Talk:Rape culture/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Rape culture / Societies without rape culture

The information, despite being too little, is verified. If you think you can improve it and found more reliable resorces, please do so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanca Lap (talk • contribs) 09:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Blanca Lap: Welcome to Wikipedia. I think the issue is (1) you are using one non-reliable source ([1]) and (2) you are confusing Sanday's discussions of rape with what is called "rape culture". In my understanding, Sanday links patriarchal structures, adversarial heterosexual courting scripts, and ubiquity of interpersonal violence with prevalence and proneness (statistical risk) of sexual violence. This is not the same as "rape culture" as defined in this article. While I understand the connections between the concepts, the sources provided do not make those connections and thus it appear to be original research. Neither Sanday source cited use the term "rape culture" in their text. Are you able to find some secondary or tertiary sources which explicitly cite Sanday's discussion of these cultures with respect to rape culture (as defined in this article)? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir:: Here you have a little bit of information: https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/rape-culture-yea-or-nay — Blanca Lap (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Blanca Lap: While I'm glad you found something that makes the connection, we need a reliable source. That is not one. Please stop re-inserting (edit warring) over the material. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir::

The Socio-Cultural Context of Rape: A Cross- Cultural Study Article in Journal of Social Issues · October 1981 by Peggy Reeves Sanday University of Pennsylvania

Rape-Prone Versus Rape-Free Campus Cultures Article in Violence Against Women 1996 By PEGGY REEVES SANDAY University of Pennsylvania

I can send a pdf with these two articles if that's what you want

@EvergreenFir:, @Me, Myself, and I are Here:, @Pi.1415926535::

Your argumentation for deleting the article is untenable; you say that Sanday doesn't talk about rape culture, so I give you other authors who talk about it and you still delete the article.(talk) 11:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir:, @Me, Myself, and I are Here:, @Pi.1415926535::

http://scholar.colorado.edu/honr_theses/668/

@Jytdog:, @EvergreenFir:, @Me, Myself, and I are Here:, @Pi.1415926535::

Just check this and then do what you want, do you promise? https://books.google.es/books?id=7pqg0UTFRCIC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=minangkabau+rape+culture&source=bl&ots=duM0ShQ8df&sig=RoqoTP-zNg-J_xqXz3L3W_Yb1DQ&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9juW-8bXRAhXFxxQKHTDYBTwQ6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=minangkabau%20rape%20culture&f=false

Thank you for doing the work to find a source that unambiguously connects Sanday's work to rape culture. That is what everybody has been telling you is needed.

Here is the well-cited ref: Spivak, Andrew Lawrence (2007). Dissertation: Evaluating Theories of Sexual Violence Using Rape Offenses in the National Crime Victimization Survey and the National Incident Based Reporting System. The University of Oklahoma. Department of Sociology. pp. 26–28. ISBN 9780549397175.. That is a dissertation and it not the greatest source, but it doesn't completely suck either. Blanca what is the content you would propose, that summarizes this source? Once you propose content here on the Talk page, others can judge whether the whole thing (content + sourcing) is acceptable. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:, @EvergreenFir:, @Me, Myself, and I are Here:, @Pi.1415926535:

Rape Culture-free societies

There are investigations that conclude that the lack of rape-culture in societies (like the minangkabau) make rapes extremely rare.

References

Blanca Lap (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hm it seems to me that more could be generated about why it matters that some societies don't have a rape culture. Would you please think about that? Also where exactly in this article would this content go? How does it fit with what is already here? Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog::

Why it matters that some societies don't have a rape culture?

It's important to learn from societies that doesn't have any form of rape culture so maybe one that we can be also rape-culture-free.

How do they see rape?

What makes them rape-free?

Why do people say they are a more "egalitarian" society?

Has something to do their "equality" with the lack of rape?

How do they see men and women each other?

What can we learn from them?

If we talk about societies with rape-culture, why not about societies that don't have it?

I'm sure not everybody knows that these societies even exist.

Where exactly in this article would this content go?

In a new "part". Because the entire article talks about the fact of having rape culture, but not about the lack of it.

Also I think we can say more about these topic. Blanca Lap (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:, @EvergreenFir:, @Me, Myself, and I are Here:, @Pi.1415926535:

Blanca Lap (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Two things - you can stop pinging us. Second thing - you misunderstood my question; I don't care why you think this belongs in the article and that wasn't what I asked. I am asking about additional content that could be generated from the source and how the content from this source would integrate with the article. The two questions are related. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:: I'm tired of trying to fix this "article" so I can put it in the wikipedia. This is so ridiculous. Do what you want. I don't give a fuck about wikipedia anymore.

I am trying to work with you to help you become a Wikipedian instead of an advocate. The goal is to improve the article, not to force some POV into it. This article needs a lot of work. This notion you are bringing is interesting and important. I'll go ahead and add stuff based on this in a while, if you don't want to work on it. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It's just that by the same law you're aplicating, if I talk to my friends about the traditional village festivals, I need to make an speech connecting them to the notion of culture, because if I don't do it, I'm not talking about culture. Blanca Lap (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

i have no idea what you are talking about. Working in WP is not like hanging out with your friends. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, i don't know what to put. If you wanna work on it, do it. Please. Blanca Lap (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:: so... I believe no one is going to talk about it... what a shame. But if you are still interested, there is a section in the spanish wikipedia about rape culture.

Origins and Usage

Under the Origins and Usage subcategory, I feel there is insufficient information. If the Section is kept as is, "Usage" should be removed from the title. If the section is to be edited, I believe more information on "Usage" of the term Rape Culture needs to be added. Hmchandler (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Using WP:In-text attribution properly

With this edit, Soundr3l made a WP:INTEXT violation. It was a violation because the wording made it seem like only this author (Susan Brownmiller) has made this claim, when, in fact, the statement is widely supported in the literature on patriarchy and related topics. So I fixed the violation with this edit (followup edit here). For another part, I changed "According to Susan Brownmiller" to "Susan Brownmiller states" since the latter does not suggest that Susan Brownmiller alone has made the following claim: "Early relationships were based on a system of protective mating: a woman sought protection from rape or bride capture through her father, husband, or clan. In return, she was expected to remain chaste and monogamous and was often estranged from other females. A rape done to a woman was seen as an attack on the estate of her father or husband." (Note: This paragraph was different at the time I made that change; see the edits and below.)

It is well-supported in the literature on rape that a rape done to a woman was seen as an attack on the estate of her father or husband, and that this came along with the things that Brownmiller notes. See, for example, wreath money. So using "According to Susan Brownmiller" is not appropriate. For matters like these, we should not be attributing them to a single scholar. An author being the only author of a source does not mean that the author is the only one who holds that viewpoint, and we should not be implying that in cases where the viewpoint is widely supported.

On a side note: I have had a disagreement with Scoundr3l before about his use of in-text attribution. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Since the "protective mating" and "bride capture" parts are so often attributed to Brownmiller, I understand attributing her in the text for those pieces (which is why I left in "Susan Brownmiller states"), but the point is that she is not the only scholar who states what is described in the aforementioned paragraph. For example, see the following sources:

Click on this to see sources.

This 2010 Bodied Mindfulness: Women's Spirits, Bodies and Places source, from Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press, page 140, states, "Women were considered closer to nature than men because of their close association with their bodies. Like nature, women were controlled by the ethics of the brotherhood. Justice, the 'first virtue' (Rawls 1971) was understood as fair play according to the rules of social organization developed by the brotherhood which protected each man from violation of private ownership. Protection of one's family came to be a sign of a man's self-respect and honour. Indeed, he would willingly give himself for his family, in the name of his honour. Protection of women's bodies from rape by other men was (is) part of the honour code among men. Rape of a man's wife or his daughter constituted violation of his property in this view of ownership, and was subject to severe punishment. By contrast, rape of a single woman without strong ties to a father or husband caused no great concern." This 2013 Looting and Rape in Wartime: Law and Change in International Relations source, from University of Pennsylvania Press, page 227, states, "[There were] expectations that women should defend themselves against that aggression, particularly by placing themselves under the protection of their fathers or husbands (thus the confinement in the private sphere), which all chaste women were expected to do." This 2016 Marital Rape: Consent, Marriage, and Social Change in Global Context source, from Oxford University Press, page 20, states, "The conceptualization of women as the property of men in patriarchal cultures is further evidenced in rape legislation. For example, in the United States, rape laws were originally enacted as property laws to protect the father's property (most notably his daughter's virginity) from other men. If a man's daughter were raped, the father could be compensated for the loss of his valuable property (her virginity), but as Pagelow (1984) argues, these laws were not intended to protect women themselves or their rights to control their own bodies. In a parallel way, a husband could be compensated for the violation of his sexual property if his wife were raped by another man; however, a man could not be charged with the rape of his own wife because she was understood to be his property (Bergen 1996; Dobash and Dobash 1979)." This 2016 Sex Offenses and Sex Offenders source, from Oxford University Press, page 82, states, "Since women were culturally viewed as the property owned by their husbands or fathers, husbands could not offend against something over which they held mastery (their wives). In these early years ruled by common law, rape laws were intended to 'protect virginal daughters' (Meloy and Miller 2011, p. 45). In essence, the loss of women's virtue outside of the marriage bed lessened women's value. Thus, rape was viewed as a property crime affecting husbands and fathers because they were the owners of 'damaged goods' (Meloy and Miller 2011, p. 45). In these situations, it was permitted for fathers of rape victims to rape the wife of their daughters' rapist in order to achieve retribution for the loss of 'goods' (Meloy and Miller 2011).

If it's thought that we should reword or remove the "protective mating", "bride capture" and the "was often estranged from other females" pieces, then okay. But to imply that the "protection from rape through her father, husband, or clan", "expected to remain chaste and monogamous", and the "a rape done to a woman was seen as an attack on the estate of her father or husband" parts are only supported by Brownmiller is what I disagree with. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

And I see that the new text for the paragraph was added by Scoundr3l. The original text is easier to attribute to numerous sources that don't cite Brownmiller as their reference. The original text was: "Susan Brownmiller states that until marriage, they were considered property of their father until eventually were 'sold' to their husbands. A rape done to a woman was not seen as an attack on the victim but a personal attack on her father or husband and she was considered 'irreparably damaged'." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, you've changed one in-text attribution to another in-text attribution. It's not clear what you think the "violation" is, but it's evidently not WP:INTEXT. I'm more than happy to discuss preference of phrasing but we'll be sticking to verifiable material and not personal research. The original text was tagged because it wasn't sourced. After the source was updated it was found to still be unverifiable and, in some ways, directly contradictory to the source. So I altered the text to match the source. The notion that we should include or otherwise phrase material in such a way because it's well supported by "literature on patriarchy" is meaningless, as you know, until you WP:PROVEIT. I'm not going to add your sources for you. As it stands, however, Brownmiller is still the only source for that paragraph. While she's certainly not alone in her perspective, she also uses reactionary language meant to convey drama and not history:

"the human male was a natural predator and the human female served as his natural prey." 
"Female fear of an open season of rape, and not a natural inclination toward monogamy, motherhood or love, was probably the single causative factor in the original subjugation of woman by man"
"The earliest form of permanent, protective conjugal relationship, the accommodation called mating that we now know as marriage, appears to have been institutionalized by the male's forcible abduction and rape of the female. "

I've no issue at all including Brownmiller's perspective, but this is not information to be taken literally. In runs contrary to well-established phenomena of basic zoology, socio-biology, human pair bonding, family sociology, and limerence. If you'd like to rephrase it in such a way that it can be better supported, please do. If you've got additional sources and material to add, please do so. I think we're both here to improve the article. However, if you're not actually adding the material, don't expect me to verify it on your behalf. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

If I simply "changed one in-text attribution to another in-text attribution", you would not insist on using "According to." Like I noted above, I changed "According to Susan Brownmiller" to "Susan Brownmiller states" since the latter does not suggest that Susan Brownmiller alone has made the claims. "According to" strongly suggests that it's only Brownmiller who has made the claims (which is why "According to" is used as an example of misusing in-text attribution at WP:INTEXT). Clearly, she has not, and I provided reliable sources making this clear.

You stated, "The notion that we should include or otherwise phrase material in such a way because it's well supported by 'literature on patriarchy' is meaningless, as you know, until you WP:PROVEIT." No, it's not meaningless. We do not, for example, state "[So and so] scholar says that women can be raped." This is because it is well-acknowledged in the literature that women can be raped. It is also common sense. We don't need multiple sources or in-text attribution for such a statement. Neither do we need in-text attribution for the statement that "women in most cultures have historically been considered second-class citizens who were not thought to deserve the same rights as their male counterparts." Using "According to Susan Brownmiller" or "Susan Brownmiller states" for that sentence is a WP:INTEXT violation and any significantly experienced Wikipedian would agree. WP:PROVEIT does not mean that we engage in WP:Citation overkill for information that is widely supported in the literature. We don't use in-text attribution unless necessary.

I don't expect you to verify material on my behalf (which is why, when editing the article, I provided sources for the first issue I mentioned above); I expect you to use in-text attribution appropriately. You continue to misuse it.

I will change the text with additional sources, per my arguments above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I think perhaps you're misreading the WP:INTEXT article. The "According to..." example is not incorrect because it uses that language but because it implies something is said only by the source, a point which we both agree on. Whether it says "According to <source> the sky is blue" or "<source> states the sky is blue" it's still wrong to use in-text attribution in those cases. In this case, since we're using Brownmiller's vocabulary, we've both seen fit to attribute it to her. You may also recall our previous discussion found it appropriate to add attribution, so perhaps we should just chalk this up to editorial discretion and not confusion over policy. Outside of literature on patriarchy, for example, it's common sense that marriage is not based on rape and rape-avoidance. INTEXT is just one of the many ways we impart valid opinions without giving them undue weight. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no misreading of WP:INTEXT on my part. And if you want to debate this, we can bring in others to weigh in on what is or isn't a WP:INTEXT violation. The "According to" example at WP:INTEXT makes it clear that it's a violation because it implies that "The New York Times has alone made this important discovery." Similarly, when you made the text state "According to Susan Brownmiller, women in most cultures have historically been considered second-class citizens who were not thought to deserve the same rights as their male counterparts", this implied that Brownmiller alone has stated this. It made it seem like it's only according to her. It clearly is not. And it was clearly a WP:INTEXT violation. The previous discussion was clear that your idea for in-text attribution was wrong. We compromised. We used "additional information." We did not go along with your wording, which was problematic. Either way, I will take care of this matter, just like I did the other one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, you're still using INTEXT, so I'm not sure what you think we're debating. You've now repeated what I just said but somehow think you've corrected me. You're also citing changes that we're not even discussing. I've made no effort to change the "second-class citizens" statement, nor did I plan to. There's an entire paragraph of text we've rightfully attributed to Brownmiller (and which is still attributed to Brownmiller as of this writing). As for our previous discussion, I think you'll find it's exactly my wording that we eventually compromised on ("we" here meaning other editors and myself, you had dropped out of the discussion citing a refusal to further compromise). As of this writing, that text is also attributed. If believing you've won is what it takes to get you to improve the article, frame the discussion however you like, just get it done. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I've already been over this. The difference between the WP:INTEXT I used and yours is that mine does not suggest that Brownmiller alone has stated the following: "Early relationships were based on a system of protective mating: a woman sought protection from rape or bride capture through her father, husband, or clan. In return, she was expected to remain chaste and monogamous and was often estranged from other females. A rape done to a woman was seen as an attack on the estate of her father or husband."

"According to" strongly suggests that she alone has stated the matter, as I'm sure many editors would agree. And this is obviously why you reverted to "According to" after I changed it to "states." The only reason that I left in "Brownmiller states," which is not used for the "women in most cultures have historically been considered second-class citizens who were not thought to deserve the same rights as their male counterparts" part, which would still be a silly misuse of WP:INTEXT, is because you have inserted wording that Brownmiller specifically uses and I have not come across reliable sources that use that wording without citing Brownmiller. I have, however, come across sources that support the previous wording without citing Brownmiller, and I noted those sources above. Again, that previous wording was "[U]ntil marriage, they were considered property of their father until eventually were 'sold' to their husbands. A rape done to a woman was not seen as an attack on the victim but a personal attack on her father or husband and she was considered 'irreparably damaged'."

As for the previous discussion, it was not your wording we agreed on. It was Nblund's wording, and "majority" continued to be used, like I and others argued it should be. I did not drop out of the discussion. I dropped out of discussing the matter with you, for reasons made clear in that discussion. I supported Nblund's wording. The "Research has consistently shown" wording that you suggested, and Nblund agreed to, was not the actual wording editors agreed to. I didn't oppose that addition, though, because it is a variation of "The literature indicates" wording that I originally tried to use as a compromise with you. In fact, "Research has consistently shown" can be argued as stronger than "The literature indicates". It can also be argued as WP:Weasel wording. But, hey, it was a compromise.

When I see inappropriate use of in-text attribution, not only will I fix it myself, I will complain about it if it brings more attention to how not to use in-text attribution, and I did so in both the previous case and this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly been a fruitful use of our time. Some may consider the difference between "According to Brownmiller" and "Brownmiller states" to be petty and negligible, but you didn't let that stop you. I'm sorry to say, though, that Nblund didn't suggest the wording that was used in that discussion, I did and it was used verbatim. As I recall, your "literature" suggestion wasn't even considered. But if you'd like to discuss the past, please use my talk page. If you've got anything else to add regarding this change, let me know. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd wager that most recognize the difference between stating "According to Brownmiller" and "Brownmiller states" for a case like this or any similar case, which again is why you reverted to "According to." As for the other discussion, I simply noted it (initially). You delved into it. This section shows that it was Nblund's suggested wording, and that you suggested an alteration. The closer of the RfC made it clear that no one opposed Nblund's wording. Support was for Nblund's wording. And I didn't propose to use "The literature indicates"; I used it when trying to compromise with you. It was clear that I did not like the wording, and I clearly noted WP:Weasel wording concerns.

My point has always been this: We are not supposed to use in-text attribution for statements of fact, or even for cases that have general support in the literature...unless quoting a person. You have been using in-text attribution for statements of fact. That you challenge these facts, as you have been doing, does not make them any less facts. We should not attribute a matter to one author when it's widely accepted as fact. Doing so is a WP:INTEXT violation, plain and simple. See this edit I just made? That is how things should be done. Also notice my appropriate use of in-text attribution. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Unproductive discussion.

I think you said as much. It got attributed either way, in both cases, so I don't think it really matters how you interpreted the policy. Scoundr3l (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC) The previous case is not in-text attribution. If "Research has consistently shown" was in-text attribution, it would not be noted as something to look out for at WP:Weasel wording. And in this case, the text no longer uses in-text attribution...except for the part it should have it for. Per what I've stated above, interpretation of the WP:INTEXT guideline (it's not a policy) indeed matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC) Again, please use my talk page for past discussions. I would really love, love, love to hear you try to make a case for that being weasel words or how we didn't use my suggestion despite it being signed by me and not including anything from Nblund's suggestion (though he was helpful and it borrowed from his sources) but this is not the place to do it. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC) And I would really love, love, love for you to stop trying to win this argument. The "Research has consistently shown" wording is clearly recognized as weasel wording at WP:Weasel wording, but WP:Weasel wording also states that "views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source." The "Research has consistently shown" wording is wording that a reliable source used, as you noted in the discussion. And no matter what you state, editors supported Nblund's wording and the RfC closed with support for Nblund's wording. It was you who added your suggested wording without adding Nblund's full text. And again, I did not oppose the "Research has consistently shown" wording since I viewed it as a compromise. Nblund also noted that it was not ideal wording, but rather a compromise. All of this is in the discussion for anyone to see. There is no need to use your talk page. This discussion is over. I'm not the one trying to prolong it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC) I think you'll find you're exactly the one trying to prolong this conversation and win, lol. If you want to argue, use my talk page. This page is for discussion on the Rape Culture article. Nobody here cares about how you justify your previous losses. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC) I think it's clear we define losses very differently, and that you did this "must get the last word" thing in the aforementioned discussion as well. The community does not agree with you. And all the LOLing in the world won't change that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC) You will no doubt also want the last word this time, but it doesn't matter. Go ahead and have it. My points are valid and are supported by the rules. Sarcasm, baiting and the like are things I am used to in cases such as these. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Additions

I think it would be beneficial for the article to include a full section on college campuses because of the rape culture that exists. Information could be given about what type of school had the greatest prevalence (state college, small-private school, junior colleges or other two year institutions) and why those statistical differences exist. It would also be interesting to include a section on whether geography changes the existence of rape culture and whether the religious affiliation of the school does anything to combat the issue or not. Izzychelini (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC) Izzy Chelini

You may wish to check out the article on campus sexual assault where you'll find plenty of sources and statistics related to rape as it pertains to college campuses. Sources that specifically identify campuses as having a rape culture could be useful in creating a subsection of this article, just be careful that we're not using the statistics to come to that conclusion ourselves (see WP:NOR). Scoundr3l (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Beginning Sections

The historical background section is lacking sources for some of their statements. Also I think a link could be added to misogyny and sexism. The overview section is way too long. It ether needs to be more concise or set up into headers. In the prevalence section they talk about some statistics, and there is no source or author's name to go with those stats. I also do not think the word denial needs to be a link, but rather gender segregation. K shad17 (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, K shad17. I see that you are with Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/California Lutheran University/Sexual Ethics (Spring 2017). Looking at the current state of the Historical background section, I wonder if some of what you think is unsourced is actually sourced. A citation is not always placed after every sentence. See WP:Citation overkill. I see what you mean about the Overview section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Flyer 22. Yes I understand what you mean. In reference to the statistics in the prevalence section did the statistics come from the source in the next citation? If so the name of the study could be added to make it more clear that they aren't random stats. K shad17 (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, K shad17. I haven't edited this article much. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay no worries K shad17 (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Addition Thoughts

In the section introducing the lack of rape education in other countries I would like to add that there are other places in the world that have participated in the “Slut Walk.” The way the article phrases other countries views on rape groups them together even though they only discuss two that apparently promote rape culture. This needs to be reworded so that it doesn’t all other countries look like rape enthusiasts.

Another component I think is important to add to this article is child rape. Unfortunately it is apart of rape culture, so it should be discussed here as well. There is a page for child sexual abuse, and rape is included, however this article should mention this and the effects it has on children male and female. It isn’t correct to leave this factor out, and only discuss young females/ males because they may occur more often. Also the effects of child rape may also cause certain lasting effects that may or may not have a correlation to rape or abusive relationships as they reach adult hood. This would be an important effect to investiagate.

Another aspect of the article I would like to help is the structure. It either needs more subheadings or the information needs to be concise. Some sections are way too long and overwhelming. I have already added minor details such as linking other wiki pages. I also added a sentence in the victim blaming and slut blaming section in regards to racism and racial stereotypes. I would also like to expand on the idea that not all people that are blamed necessarily committed rape, and maybe due to their ethnicity were deemed more of a believable candidate. This will make the article seem more neutral.

Here's a list of possible references:

References

George, W. H., & Martínez, L. J. (2002). Victim blaming in rape: Effects of victim and perpetrator race, type of rape, and participant racism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(2), 110-119.

Jewkes, R., Penn-Kekana, L., & Rose-Junius, H. (2005). ‘‘If they rape me, I can’t blame them”: Reflections on gender in the social context of child rape in South Africa and Namibia. Social Science & Medicine, 61(8), 1809-1820.

Ringrose, J. (2012, May 4). Slut-shaming, girl power and ‘sexualisation’: thinking through the politics of the international SlutWalks with teen girls. Retrieved February 10, 2017. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09540253.2011.645023?scroll=top&needAccess=true

Van As, A. B., Withers, M., Du Toit, N., Millar, A. J., & Rode, H. (2001). Child rape--patterns of injury management and outcome. South African Medical Journal, 91(12), 1035-1038.

K shad17 (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing the Subsection "Prevalence"

After reading the information listed under this sub section, I feel it would more appropriately be labeled "Prevalence on College Campuses".

I also believe the first line "Countries that have been described as having "rape cultures" include, but are not limited to, Australia Canada, Pakistan, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States." is not relevant to this sub section and should be removed.

In addition to this removal, I feel this page should be well served by adding a bit more information, in a section in which I am titling "Recent Instances". This is the text I would then add: January 2015: Brock Allen Turner was found guilty on three of five counts. These included: assault with intent to rape an intoxicated women, sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object, and sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object. The victim of the case was cited stating, "This is not a story another drunk college hook­up with poor decision making."[1] As much as the family desired to and normalize Brock's actions by hoping for a more leniant sentancing, the majority of society fought against this with the intent of criminalizing his actions.[2] June 2013: Corey Batey and Brandon Vandenburg are each found guilty on numerous counts of aggravated rape, sexual battery, and unlawful photography.[3] It was reported that while Batey was the only one to phyiscally rape the vicitm, Vandenburg had the intention of joining in. Vandenburg facilitated the incident by providing purchasing the victim's drinks earlier in the night and providing Batey with condoms once back at his dorm room. August 2012: Ma'lik Richmond and Trent Mays were both convicted in juvenile court on the account of rape of a minor. Pictures and video were first shared between players of the Steubenville High School football team. Mays issued an apology for taking and distributing the media, but never mentioned the act itself. Within the hundreds of text messages analyzed, Mays pleaded with the victim "not to press charges because doing so would damage his football career." [4] Town officials were reported as having given special treatment because the boys were football players.[5]

Hmchandler (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hm - with regard to the three examples, it is hard to see how the second is relevant. I see how the 1st and 3rd could be, but you would need to bring sources tying these events to the notion of rape culture or it will be WP:OR. Not commenting on the rest of your proposal for now. Jytdog (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

On % of males committing campus rapes

Linked source is essentially a letter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.8.33.71 (talk • contribs)

What content are you talking about? Also, regarding the tags you added, why do you think that Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) shouldn't be mentioned? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Also explain your issue regarding the fist "dubious" tag you added to that section. Unexplained dubious tags may be removed at any time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

They're suggesting "Spade, Joan Z.; Boswell, A. Ayers (2016). "FRATERNITIES AND COLLEGIATE RAPE CULTURE: Why Are Some Fraternities More Dangerous Places for Women?". Gender & Society. 10 (2): 133–47. " (source of 1 in 12 men on campus are rapists) is basically a letter (a letter in a journal is like an essay or other commentary but not an article/study), which it essentially is (search it in Google Scholar for a free preprint that pops up). It isn't a scientific study and is more like a newspaper article. It didn't quantify anything. The only numbers in it are actually from studies it cites. It is mainly commentary with some subjective descriptions of some fraternities. The 1 in 12 figure seems dubious anyway, so I really wouldn't cite anything like that unless it has replicated results in quality studies, especially national studies. The studies used in the prevalence section seem highly cherry picked and seem to come from a handful of universities and one is literally from an email survey of all things. There should be a focus on national studies and to a lesser degree on campuses in a different subsection. Use the national crime victimization survey, which is known for being high quality and includes lifetime and annual rates. Annual rates in particular are needed to get a current view, rather than studies from decades ago (plus using lifetime statistics alone are misleading since they include people raped generations ago are included). IIRC the Wikipedia rape statistics page includes much more comprehensive studies and analysis so people here should take a look over there for some studies to use. i think they address Summers' critcisms which are largely but not entirely weak. plus iirc the koss study has been replicated a bunch of times with similar methodology, so it has flaws but the results are at least consistent. -njyoder 71.191.81.136 (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The text form that letter is sourced to Koss, Gidycz, and Wisniewski 1985. Furthermore, I cannot find any number close to 1 in 12 in that study. I'm removing the text. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding to Section on 'Societies without a rape culture'

The section on societies without a rape culture is very brief, and I believe it could use some additions. I think it may be constructive to include more context on the society of Minangkabau and how the society has developed without rape even with an emphasis on egalitarian religious influences. Referencing Michael G. Peletz, I hope to add this information following the information of Peggy Sandy's analysis in Societies without a rape culture. Oaktree813 (talk) 04:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Oaktree813 (talk) 04:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I have an issue with the "Societies without a rape culture" section

I apologize if I am not using the correct Wikipedia format but this is my first time trying to dispute something I have read on this site.

There is no scientific data in existence to substantiate the claim that rape is nearly non-existent among the millions of Minangkabau people. Nor is there scientific data to substantiate the claim that rape is drastically less common in an Indonesian community than communities in Western nations. According to the United Nations Multi-country Study on Men and Violence, 19.5% of Indonesian women will be raped in their lifetime. In 2016, Reuters published a report claiming over 90% of rape goes unreported in Indonesia. The collection of violent crime data by the government of Indonesia is considered unreliable and unscientific by Western standards.

I fully support the cause of educating people about powerful issues like this one. Claiming that rape is "nearly non-existent" among the Minangkabau people is an opinion. Yet, it is stated as a fact in this article. Supplying people with misinformation does not help educate anyone. I do not doubt that rape is far less common among the Minangkabau people than among the other 200+ million people of Indonesia, but there is no reliable data available to substantiate that statement. Also, the statement that there are societies without a rape culture is an opinion and it is not appropriate that it be stated as a fact in this article.

Thank you for your time.

References

DanG44632 (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

General Evaluation of Article & Personal Contribution Plan

Evaluation:

Throughout the process of evaluating the quality of the, “Rape Culture,” Wikipedia article, I noted several strengths and dilemmas posed by the article.
First, while checking the sources used in different portions of the article (sampling one from each heading section), I found the data was consistent and found from credible sources. Of the sources I checked, most were very relevant with the oldest one being from 1997. The information came from scholarly or peer-reviewed journals for the most part, if not from published statistical surveys. The evidence was used to support the ideas, and there were no glaring issues with the connectivity of the evidence provided as it obviously backed each point made. However, the citations themselves held inconsistencies in how they were formatted. This could be an issue to fix by standardizing the citations.
Next, when addressing the neutrality and balance of the article, I found a few areas of concern. In the, “Around the World,” section, the only countries acknowledged were Pakistan, South Africa, and South America. While information may be limited or difficult to access on other parts of the world, this could be an area of interest to pursue in balancing the breadth of the article.
Also, as evaluating the intro paragraph was the first element of quality articles to acknowledge, I thought I’d mention the positive job done with the intro. It very clearly and concisely defines rape culture as a sociological concept and includes the behaviors associated with it. Then it summarizes the article’s key points as they will lead to discuss those in the overview.
This though, leads me to me to the issues found within this article mostly contained in the, “Overview,” section. The structure needs some serious work here. The sections, “Historical Background,” and, “Origins and Usage,” have their included information chronologically organized with descriptions on how the concept emerged throughout history or how the word emerged and was used throughout time and where it has been applied. As this has order and flow to it, those sections are easy to read and are very digestible. The, “Overview,” section that follows those lacks that ease as it has no fundamental organization. The section is basically an accumulation of possible contributions to a rape culture.
The first paragraph covers in three sentences that rape can be, “exacerbated,” by patriarchal norms, continued victim blaming, misogyny, and mishandling by police. This very broad spectrum of ideas was barely touched on as the first glance we get into this section.
Next, the three following paragraphs discuss what rape myth is and how it contributes to rape culture (explaining it with the just-world hypothesis to help readers understand). These paragraphs were well-written by Wikipedia standards, but could be their own subsection in the, “Overview,” section.
Then the section transitions into victim blaming and the ideas that anyone, not just sexual deviants, can be perpetrators of rape, with the examples of marital and acquaintance rape. This topic could have its own subsection as well.
After, without much transition, the section jumped factors that contribute to acts of sexism. It stated people could, “rationalize normative misogynistic practices,” and included explanations of how sexist jokes and frat culture contribute to this problem. The next paragraph follows the same line explaining that rape culture is made by, “the domination and objectification of women,” but does not expound on this idea. Within these two paragraphs these large topic ideas aren’t explained in depth or supported with material on sexualization in society and its contribution to creating a rape culture. This could be addressed by placing this idea in its own subsection, providing more information on it, and possibly linking out to another article.
Then a paragraph talks more about rape culture on college campuses; this stands apart from the ideas of the above ideas. The section concludes with paragraphs about slut shaming and victim blaming (which both have their own entire heading on), the contribution of pornography to rape, and rape culture in prison.
This section obviously struggles in establishing a consistent purpose as it compiles a great variety of ideas that are mentioned but not acknowledged in depth. By creating different subheadings for the section, the ideas could be categorized in a more effective and readable manner.

Outline for Contribution:

With hopes to make a contribution to the article that upholds the elements of a quality Wikipedia article, I plan to (attempt to) fix the, “Overview,” section of the article by restructuring its layout. As there are a lot of topics touched on within this section, I would like to divide it into subsections, placing similar ideas together, to make the article more fluid and readable. (For instance, the paragraphs discussing the topic of rape myth could all be put into a subsection titled, “Rape Myth.”) I could also link out topics that are better explained on pages of their own. Though eventually each subsection in, “Overview,” could become a section of its own with more information, I believe this would be a good start to addressing the problems of the article.
The other issues I mentioned in my evaluation also need attention if anyone is interested in addressing areas for improvement in this page. With the limitations on time and focus of my class assignment, I will only be focusing on issues I discussed in the, “Overview,” section.
For my written contribution, I’d like to add support and evidence to a subsection I will make on factors in rape culture. The ideas of misogynistic practices and objectification were touched on, but not supported with much evidence as to how they contribute to rape culture. I want to add sources on how sexualization in society has contributed to rape culture, and support the existing points on objectification with more material. I have some sources already to address these ideas such as the study on sexualization of an image and perceived aggression levels (with lads magazines, and a controlled study), but would like to find more supporting the ideas of objectification specifically. One source in specific by Melissa Swauger, Dana Witham, and Dianne Shinberg, addressing the ambiguous role of perpetrators of sexual violence, could be used in this section to support the understanding of rape myth. I may also try to find related Wikipedia articles to each of these concepts to link out too while attempting to improve the quality of this section (so for example, I would hyperlink the phrase sexual objectification to the existing Wikipedia article on it to provide more knowledge on the subject).
I believe this contribution will address the need for organization and substance required to hold this section to the standards of others. The substance of the contribution will essentially be the evidence to back the surface claims made throughout this subsection I will form, and majorly address the unacknowledged but critical topic of sexualization. I believe this has been overlooked in the formulation of this article and, from my research so far, appears to be fundamental in the formation and persistence of rape culture.

References for mentioned sources:

Bernard, Philippe; Loughnan, Steve; Marchal, Cynthie; Godart, Audrey; Klein, Olivier (2015). “The Exonerating Effect of Sexual Objectification: Sexual Objectification Decreases Rapist Blame in a Stranger Rape Context”. Sex Roles. 72 (11-12): 499-508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0482-0

Romero-Sánchez, Mónica; Toro-García, Virginia; Horvath, Miranda; Megías, Jesús (2017). “More Than a Magazine: Exploring the Links Between Lads’ Mags, Rape Myth Acceptance, and Rape Proclivity”. Journal of Interpersonal Voices. 32 (4): 515-534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515586366

Swauger, Melissa; Witham, Dana; Shinberg, Dianne (2013). “No Stranger in the Bushes: The Ambiguity of Consent and Rape in Hook up Culture”. Sex Roles. 68 (9-10): 629-633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0251-2

Oaktree813 (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The sources are not OK. Please use literature reviews or books. (the third source is a movie review which is not the same as a literature review. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I will not use the source, "No Stranger in the Bushes...," for the page. I'll find more peer-reviewed articles and literature reviews to use as references. Thank you! Oaktree813 (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. "peer reviewed" is not the main thing. Please avoid primary sources. see WP:MEDDEF for the definition of that. Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I will make sure to avoid the use of primary sources and refer to the guidelines set in WP:PRIMARY if concerned. Thank you for bringing this to my attention! Oaktree813 (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Revised Outline for Contribution:

With hopes to make a contribution to the article that upholds the elements of a quality Wikipedia article, I plan to add an additional heading covering the various impacts of sexualization on rape culture.

The other issues I mentioned in my evaluation also need attention if anyone is interested in addressing areas for improvement in this page. I feel it is of critical attention that someone should address the Overview section. With the limitations on time and focus of my class assignment, I will only be focusing on issues of sexualization.

For my written contribution, I’d like to add support and evidence for a section I will create on sexualization. The ideas of objectification and sexualized portrayal of women in media are reflected in our existing body of research, but not on this page. I would like to bring various sources covering this idea to the page to broaden its coverage. I want to add sources on how sexualization in society has contributed to rape culture, and support the existing points on objectification with more material. I have some sources already to address these ideas such as the study on sexualization of an image and perceived aggression levels (i.e. with "Lads" mags). These sources can be found in my sandbox. I also intend to link out several concepts, such as Sexualization and Rape myth, to their larger articles.

I believe this contribution will address the need for breadth in the article. The substance of the contribution will essentially be studies conducted providing information to address the unacknowledged but critical topic of sexualization. I believe this has been overlooked in the formulation of this article and, from my research so far, appears to be fundamental in the formation and persistence of rape culture. Oaktree813 (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The content you added here was essay like, containing things like "our culture". (whose culture?) The sources were also not OK - we had discussed sourcing above. PMID 26045501 and doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0482-0 are both primary sources. If you find that you are describing the experiment, as you did in the two paragraphs where you used those sources, you are using a primary source. Primary sources are where experiments get published. Secondary sources are where experts in the field review the primary sources and tie them into a story that tell us where "accepted knowledge" stands in a given field. Our mission is to provide articles summarizing accepted knowledge, so we use sources where accepted knowledge is located. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit of Prevalence Sub Section

Cibe929 (talk) 08:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)The main ideas presented in the sub section 'Prevalence' pertain more to prevalence on school campuses and should be named accordingly. The line "Countries that have been described as having "rape cultures" include, but are not limited to, Australia Canada, Pakistan, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States." is unnecessary in this topic and should be moved to the 'Around the World' section. The 'Societies Without a Rape Culture' section was substantially short considering the possible sources that could have been used for it.

A section touching on recent instances would be vital to a wholesome article, trials or incidents such as the Bill Cosby fiasco, the Brock Allen Turner trial, or the Vanderbilt Rape Case would fit in this area nicely.

As for the section on 'Societies Without Rape Culture' some content on the society of Minangkabau and how the society has lasted without any rape incidents even with the heavy egalitarian religious influences.

Pertaining to the three examples in 'Prevalence', I would prefer to see more consistent facts/evidence in this area, it seemed like it was there for lack of a better place to put it.

New section reverted

Somebody reverted new section "In the legal system". Can anything (in one form or another) from that section still be in the article?

The text reverted was this:

In the legal system

Rape culture is not reduced to the general public, but is also pervasive in the legal system, among judges and prosecutors. A 2000 study in the the UK on the prosecution of rape, which consisted of interviews with barristers specialized in rape cases, revealed rape myths to be pervasive, especially in regard with the behavior or manner of dressing of the victim, and about rape in relations and date rape. One barrister stated:

"I mean the silly woman is prepared to be picked up by a stranger and go back for, quotes, coffee, you know, what does she expect? If a woman does that, can she really be surprised that a jury will say that she may have consented to sex?"

The same barrister also expressed skepticism in regard to rape between people who are or have been sexually involved, or date rape, speaking in support of juries who acquit in such circumstances:

"If somebody has been having a sexual relationship with somebody before, whether it’s because juries feel the same way as I do, that it’s really not a terrible offence."

"I feel very strongly about this. I feel very strongly that it’s a great waste of public money to prosecute the ex-husband rape or the ex-boyfriend rape unless there is extreme violence involved or it’s part of a sort of campaign of harassment. I have had to prosecute an awful lot of cases where people have still been sort of seeing each other after having a relationship, where he wants it and she doesn’t and it happens. Well she says it was a rape and probably, yes, it really was. But frankly does it matter?"

In a 2012 sexual assault case in Arizona, which subsequently gained publicity in the media, where a police officer assaulted a woman in a bar, the judge told the victim: "If you wouldn’t have been there that night, none of this would have happened to you." The victim publicly demanded an apology.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2f0a:504f:ffff::bc19:a026 (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2013‎

• In support, I think a section on whether and how rape culture is present in the legal systems would be a valuable contribution to this article. Research, using academic sources, on the presence of rape culture in the legal system would help. Nadine (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutral writing

User:Egyptallen21 and User:Dgordo14 -- are the two of you perhaps students? The edits you made were not written neutrally or in an encyclopedic manner. There should be somebody in your course who can help you work on that... Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• If they are, it doesn't seem like they're with Wiki Education per their edit history. If they were signed up there would normally be some automated edits to their course page. I'll post the welcome student message. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Sexuality section

Hi Jytdog, I tried doing some cleanup on the sexuality section. Can you take a look and see if this helps assuage the concerns about it being an essay? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You dealt with some of the essay stuff but it is still all primary sources and even goes into great deal describing one of them. That is not how we generate WP articles, especially not with this kind of psych/sociology stuff where the replication crisis is especially intense. Our mission is to provide articles that summarize accepted knowledge; we find "accepted knowledge" in places like review articles and textbooks, not primary sources. This is something that students have a hard time grasping for some reason. Please don't perpetuate this. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Jytdog - I'll leave it off. I was hoping that my changes would have solved the issue, but no dice. Thank you for taking another look! I'll see if I can get the student to do a re-write based on my edits. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Shalor (Wiki Ed) they need to start over with appropriate sources. Everything begins with sources. Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog and User:Shalor (Wiki Ed). I've been following this discussion because Oaktree813 is a student in a course I'm leading. We seem to have reached am impasse. In order to further progress Jytdog, could you please offer up an example of a non-primary source on the subject of Rape culture and/or the replication crisis that you reference in your comments? Perhaps, by way of example, we can come to an understanding. Thank you. Jagrif02 (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no impasse, you just don't fully understand WP sourcing yet. Ideal sources are what we call "secondary". That means something like a literature review or a book chapter or book where someone in the field surveys the field and gives the "state of research". A "primary" source here in Wikipedia is (for example) a research paper, in which someone publishes the research that they did. Wikipedia articles are built by summarizing secondary sources.

The source summarized here - "In 2016 a study was conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan and Western Washington University, which evaluated male and female self perceptions with the intent to determine the influence of sexualization. Participants in the study, 1,107 U.S. undergraduate college students, were shown a romantic movie, sexualized music video, and reality television program and then surveyed to evaluate their sexual responses..." (doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0548) is primary - that is a paper where that survey was published and discussed. We get Christians coming here and citing the Bible the same way. (!) The mistake is the same one, and this is not what we do.

As an example of a review, see for example PMID 23856303.

Is that more clear? Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog! I’ve spent some time editing my contribution and have homed in on my use of secondary sources. The Wikipedia rules state that primary sources can be defended by secondary sources when necessary, so the few primary sources I left in I made sure to resound with the information from the secondary sources. Otherwise I referred to books or meta-analyses for the information I put into the section on Sexualization. Thank you so much for helping me in this process of editing and posting; I hope this draft is in much better shape to help contribute to this Wikipedia page. Please let me know if there are anymore concerns. Oaktree813 (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

the extensive content based on primary sources is not OK. There are many reasons why we don't do that. See WP:Why MEDRS for some of them. Jytdog (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Rape culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130113040359/http://www.raperesistance.org/research/rape_culture.html to http://www.raperesistance.org/research/rape_culture.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121124175139/http://hpr1.com/feature/article/the_rape_culture/ to http://hpr1.com/feature/article/the_rape_culture/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405124331_yr2012_chunk_g978140512433124_ss1-19
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118082224/http://www.cambridgedocumentaryfilms.org/rapeculture.html to http://www.cambridgedocumentaryfilms.org/rapeculture.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927074657/http://www.k-state.edu/womenscenter/Emotional%20and%20physical%20abuse/Defining%20a%20Rape%20Culture.pdf to http://www.k-state.edu/womenscenter/Emotional%20and%20physical%20abuse/Defining%20a%20Rape%20Culture.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/08/barbara-kay-rape-culture-fanatics-dont-know-what-a-culture-is/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007174743/http://slutwalknyc.com/FAQ to http://slutwalknyc.com/FAQ

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rape culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405124331_yr2012_chunk_g978140512433124_ss1-19
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130122010024/http://bandbacktogether.com/intimate-partner-rape-resources/ to http://www.bandbacktogether.com/intimate-partner-rape-resources/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent bizarre additions

Replying to this edit summary... What does our text say? Consumption of pornography has shown to possibly encourage aggressive action as well. What does the cited source say? Whether pornography consumption is a reliable correlate of sexually aggressive behavior continues to be debated. - hum... And this was published in which medical journal? None, but on a communications one... Like the other sources, it would seem. There are other problematic sentences which would probably not be so if only they were properly attributed and contextualized, such as Hyper-sexualized or pornographic media is often attributed with perpetuating aggressive behaviors - what does the source say? In contrast to the earlier meta‐analysis, the current results showed an overall significant positive association - so it's not all studies that have said so in the past? Ok, moving on: Media depictions of violent sexual activity are also noted to increase behavioral aggression. and the source? The summary demonstrates a homogeneous set of results showing that pictorial nudity reduces subsequent aggressive behavior. humm, ok? that media depictions of violent sexual activity generates more aggression than those of nonviolent sexual activity. The implications of the results for theoretical approaches to understanding the impact of pornography receives discussion, as do the limitations of such findings. hum, doesn't seem to be what our text says, at least not exactly. Who published this anyway? Seems to be a master thesis. And none of the authors seem important, unlike those of the first article (which, by the way, is more than 10 years apart from the second one). Let's move on on our text, shall we? Sexualizing imagery surfaces and reinforces misogynistic beliefs in some instances. This is attributed to the same source which seems to say the exact opposite regarding images, though we do say "some instances" on our text, but ofc don't mention which instances. You see the point I'm making? The way it was written this paragraph seems like a fruit salad of unrelated sources from which only some contextual information was extracted as to make a point, though they discuss other aspects in ways that are even contradictory to what our text indicates, and there is not enough information as to the relevance and contemporaneity of each source (the oldest one claims to revamp previous analysis, while the new ones say nothing about it - do they agree, or is the 20 year old so outdated it's not even mentioned anymore?) And so on and so forth. Saturnalia0 (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Tying India's rape crimes to hinduism is unjust.

Hinduism or hindu culture doesn't support any form of rape culture. Please quote instances of rape from verses of Hindu texts such as vedas, upanishads itihasas like mahabharata, ramayana, etc directly to support the claim. Otherwise this article is simple spreading misinformation.

The way Wikipedia works is that we find high quality, independent, secondary sources, and we summarize what they say. What you write above has nothing to do with how Wikipedia works. Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

None of the three reference mentioned has 'hindu culture' or 'british colonialism' anywhere in them. Whoever wrote this is pushing his/her own propaganda. -Rohitkiran99

SlutWalk section timeline seems haywire

Beginning of the SlutWalk section notes they began / were named in response to a 2011 incident. Later in the section it seems to imply followup events started happening in Latin America... in 1990. It seems like this bit was just shoehorned in by somebody who wanted these previous events to fit into the same sort of cultural movement / zeitgeist, while they were actually quite distinct historically. Can someone clean this up amd make it seem coherent / encyclopedic? Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 12:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Actual rape culture

I find it bewildering that this article focuses entirely on women and disregards completely the only known genuine instance of rape culture: The US prison system. It feels the article is horrifically biased and updated only by grievance studies students. There isn't even an acknowledgement that despite the hysteria about rape culture on college campuses in the US there's a lower prevalence of rape on them than in the general population.

I'd update the article myself but some misandrist would just revert the changes and ban me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.20.46 (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't just whine, if you see a problem, fix it. If you have a source for your assertion about lower incidence on campus then please provide it. Mathglot (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Shut the fuck up, commie.

I agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.72.116.162 (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Citation 131 leads to an obsolete website

As stated in the title, citation 131 leads to a website that is ostensibly under construction. Due to the gravity of what this citation relates to, it should probably be amended ASAP Raidiohead55 (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Serious claim is not referenced

The claim, ‘It is associated with rape fantasy and rape pornography’, in this article is seemingly not cited. A brief search has yielded little to support such a claim. Raidiohead55 (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

religion/clothing

I'd like to see something about chastity belts, "hobbling"-type clothing for women as related to rape (edit to add as related to rape culture/rape culture sourcesTeeVeeed (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)), religious garb intended to cover women so that "lusty rapey men" are not "incited to rape" by seeing an ankle or some flesh. I'm specifically thinking about certain "cover-up" religions like Mormons maybe? And burka-type things? Maybe with some rape culture statements about how "what were they wearing?" is not ever an invitation to rape although it has been a factor? And maybe even make-up a la "painted women"TeeVeeed (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Even in conservative British churches women were/are supposed to wear a hat at all times inside the Church as their naked hair was deemed "lust-inducing". It's not limited to religions viewed as more strict/fundamentalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.162.27 (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Why do religious leaders treat all men as bestial rapists? I thought the system was set up to favor men over women? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58B:4280:1180:F551:69AF:359E:9CDB (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Delvine101, JocelynSJ. Peer reviewers: RCLU12, Briana sexeth.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abby31198.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hmchandler, K shad17. Peer reviewers: Kcueva, Cfurey.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)