently refers in usage to a range of acts, which encompass those traditionally referred to as "carnal knowledge". "Conflating sex as an act with sensuality" was a phrase designed to draw attention to your confusion. I was using the word "sensuality" to clarify that you are assuming that the word "sex" is identical in meaning to "consensual sex". Indeed your own position makes the very word "consensual" redundant. The fact that it is not, and that the phrase "non-consensual sex" is widely used indicates your error [3] [4] [5] Yes, I think the tone of your posts are indeed part of the problem as far as clarifying the issues is concerned. By all means bring in a mediator. Paul B 00:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You place special emphasis on usage; I believe usage shows that "sex" is identical in meaning to "consensual sex" in the phrase "He had sex with her". No one would construe that such a phrase would mean "He raped her", nor would there be any doubt as to whether or not a rape had occurred. This is not a colloquial expression. The word "consent" is an invention of the law in reference to the present topic. As far as the law dictating the meaning of words, your quotation gives a good example of that.[6] The author of this web page looks to the Colorado statute to find the meaning of rape as "non-consensual sex." It is ironic that the Colorado statute has since been repealed and rewritten. There is no mention of the word "consent" any longer, but instead "calculating to gain submission". Governments influence word usage through policy and public education programs. It could be that the usage of "consent" in reference to rape could be phased out in preference to other terminology that gets at the problem better. I am indeed aware of the "other jurisdictions in this world". The law journals in England cite to Canadian and American authorities on rape with great frequency. For an example of a law review article from the UK, see Jenny McEwan, I Thought She Consented: Defeat of the Rape Shield or the Defence that Shall Not Run, Crim. L.R. 2006, Nov, 969-980. Nations born of English common law systems take special notice of the laws in sister jurisdictions. Curious that England, Canada, and the US all enacted rape shield laws. It is because former English common law systems have dealt with the problem in substantially similar or the exact same way. I gathered that you believed I was not taking other jurisdictions into account. I hope this clears up the misunderstanding. Legis Nuntius 03:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

History

Question for all: Rape used to have a section about "rape as a tool of war", along with mention of it being most recently used in Bosnia. The mention, as well as the entire section, is gone. While this is an ugly concept, perhaps uglier than rape itself, it still merits a valid mention. Rape has been part of the modus operandi of conquerers throughout history. Was this section removed for a reason?

--Luno 21:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just added some info to the history section.

--Survivor 00:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This information contradicts historical treatises on medieval law.

In antiquity and until the late Middle Ages, rape was seen in most cultures less as a crime against a particular girl or woman than against the male figure she "belonged" to. Thus, the penalty for rape was often a fine, payable to the father or the husband whose "goods" were "damaged". That position was later replaced in many cultures by the view that the woman, as well as her lord, should share the fine equally. In some laws the woman might be married to the rapist instead of his receiving the legal penalty. This was especially prevalent in laws where the crime of rape did not include, as a necessary part, that it be against the woman's will, thus dividing the crime in the current meaning of rape, and a means for a man and woman to force their families to permit marriage.

Rape was given the punishment of death in most cultures including ancient Greece and Rome. It was only in the last few hundred years when this was changed reflecting the "eye for an eye" theory of capital punishment. Kinsmen of the victim would enact the punishment themselves, and this was condoned by law. Even the seemingly innocent consensual sex between a virgin and a married or unmarried man was grounds for the tort of seduction, where the parents or maiden could sue the seducer for monetary damages. The unsubstantiated and contradictory passage will be removed. I will quote an article on medieval law concerning rape instead.Legis Nuntius 00:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is substantial source material available supporting Survivor's paragraph. Deuteronomy, in particular, responded to rape with the precise punishment described:

22:28 - If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
22:29 - then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.

Furthermore, throughout Hammurabi's Code, the female's consent is never addressed, merely a crime against the husband or betrothed. In addition, a virgin was exempted from death for her naivete & held blameless.

#129 - If a man's wife is found with another man, both shall be tied and thrown into the water, but the husband may pardon his wife.
#130 - If a man violate the wife (betrothed or child-wife) of another man, who has never known a man, and still lives in her father's house, and sleep with her and be found, this man shall be put to death, but the wife is blameless.

The Code also describes that death is the desert of a man caught sleeping with his son's wife, however an exception is carved out if the wife was a virgin, in which case the father owes her financial compensation and the betrothal is voided.

#155 - If a man betroth a girl to his son, and his son have intercourse with her, but he (the father) afterward defile her, and be surprised, then he shall be bound and cast into the water (drowned).
#156 - If a man betroth a girl to his son, but his son has not known her, and if then he defile her, he shall pay her half a gold mina, and compensate her for all that she brought out of her father's house. She may marry the man of her heart.

I suspect these are sufficient to return the offending paragraph with the addition of citations and some minor reworking.
Some more fun references:
Women and the Law in Early Ireland
History of Sexual Violence
Women in Late Antiquity: Pagan and Christian Lifestyles --CheshireKatz 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of word "Innocence"

I think that the use of the word "innocence" in the introduction is a weasel-word and ought to be changed. Implicit in the use of "underage innocence" is a particular value system which construes that sexuality is inherently unwholesome. It's also misleading and inaccurate--the issue is that people below a certain age are deemed legally and ethically to be unable to give consent to certain sexual acts. 69.37.165.246 17:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I completely agree. It has been changed. -- TinaSparkle 17:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

\:It's not weasel, it's just wrong. Good point. Paul B 22:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Creating a new article

I think we need an article on rape in all animals, giving only a small mention of it in humans. Forced copulations occur throughout the animal kingdom, even in the tiniest invertebrates. Saying 'it's not against the animals will because animals don't have will' is fairly unimportant - many animals are clearly distressed by being raped and try to avoid it, and even where they can't reasonably be said to have 'will' it can still be defined in terms of fitness. How about forced copulation? This could then be a small subsection of rape and Non-human animal sexuality. Richard001 02:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what value such an article would serve. I don't think that animal sexuality has much to do with this article, which is about the concept and crime of rape - I'm not aware of any attempt to apply anti-rape legislation to animals. Of course, if such a thing has verifiably happened, there could be a note of it here, though it might sit more happily in the Laws about rape article. There is already an article called Sociobiological theories of rape, which covers any implications of forced copulation in animals as it may be analogous to humans. And the Non-human animal sexuality article already has a section on coercive sex, though I note it lacks sources. Perhaps, if you have reliable sources that discuss forced copulation in animals as rape, that would be the best place for them? -- TinaSparkle 08:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Understanding the behavior in other animals is important in understanding it in humans. It's not going to be a legal article, but a biological one. The section on sociobiological theories could then link to both articles for readers interested in a 'natural history' view on the subject. I know of a good place to start researching it that will point me in the direction of further material, so I'll start off on the animal sexuality article and take it from there. Richard001 01:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Statistics are weak

The statistics seem quite weak to me. The number of rape victims as a percentage of the population is a pretty often researched number. And sure, it varies quite a bit, but the 0.24% and 0.04% numbers quoted in this article are on the low side, IMHO. And what the hell is the "National Crime Victimization Survey"? The link just goes to an abstract written by Anthony D. Amato. Some law student for all I know. That's quite misleading. (The abstract even hints at a political bias.)

The next line begins "But other government surveys . . . ", apparently falsely implying that Anthony D. Amato is a government institution ;-)

Then, this line finishes with ". . . and report a higher victimization rate." well, what's the rate?! It's 2.8-4.9% of college women are raped in a year. Shouldn't that be included in the article. Maybe to get both sides of the spectrum?

Another confusing thing about this statistic, is it's not clear what it is indicating. I assume that it indicates how many women, as a percentage of all women are raped in any one single year. Maybe the reason the number seems low to me, is it also includes the elderly and the very young.

Another statistic that I find even more interesting and informing, is the number of women who have *ever* been raped. Here is a study done by the US Dept of Health and Human Services, and National Institute of Mental Health, reporting that 26% of women 18-24 years of age, have been raped at one time in their lives. http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=108037

And, this article summarizes a number of studies, finding the range to be from 2% to 56% of women have ever been raped. The studies are cited. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/welcome.htm

208.48.16.9 00:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's get our history straight

There were two diametrically opposed statements about how rape was "viewed historically": whether as a "woman's issue" or as a 'crime against her father or husband". I removed the following, which seemed less accurate than ther other - but it definitely needs a citation at the minimum.

"Historically, rape has been seen (incorrectly) as a 'female' issue, an act of violence by a man against a woman. Rape is now considered to be a crime committed by either sex against members of either sex." NuclearWinner 23:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The National Crime Victimization Survey is a credible tool used by the FBI, along with the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) to collect crime & victimization data. These reports are often compared to ascertain figures regarding unreported crimes by comparing the number of reported victimizations during the past year with the number of reported crimes during the past year. While there are some issues with these reporting systems, they are the primary official figures from the US government.

Citation number 23, and the statements related to it, are completely inaccurate and should be deleted immediately. The figures used in the article are inaccurate and, more to the point, hopelessly biased.

I don't believe this quote, supposedly from Linda Fairstein

The following material is completely inconsistent with everything I have found about Linda Fairstein on the web.  :"* Linda Fairstein, former head of the New York County District Attorney’s Sex Crimes Unit, noted, “There are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen. ... It’s my job to bring justice to the man who has been falsely accused by a woman who has a grudge against him, just as it’s my job to prosecute the real thing.”" If this book really contains this quote, someone, please substantiate it. NuclearWinner 23:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

statistics section needs to change from a debate to encyclopedic writing

Right now, the Statistics section reads like a debate between those who think it's over-reported and those who think it's under-reported. Those issues should be condensed and summarized, and other info about statistics should be added. Guanxi 17:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this looks rather hopeless. I think what the article ought to say is something along the lines of: Such-and-such hard statistics exist (number of rapes reported, rapists convicted), but the relation between these numbers and the actual incidence of rape is very controversial. Here are reasons why they numbers might be too low (bla bla bla [sources]) and here are reasons why the numbers might be too high (bla bla bla [sources]). Nobody really knows how large any of those effects are. Some secondary statistics attempt specifically to estimate the ratio between official statistics and the truth (bla bla bla [sources]), but the methodology and underlying assumptions of those efforts have also been broadly criticised ([yet more sources]) cannot be said to have reduced the total amount of controversy.

... but unfortunately I don't have half the sources it would need to support such sweeping claims of controversy to Wikipedia standards. What to do? We cannot let stupidisms such as "most rapes-63% are not even reported to police" stand; I have trouble imagining how one might possibly know that fraction with an uncertainty that allows even one significant digit. –Henning Makholm 23:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

In Art

Might discuss treatment of subject in art[7] and more common treatment in cinema. --Samuel O'Malley 17:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Again removed material not aimed at improving the article

Trust me, it was loathsome and does not belong on a talk page. NuclearWinner 17:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Women Raping

While I am not denying that there may be instances of women raping those who are not just underage, the source used here [8] doesn't seem appropriate for such a strong topic. It is written in poor English and lacks many names and places that the rapes took place, sounding little better than a collection of rumors. 67.164.16.191 05:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, so please go ahead and remove it. You've given several good reasons. NuclearWinner 00:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan

I have temporarily commented out the following: "In Pakistan, under the Hudood Ordinance in force from 1979 to 2006, the definition of rape required a woman to have supporting evidence from four male eye-witnesses. The sexual act was otherwise considered adultery."

Could a woman accuse her husband of rape? As written, if she did and did not have four male eye-witnesses, it would be considered adultery.

Also, for such a strong claim, I would like a cited source.

Mdbrownmsw 20:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

From the citations at Hudood Ordinance, this claim appears to be a matter of notable controversy. One reference claims that the four-witnesses criterion was not a requirement for proving rape as such, but a threshold for "upgrading" the sentence of a rapist from civil punishment to some more draconian religiously-mandated punishment. It appears that Pakistan, in order to maintain compatibility with religious tradition, distinghishe[sd] formally between rape (defined religously) and non-consentual adultery, relying in the latter case on the general principle that a non-willing participant in a crime is not to be punished.

As for a woman accusing her husband of raping (her), the accusation would probably be considered meaningless in the first place. That is not particular to Pakistan or Islamic legal tradition: Google finds various reliable-looking claims that jurisdictions such as England, the Netherlands, Germany or Switzerland formally considered intra-marital rape to be a contradiction in terms until somewhen in the 1990s. –Henning Makholm 09:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Suprise sex

I think the term rape is a little too negative and POV, and would like to change this article's title to "suprise sex" - does anyone have any opinions regarding this proposal?Sennen goroshi 19:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. (Monty Python mode on). "You're a looney.". That is all. SirFozzie 15:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Survivor of Rape

I was raped at a young age and got pregnant and I think it would be nice to add a section to this article called Wikipedian Rape Survivors where wikipeidans who went through it can share there stories. I vote that we allow all to edit it and share our stories. The millions who read wikipedia might love to see we support them and we feel their pain 75.109.98.208 04:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Such sites already exist, and that is not what wikipedia is for.

Mdbrownmsw 12:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You dont know what rape does! It destroys and I would love to support people and im going to add my story whether you like it or not! 75.109.98.208 22:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What you think I do or do not know is not the issue. Your story, however painful and devistating for you has no place on wikiipedia. - Mdbrownmsw 12:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

After reading your comments on the Talk:Sexual intercourse page, made about 3 hours and 30mins before your claims to be a rape victim, I am a little skeptical regarding your motives for contributing to wikipedia content. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexual_intercourse&diff=prev&oldid=162001048 Sennen goroshi 07:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

75.109.98.208 is a definite troll. At here, "she" is a survivor of rape. At Talk:Sexual_intercourse he wants to upload a picture of himself, supposedly 18, having sex with a 15 year old.

Another time, we have the return of "Salverland"[9], a little piece of "imagination" being added to wikipedia here and there, under 75.109.101.139.[10]

He's been here before, one year ago, when he was 20 and his gf was 14 (now they're 18 and 15)[11].

Mdbrownmsw 15:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

desire vs. agression

The article said "Most experts believe the primary cause of rape is an aggressive desire to dominate the victim rather than an attempt to achieve sexual fulfillment."

While this is certainly an opinion advocated by many people, there are several things about it that are problematic; First and foremost, could someone produce some objective studies which give any reason to believe the above view? From the sources I've read, the 'domination' vs. sexualization' dichotomy seems to be primarily a political reaction to the sexualization of rape, rather than the result of any systematic study of the actual motives of most rapists.

As a counterexample, some forms of pornography depict rape, which strongly suggests that some people associate domination with sexual fulfillment rather than seeing them as mutually exclusive.

Second, on what basis is this asserted to be the majority opinion of experts? That seems quite difficult to back up. If this viewpoint is still controversial, it should be presented as such, rather than as a foregone conclusion of the majority of experts. --Ryan Wise 00:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The version you originally had said "Some experts, in an effort to distance rape from consensual sex". How was the motivation of "some experts" determined? - Mdbrownmsw 17:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

See causes of rape, which has been linked to.

The feminist theory of rape asserts that what feminists see as male domination of female in socio-political and economic domains is the ultimate cause of most rapes.

Brownmiller is pretty clearly trying to tie rape into other forms of domination. She de-emphasises the mechanisms of male arousal and is de-associating rape from other forms of sex. Male arousal, prior to feminist critics like Brownmiller, was considered a primary cause of rapes. So I was operating under the assumption that Brownmiller's intentions (and the intentions of those feminist critics who based their views on her work) squared with her results. Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say "in an attempt to attribute rapes to perceived general social injustice rather than male sexual desire" but that seemed a bit wordy. Either way, I removed the passage since it might be disputed, motivations having many layers to them. I'm not sure why you're arguing about a passage which isn't there any more, though. --Ryan Wise 21:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's good to discuss material after it has been removed. Discussion creates a clearer history, it documents why something was removed. Discussion is also a first step toward getting consensus if an editor wants to reintroduce it. Clearly, this issue of what 'causes' rape is an ongoing discussion on the talk page, be it "the" feminist theory, or sexual desire. (On a side note, there's no such thing as "the" feminist theory, it should be attributed to a particular school of thought, or a given author/wave. Feminists are no more homogeneous than any other group. I think "A feminist theory" is preferable.) Phyesalis 05:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Statistics, please?

Are there any statistics out there from credible sources claiming that revealing clothing can ever be a factor in rape? I don't believe that it can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.168.22 (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems to be an excuse on the part of rape apologists. The way a person is dressed never justifies an attack on their body. Alison88 01:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the matter either way, but saying that a thing is a factor is not the same as justifying it. Not locking my bike up correctly may be a factor in whether it is stolen or not. Stealing my bike is not justified, even if I don't lock it up. It's a poor analogy, but I hope it illustrates the difference. --Ryan Wise 00:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sociobiology?

The sociobiology section reads (at least to me) very much like pseudoscience and rape apology. Suggesting that perhaps some humans (presumably women) make themselves "more available" to rape? Also, this opinion is put forth by Camille Paglia, who is not a sociobiologist but a social critic. This section seems extremely biased, if not dangerous to include for social reasons (giving people reason to justify a brutal crime). Paglia is speaking outside of her field and is being portrayed as an expert. None of the sociobiologists who share her opinion are referenced. Could someone with the power possibly remove or edit this section? Thanks Alison88 02:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You can do it. Be bold. - Mdbrownmsw 04:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mdbrownmsw, but unfortunately at this point I can't; I'm a fairly new registered user and this article is semi-protected. I am not sure how long it will be before I can edit this article but if no one does between now and the time that I am able to, I guess I eventually will. It would be nice if someone who had the power could edit it sooner, rather than later. Alison88 14:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Alison, you can help the process along by posting links or cited info on this talk page. I'm sure other editors (myself included) would be happy to make use of your contributions. Also, if you set up your user/talk pages, other editors can post helpful suggestions there. The other thing you can do is find established editors who will mentor new users. This might help the waiting period. If you have questions (on the article or WP in general), I would be happy to assist you in any way I can. Just leave me a message on my User talk:Phyesalis page.

Per Paglia, she is not a sociobiologist, but a social theorist. Her contributions on the subject are valid. But like I said if you have info that contradicts her position (or other sociobiologists who support her position) you can just post it here for the time being. Hope this helps. Phyesalis 03:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

RfCU

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#DavidYork71_socks for case involving Bosharivale, CranberryIce, Mcilhenny etc. CranberryIce was marked as sockpuppet of DavidYork71 by DrKiernan, so I've marked Bosharivale and Mcilhenny as sockpuppets of DavidYork71. utcursch | talk 07:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Prevalence of "Victim-Blaming" Attitudes Amongst Public

Since I can tell this is going to be a controversial edit, I have started this topic so that we may assess the neutrality of this statement. Here is a sentence I wish to append to the "Victim Blaming" subsection:

Despite decades of feminist propaganda designed to debunk widespread acceptance of "rape myths", many members of the public still subscribe to politically incorrect theories of female sexuality.

Please articulate any and all objections.

MannaOfTheMessiah (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems a rather problematic way of phrasing things, even though it's broadly true. The problem is with emotive phrases like "propaganda" and "politically incorrect". How about "Despite longstanding feminist activism dedicated to eliminating of what many feminists term "rape myths", these beliefs remain widespread." I think there needs to be a clear specification of the so-called myths and of what beliefs are still widely held. Paul B (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Paul. Here is a revision based upon those concerns.

Despite longstanding feminist campaigns of activism and agitprop dedicated to the elimination of harmful rape myths (attitudes and beliefs conducive to sexual violence), virulent memes persist; many members of the public still contend that at least some women may be prone to masochism and deception.

Any commentary and/or criticism is welcome.

MannaOfTheMessiah (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)