Talk:Rape

ayyo

"Rape, also referred to as sexual assault, " wrong.

Rape in war

Rape in war topic covers only "bad countries" (Japan in WWII, USSR, etc). War rapes by the solders of US, Britain, France and other "good democratic" regimes should be added. Otherwise the section lacks neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.160.6 (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually the article names "bad" countries which created policies of systematic rape as weapon of war. This is entirely different from the circumstances of rape occasionally committed by individual soldiers, regardless of country of origin, in the presence of policies and penalties against rape. But perhaps you are suggesting that individuals from "good" countries should be listed in volume first so as to hide the shame of the policies of bad countries. Actually the only thing missing is the fact that in more ancient times the policy of rape was not just a terror tactic nor just a reward to soldiers. The tactic properly used often worked to disorganize future resistance by setting mothers of children with mixed backgrounds at odds with the surviving pure blood males. Blended cultures are less likely to rebell. Of course the most successful users of forced interbreeding also tended to follow conquest rape policies with local marriages and melding and settling retiring and garrison troops into the populations as soon as possible. Thus believe it or not the policy of rape was a humanistic policy of absorption with the goal of lowering long term casualties to both sides by reducing prospects for protracted war across several generations.

Also notably is the "political correct" move of dropping the long recognized fact that the average soldier usually rapes out of fear that it is his last chance to have children - i.e. death may come quickly and unexpectedly. I would cite authorities but of course their authority has been PC withdrawn by modern society. It is simply not acceptable to look through the eyes of such a rapist and see their fear or stress. There may or may not be feelings that the enemy can be degraded through the proxy of their females. In any case despite the accepted pre-justice of prosecution, the women themselves might not have been targeted for degradation - though it is certainly the effect especially in conservative societies. The current news articles about the extreme promiscuity of female US Marine soldiers would tend to prove this feeling is not limited to males. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

References needed:

"In recent years, women have been convicted of raping or sexually assaulting men; for example, by the use of an object or when the man is below the statutory age of consent. Also, in recent years women have also been convicted of rape or sexual assault by procuring a man to rape another woman, and by being an accomplice to a rape." Sounds true, probably is true, but needs references right? Deathbird909 (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A question about rape?

How do you tell the difference between a real rape victim, and a woman who cries rape in order to hide her pregency? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.80.96 (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a question

I heard a lot about how if you are attractive and rich you can get a better lawyer and a much lighter punishment then a less attractive defendent who commited that same crime is it true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.80.96 (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's true of just about any crime. 69.207.50.47 (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Motivation

This edit reverted, without edit summary, my previous edits to the motivation section, in which I rewrote the summary of the various proposed motivations. Note that the only cited motivations are those of Paglia, yet the reversion inexplicably assigns greater weight to the uncited, unsourced motivations. I ask that this reversion be explained, and supported by reliable sources. Blackworm (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Motivation of a rapist

A deep misunderstanding makes some people, especially feminists, rage against books like "A natural history of rape" because they falsely accuse them to contradict the thesis that a rapist wants to exercise power over his victim and humiliate her. This is utterly not the case: Darwinism does not deal with the inner intentions and aims of an acting individual but with the statistically most probable consequences of the action. Given a boy with little tolerance on refusion - clearly not a natural born rapist but more prone to rape than some other boys. If he is refused by a girl who appeals him and he is very angry and wants "to show her who's boss" and therefore rapes her, his intention will clearly not be reprodiction but humiliation. Hovever, he might impregnate his victim, and if she does neither contracept nor abort, she will have a baby who would never have existed if the boy had accepted the refusal.--Slow Phil (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Matrimonial rape in German law

In Germany, rape was not defined within a marriage until the late 1990s. Some (chiefly conservative) politicians resisted the reform for a long time because they affirm a (mutual) debt for matrimonial cohabitation. Their disputants might deny it but I think this is not even necessary: The allowance of brute force makes the "mutual" debt a rather unilateral issue. Additionally, if someone owed money to another, no sensible person would affirm the donor's right to break the debtor's bones or to threaten his family to get it back. There cannot be a right to hurt or to injure his spouse - and without any injuries, it will be hard to prove rape. In spite of these arguments, even a however brutal rape within a marriage was not regarded as rape by German penalty code unil as late as 1997.--Slow Phil (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)