Talk:Rape

Marital rape section is WP:Undue weight

Like I stated in this discussion, it needs to be significantly cut back and should (ideally, in my opinion) be merged into Consent section. I stated, "[I]t seems odd that the Marital rape section is a main section of the Definitions section; it's WP:UNDUE WEIGHT with regard to the other specific aspects that don't have their own sections under the Definitions heading. I propose that the Marital rape section be significantly cut down and merged back into the Consent section; it was a part of that section without a subheading before it was significantly expanded earlier [in 2013]. After all, readers can go to the main article, Marital rape, for the in-depth information about it." So I reiterate that the marital rape topic already has a main article, and the section about that topic in the Rape article is nowhere close to appropriate WP:Summary style with regard to that matter, especially after this expansion. Jmh649 (Doc James) agreed with my suggestion on this. Flyer22 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It is, indeed, a very long section; but I think the subject is extremely important, given the fact that the legal recognition of forced sexual intercourse in marriage as rape is a recent one; and it has been the subject of long political debates (often spanning over decades) in most countries; and it is a clear indication of very important changes in the conceptualization of sexual violence - such as the redefinition of sex crimes from crimes against 'morality'/chastity/property crime against the guardian of the woman, to crimes against the self-determination of the victim (this is a very modern concept); the changing social position and role of women; different understanding of marriage, privacy, individual rights etc. I think it helps understand the history of rape itself. However, I am not necessary opposed to shortening the section, if other editors agree. Also, what should be taken out of the section? It would be good to have more people join the discussion here and offer opinions.Skydeepblue (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Skydeepblue. I just now read your reply on this matter and am just now replying to it because I decided to give others time to join in on this discussion (I would see if they did from my WP:Watchlist) before weighing in on it again. As seen, no one other than us has yet weighed in on it. While the topic of marital rape is very important, I don't see why it deserves its own section above some of the forms of rape mentioned at the beginning of the Definitions section. I'm not suggesting that we have a section on any or all of those forms either. I'm not too opposed to keeping the Marital rape section a separate entity, but I do believe that the material that's there would fit better as a paragraph or two in the Consent section, like it did before. Whether it is to stay as a separate section or not, it should definitely be significantly cut down, per WP:Summary style. As for what should be cut, a good rule of thumb is to summarize the section like the lead of the article about the topic does, though not too extensively if the lead is long. Flyer22 (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Is the lede image a good choice?

Is this picture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tizian_094.jpg that is in the lede a really good choice? Personally, I don't think so. It is not very representative, and it doesn't bring much to the article.Skydeepblue (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Victim blaming

Another example of victim blaming in the United States is boys and men that are victims of rape being forced to pay child support to the women that rape them. Legal cases cited include a 15 year old boy raped by a 34 year old woman. Further information can be found in University of Pennsylvania peer review article https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/lawreview/articles/volume152/issue6/London152U.Pa.L.Rev.1957(2004).pdf "A Critique of the Strict Liability Standard for Determining Child Support in Cases of Male Victims of Sexual Assault and Statutory Rape" by Ellen London, which cites a number of cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.138.0 (talk • contribs)

Why doesn't this article discuss the positives of rape?

Seems really POV to me.70.162.46.129 (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not "really POV." It's WP:Neutral when it comes to how Wikipedia defines POV. Your suggestion is WP:Fringe, because the medical and scientific community at large generally do not discuss any "positives of rape," especially with regard to humans; the closest thing to such a belief are sociobiological theories of rape, a topic that is mentioned in the "Motivation of perpetrators" section of the Rape article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a troll. Otherwise, please bring sources. Perhaps something with rape as a darwinian adaptation? Not sure how strong the science is on that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The OP is just trolling, but there are Darwinian arguments relevant to this issue, some of which are addressed in Sexual coercion. There have also been ideological justifications (e.g. Eldridge Cleaver). Paul B (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Paul Barlow, I used the "especially with regard to humans" wording above because "positives of rape" are discussed with regard to non-human animals far more than they are discussed with regard to humans (though rape is also most commonly a legal term/a term most commonly restricted to humans). The Sociobiological theories of rape article points to the Sexual coercion article (which is about non-human animals), so that's why I didn't point specifically to the Sexual coercion article. The Sociobiological theories of rape article addresses all of that type of material. Flyer22 (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've also read that women (yes, humans) have adaptations that can mitigate against rape - for example, when ovulating, women have greater strength, sharper peripheral vision, and better reflexes (which may allow them to escape), and women are less likely to get pregnant if the sperm is "unknown" - e.g. if it is the first time her body has seen that particular sperm.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The Pregnancy from rape article also addresses that; remember the Todd Akin controversy? That controversy resulted in the creation of the Pregnancy from rape article, that was originally, significantly about Todd Akin and his rape comment controversy. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

haha... yeah... I hadn't see the pregnancy article - so according to that the literature seems divided. I think the piece I read may have been related to this study [1]. also this one [2] which suggests pre-eclampsia as an adaptation to rid the body of a pregnancy caused by sperm which was foreign to the woman. To me the idea of rape and adaptations to avoid rape (or pregnancy) as a darwinian struggle makes a sick sort of sense - men evolve ways to determine fertility of women, women evolve ways to avoid/protect themselves from men, or avoid the cost of pregnancy by stopping the pregnancy. This may be why the studies are so contrasted, as they're studying a battle of adaptations that occurs over evolutionary time frames, and different people may have different advantages at a given point in time. Akin was wrong in his statement, but I think the idea that women and men have biological adaptations to limit or expand procreation based on paternal investment and the mode of conception makes sense.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Obiwankenob, I'm not sure how you view the literature on the pregnancy from rape topic as divided, but, by a vast margin, it's not. This is clear from the Wikipedia articles noted above. The Pregnancy from rape article, for example, makes clear that the scientific consensus is that pregnancy is not any less likely to occur from rape than it is from consensual penile-vaginal sex. I have not found scientists and other researchers to generally be conflicted on this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where you read that - the line I read is "There is debate as to whether conception rates are higher from rape or consensual sex." Then the rest of the article cites studies which show a higher rate of conception after rape, and other studies which claim a lower rate due to female adaptations. I haven't performed a literature review, but the wikipedia article doesn't seem to come down on one side or the other. My point about the darwinian adaptations was that one might expect males to evolve techniques to ensure pregnancy even in cases of rape, while female would evolve techniques to avoid rape or avoid pregnancies. What actually happens is due to the interplay between those evolutionary strategies (which are layered on top of social strategies of course), but I would be very surprised it it was truly a wash.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It's in the lead of the Pregnancy from rape article (after much discussion at that talk page), and the Rape-pregnancy rates section, in my view, also makes that matter clear, despite the mention of debate among some scholars. Within every scholarly field, there is some debate among scholars, including debates about WP:Fringe ideas. It is indeed WP:Fringe to state that pregnancy is less likely to occur from rape than from consensual penile-vaginal sex, and the preponderance of literature on the topic shows that. I am not going to go over all of (or any specifics regarding) that literature here at this talk page, and that's because not only am I not in the mood for that, I don't see it as beneficial to helping the Rape article. So I encourage you to read as much about the topic as you can if you want to know more. And to be careful to distinguish scientific consensus from WP:Fringe. Flyer22 (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I have read a number of the papers, and I think that lede is misleading - indeed, the articles cited by the lede point to the possibility that pregnancy may be MORE likely after rape. What most of those popular news articles were debunking was the idea that a woman's body shuts down and prevents the pregnancy from happening, or that pregnancies are very rare - we know this to not be the case.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how that lead is misleading, going by the clear statement that pregnancy is not less likely to occur from rape, the sources presented there and the preponderance of literature on the topic; the History section essentially states the same thing, with two different sources. And those "popular news articles" are also addressing whether or not pregnancy is less likely to occur from rape, and there are plenty of non-"popular news articles" sources to support that material as well. I'm done on this topic now. Flyer22 (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: In case anyone reading this at whatever point in time wonders why the lead of the Pregnancy from rape article is slightly different than what Obiwankenobi and I were discussing above about pregnancy rates (that is, if he isn't reverted on it because the same can be stated in reverse and some sources are in the middle on it), it's because Obiwankenobi changed the lead, as seen here and here (something I knew that was likely to happen). Flyer22 (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Global view

The Home Office Report was not the largest, nor most rigorous, study conducted. The NIJ report had a sample size that was 4 times larger than the Home Office Report, and covered a span of 7 series, with all laboratory procedures being conducted by the FBI. Also, if one actually read the Home Office Report, particularly pages 47 and 48, one would see that what's being claimed in this article is directly contradicted by the report. The 16-25 age bracket regarding false accusations, for example, was not 8% but instead 52%. Sort of an important distinction one might say. Besides the fact that if the study was in fact linked, readers could see for themselves how the study actually discounted false rape accusations in which the accuser admitted the false accusation and recanted. The study actually didn't count false accusers who were caught and recanted. That might, just maybe, be something readers should have access to in a section titled "False Accusations".

If this encyclopedia claims to be neutral, why does it present a biased definition in the lead? Specifically the second sentence - "The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or against a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent." - is POV, because it applies only to the USA and some other countries with similar laws. WHO defines rape differently, only as a violent assault, and not as having sex with someone under the age of consent.--2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:38E8:1612:C0B5:12B2 (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not a biased piece; that's a significant definition that, like you stated, applies to the USA and "some other countries with similar laws." We won't be removing the statutory rape portion from the lead, which should be in the lead...per WP:Lead. It's odd that you titled this section "Global view," and then object to a portion of the lead helping to provide a global view. We have a Definitions section for the very fact that "rape" doesn't mean the same thing in every place. Flyer22 (talk) 07:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

And we certainly won't be limiting rape simply to violence; neither does the World Health Organization (WHO). Then again, enough WP:Reliable sources out there consider most types of rape (the vast majority) to be sexual violence. Flyer22 (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

And another thing: Looking at your contribution history under your current IP, I'm quite certain that you're Kohelet (who I'm familiar with from the Gang rape article); why don't you try appealing your block again, going for the WP:Standard offer, instead of evading your block? Flyer22 (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC) ‎

There's no point to it, the local admins are too fanatical and the chance they would unblock me is negligible. It's a very hostile environment in here. So I'm being forced to operate as a sock-IP, or whatever the admins like to call it.

But to address your post: the lead doesn't contain any internationally accepted definition of rape, such as the above mentioned one by the WHO. There is no portion that would explain what rape really is, there is only the locally accepted American definition. I really doubt WP:Lead contains anything that would invalidate my point.--2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:38E8:1612:C0B5:12B2 (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about with regard to the lead; rape is defined by "physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or against a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent" in many parts of the world; having "below the legal age of consent" in the lead does not make the definition "the locally accepted American definition," especially since it's not only America (the U.S.) that has an age of consent law, as shown by the Age of consent article. The lead includes the most significant definitions of rape, which are a summary of the definitions noted at the very beginning of the Definitions sections and below that. For example, even marital rape is summarized by the lead, since rape is first and foremost about whether or not consent was present; in the case of age of consent, any consent the minor has given is invalid consent. And keep in mind that child sexual abuse is often termed child rape, and that many parts of the world (though there are various different terms used for statutory rape or child rape) have laws against child rape as well, because no normal person (unless a child who does not understand the matter) would suggest, for example, that it is okay for an adult to engage in sex with a 5-year-old because the 5-year-old said "yes." Flyer22 (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)