Talk:Rape of males/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

length of page

Hey there, I don't really have strong feelings about this page. An editor recommended we reduce the length of the rape page by creating new pages for lengthy topics. This and causes of rape were our longest sections (there is a member very concerned with this topic) so I just created pages for them. I am fine with the rape page as is but was following a recommendation to create this page. All told I actually advised the creator of the male rape section on the rape page to start his own new page on this topic since he wanted to write at length and it didn't all fit on the rape page. Much of that has been edited out bc it was too long. This is a new and key topic in the world of rape crisis research. This and lgbt sexual assault and domestic violence are the new frontiers.

the discussion on starting new pages is here: talk rape

thanks, it's up to the rest of wiki I supose.

The tone may be a little controversial as the original author was very emotional but I think it can be edited to sound more neutral pretty easily.

--Survivor 18:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone has deleted the page without notice I think while i was editing it. I guess I will paste it here in case anyone wants to discuss what it used to look like. I don't understand what the conflict is except the controversial topic? Why is there not discussion on this? --Survivor 18:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss here (above text):

I think someone read this talk page and then deleted the whole rape page except sociobiological theories. *sigh*. Please don't do that.

thanks, --74.130.65.25 05:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)survivor

The primary issue with this page (imo) is the lack of reference, and fairly obvious male-male rape bias. Anecdotal statements like "This and lgbt...are the new frontiers." don't help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidl9999 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I edited "Statutory rape of males by females", rewriting biased wordings. Dont say anything like "This is CLEARLY wrong" and that "children do not have the mental capacity" unless you are an expert in this field. I believe this is what was controversial.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.214.17 (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Er don't think so

"Male sexual assault and rape is a topic new to the research world. What can be estimated from the Uniform Crime Report rape statistics is that rape of males, by both genders, represents a minimum of about 10% of all rapes."

The above quote is not completely true. Male sexual assault and rape may be seen today as being "new" to the world of research but that's only because it was ignored for so long by many of those studying this field. The above statistic of 10% is also not true. It is far higher than that from what I know. Caden S (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Great. So find what you know in a reliable source and add it. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me think about it. Caden S (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Move request

Wouldn't "Sexual molestation of men" be a better and less confusing title than "Male rape research"? The current title doesn't even specify whether we are talking about "rape of men" or "rape by men". Kaldari (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the title is confusing. Not only the ambiguity of "male rape", but it also sounds like this article is supposed to be about research. But there are no references and hardly any mention of actual research, it's basically just an article about the general phenomenon of rape with males as the victim. So I have no problem with dropping the "research" part and just calling the article what it is: Rape of males. I think "Sexual molestation of men" is too broad and too specific at the same time: this article is about the specific act of rape, not general sexual molestation, and "men" does not include younger males. "Rape of males" does sound a bit awkward, but I can't think of a better name unfortunately. -kotra (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Kotra. The article should be called Rape of Males. I think the name fits. Caden S (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Sexual molestation of males" is the most appropriate title, and fits in best with existing article titles. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the article currently is only about rape, so that would be titling it more broadly than the actual subject matter. Though, on second thought, I don't see any reason we can't broaden the scope of the article, as long as there are no objections. I would prefer "Sexual assault of males" or "Sexual assault on males" though, because "molestation" has a few different meanings, whereas "assault" is specific and probably more often used (we apparently didn't even have a page for Sexual molestation, I've just now created it as a redirect to Sexual assault). -kotra (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

To call this article "Sexual molestation of males" is inappropriate. It does not fit with the content. As Kotra has pointed out, the content is only about the rape of males. Broadening the scope of the article is a good idea. However, I'm not sure about how that will work here. There's a difference between "molestation" and "sexual assault". The two should not be blended into one just so that the main article has a title. I still believe this article's title should be changed to reflect its content, which is the rape of males. Therefore, it should be called Rape of males. Caden S (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I made Sexual molestation into a redirect to Sexual assault because since an article on Sexual molestation didn't exist, it needed to redirect somewhere so people searching for "sexual molestation" would find at least find something relevant. Sexual assault just seemed to me to be the closest existing article. Maybe Sexual harassment instead? I considered that too. -kotra (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking over the various rape-related articles, and some of them are very problematic. Forking off this information as "rape of males" is problematice because the main Rape article doesn't distinguish between the sexes of the victims and perpetrators, and there doesn't appear to be a an equivalent "rape of females" article. Effects and aftermath of rape (a horrible title, by the way, that desperately needs encyclopedifying) has a definite female slant. We currently have an article on Female on male statutory rape that surely covers some of the (intended?) content of this article. I don't have time to go into all the others at the moment, but is there anything specific in this article that couldn't be placed into or isn't already covered in other articles? This is very reminiscent of the situation currently going on with the prostitution-related articles. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. This article is in poor enough shape, sourcing-wise, that I'm not sure if it should even exist (if deleted, all the salvageable information would be merged into the relevant articles, as you say). I'm going to go ahead and rename this "Rape of males" since that at least seems to be a marginal improvement over "Male rape research", and if we can agree on a better title in the future then we can go with that. As for the future of this article, or what the scope of it should be, I'll leave that up to someone else. -kotra (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Rape of males. -kotra (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Good move, Kotra. Now the title supports the subject's content. Although the article is lacking in sources, I believe this page should exist. Sources can be found, so that's not a issue. The issue, I think, was that most of the content from the main article was once originally a part of the Rape article, and then it was split off into the current page we have here. Perhaps editors from the Rape article felt it didn't belong over there? I don't know. I believe it was User:Survivor who created this original Rape of males page. Regardless of that, I think EB made a good point on the fact that there's no Rape of females page. Someone should start a new article on that. Until that happens, I think this article should remain as is, the "Rape of males". Caden S (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't really my point. My point was that, since there's no apparent need for a "rape of females" article, there's probably no particular need for a "rape of males" article either; the information can, and probably should, be presented in a unified "Rape" article, unless there's compelling reason (in the form of good sources) to do otherwise. Since, as you say, there really aren't any great sources, there's no particular indication that this article is particularly needed as a stand-alone article. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

redirected

I've redirected this article to Rape until such a time as something that conforms to our core content policies exists. - brenneman 05:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I also removed a bunch of boxes from the top that did nothing. - brenneman 05:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)