Talk:Rape

Defintions Of Rape In Sex

The article reads: “Some jurisdictions continue to define rape to cover only acts involving penile penetration of the vagina, treating all other types of non-consensual sexual activity as sexual assault. In Brazil, for example, the legal code defines rape as non-consensual vaginal sex. Thus male rape, anal rape, and oral rape are not included. The FBI uses the following definition of rape in compiling their annual Uniform Crime Reports: "The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will." This has been interpreted to mean only forced penile-vaginal penetration.”
While good, it does not even address that under these definitions, females can not be charged with “Rape” as a primary criminal complaint and can only charged with “Sexual Assault,” regardless the nature of the sexual act itself. This is a critical element, because it avoids the stigma of being labeled a “rapist” and being treated like a flasher, streaker, or even “masher” (a rather obsolete term for someone who fondles, gropes, or otherwise touches another person in a sexual fashion, consensually or otherwise). To address this I propose:

“Some jurisdictions continue to define rape to cover only acts involving penile penetration of the vagina, treating all other types of non-consensual sexual activity as sexual assault. In Brazil, for example, the legal code defines rape as non-consensual vaginal sex. Thus male rape, anal rape, and oral rape are not included. The FBI uses the following definition of rape in compiling their annual Uniform Crime Reports: "The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will." This has been interpreted to mean only forced penile-vaginal penetration where the perpetrator is male and the victim is female.”

A REDDSON

Since 2009 the law in Brazil has been clarified to accept other forms of rape than non-consensual vaginal sex. The page should be edited to mention that. 03:32, 11 December 2011‎ User:189.62.199.45

• - {{on hold)) - you need to provide WP:RS reliable sources ot support any edit requests. Please feel free to discuss or present a new request with supporting sources. Thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course. The funny thing is, my source is the very same reference of the original text, the Brazilian Penal Code (as expected since the law changed only in 2009, probably after that particular paragraph was written). Anyway, the issue is that the reference is in Brazilian Portuguese. Here's a link to the Brazilian penal code: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto-lei/Del2848.htm#art213 You can still see the old with a stroke through. The current definition reads: "Constranger alguém, mediante violência ou grave ameaça, a ter conjunção carnal ou a praticar ou permitir que com ele se pratique outro ato libidinoso". If I may risk myself in a free translation, it means something like "To force someone, through violence or grave menace, to have carnal conjunction or to practice or to allow to be done to him any other libidinous act.". Notice also the reference to the 2009 law that broadened the definition or rape (link http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2007-2010/2009/Lei/L12015.htm#art2 ).

I changed the article. Since Brazil has changed its definition, it no longer serves as an example of an exception to the general rule. I put in Scotland, instead, since apparently only men can be rapists in Scotland (since rape there requires that a penis be used). Banaticus (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Issue Is Addressed.

The section that caused my discomfiture has been rewritten adequately; While by no means perfectly, it most certainly addresses an inherent gender bias in most regions (Wikipedians can not be held responsible for antiquated ideas in the law), and the fact that it does reflect that some regions and institutions HAVE updated their thinking is commendable. Unless there is a further matter to resolve, this section can and should be moved to the archives.A. J. REDDSON

Complete rewrite

This article is a complete mess. 213.67.3.59 (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be a good thing if you would specify how it is "a complete mess." Since not everyone is going to agree with your assertion, simply saying it needs "a complete rewrite" and is "a complete mess" does not help. Otherwise, it makes us think you are a WP:Troll. I of course feel that the article still needs work, but I certainly wouldn't call it "a complete mess." Complete messes of Wikipedia articles to me are those that are mostly unsourced, mostly inaccurate, or both. I also cannot stand horribly formatted articles. This article fits none of that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree; the criticism is too general. But I noticed some major problems: I was looking for info on rape of slaves, and found none. Also, there are three sources for the Aquinas attribution, none of them primary. This should be linked to the writing of Aquinas directly, or removed as unverified by a source.Witnessforpeace (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

Prevention

Please consider adding this to the "Prevention and treatment" section:

Sexual assault may be prevented by secondary school, college, and workplace education programs. At least one program for fraternity men produced "sustained behavioral change."

Thank you. 67.6.191.142 (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Hazel77 ^talk 18:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Changed FBI definition of rape

FBI has recently (December 2011) modified it's definition of rape. The revised definition is "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim".

Revised Rape Definition Approved:

AnitaRmenon (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)anitaRmenon

Yes, it's been added to the article and I tweaked it, going over what the definition used to mean and what it means now. Flyer22 (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The Mongols were accused about two to three times of sexual abuse (rape) at Bokhara, or Samarqand and Baghdad and in the alleged case of the Muslim women and girls where there was alleged compulsion on both sides under Ogotai

The Mongols on the whole treated the genders equally in war for their time, but there were exceptions such as complaints at Bokhara or Samarqand and Baghdad of sexual abuse, and there was the alleged case of the Muslim women and girls under Ogotai Khan who were requisitioned it was rumoured by the Dzungars or "Left Wing" either for the archers described by an abbot or for marriage.

The Mongols in fact shared what others perceived as their pillage and loot among all under their rule directly and indirectly including setting up a postal service and digging wells needed under the circumstances, rebuilding China etc., they thought themselves natural and attractive when of the actual Mangqol ethnicity many if not all of whom were apparently white and plump, and by their apparent standards of intercourse they did not think they particularly harmed the women, who did have children subsequently often, though their wives in two instances were childless probably due to some factors. They called such women Nokeger (feminine of Nokor, meaning Friends/Women Friends) and they also let them accompany them as warriors on occasion, as reported by an abbot and later at times allowed them the rank of Beki, as in the Niucha Mongqol-un Tobcha´an. They also had the technical legal right of divorce.22:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC) DeborahAltar22:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the Mongol postal service was second to none, but this article is not about whether Mongols were "a good thing" or "a bad thing" in any overall sense. It's just about rape. Paul B (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Total BS

This article is very BIASED. It doesn't mention the number of times a so called "rape victim" refused a lie detector test(which is suspsicious) or the fact that if you have sex with a drunk girl it's automatically rape if she wakes up the next day and doesn't like you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.243.100 (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources which state that there is a trend for women to report casual sex they had while inebriated as rape, please do provide them. If not, this does not warrant inclusion by any stretch of the imagination. Incidentally, your personal experience does not imply that the article's statements should be tarred with the broad brush of "total BS". sonia♫ 08:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)