Talk:Rape/Archive 5

Note to IP Users - please sign your contributions to the talk page with your name or with ~~~~. This makes communication clearer.

TRIGGER Warning

This page may be very triggering for rape or sexual assault survivors.

Causes of rape section

I went through all the available references in my univ library and tried to show this complicated and politically loaded topic with NPOV balance. I will note here that politics have no business being included in a scientific section but as we all know politics seems to have ruled this research since Susan Brownmiller began her shameless 'research' on rape for political purposes in 1975 (please see The New Mythology of Rape: Politicizing Women's Pain). I welcome suggestions and feedback on this content but please don't make major changes before discussion so we can consense on some sort of complete, balanced NPOV content here.

I deleted content that had nothing directly to do with Causes and tried to balance research on victims with research on perps since both are significant. I also condensed some statements to aid flow. That said, there is still a glaring hole with respect to why women rape men/women and why men rape men here...which I would love to have other editors fill with some good content. Anacapa 05:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Anacapa, I know we've had differences of opinion on this before. I would rather you try to find peace or figure out why you are so angry at research on female rape victims.

Well, I must say that there are feminist scientists. It's not mutually exclusive. I enjoy searching the psychinfo article database and compile scientific bibliographies on survivor issues. I'm not sure why certain resources offend you and others do not. Some of the external links are not authoritative at all especially when pertaining to male survivor and csa subjects. I have no problem with that. I leave them in because it's a topic that is relevent to the subject of the page. The first rape crisis centers were built by the women's movement and feminists in the US in the 70's. If not for their ideas and theories this page might not exist.

--Survivor 20:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Survivor, I have no problem with differences here and welcome your comments. My issue with feminists is that they have used rape for FALSE political purposes rather than be genuine about the issue. I suggest you glance at the article in links Politics of Rape to see why I get so hot and bothered about the shameless use of slogans and false statistics by some feminists. Anacapa 06:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Random italics and unneeded emphasis

This article fails to take a neutral tone on several subjects due to someone's choice to use lots of italics to press home a viewpoint. (Random italics added to the previous sentence to give a clear example of what I mean.) It should be reviewed and the italics removed; they serve no purpose other than to add unnecessary connotations to the words. Wingchild 22:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

POV

This entire article looks like it was written from the POV of a victim or a battered women's shelter or similar organization. I think it generally needs to be overhauled to be more NPOV. Hell, it even has sections dedicated to help hotlines, such as RAINN. It also contains about 8 references to RAINN in the article as well. This indicates that someone who is part of that organization has made POV edits to this article. Also, the presence of a large number of italicized words in this article seem to be placed to give emphasis to facts that support a specific POV.

response:

I agree the italics are distracting. I edit them out when I have time. I think it is the emphasis on male survivor resources that is creating the emotional tone of the page right now. However much I agree with exploring male survivor resources I disagree with the way it is being presented in this instance. On the other hand I think it is succeeding in drawing attention to the matter and making this page grow in a lot of ways (topic wise). I would never have investigated the vulnerability factors for rape victims if not for the section on causes of rape. I found it very enlightening. It also led me to multiple victimization causes which (scientific studies) have found it more likely for a victim to have more than one assault rather than the other way around. Rather than suspicion it should add validity.

what bothers me: I do find that my words are edited to include italics or POV comments that are very negative towards women at times. I have mentioned this before and appreciate the consideration shown towards those observations. I also think that if you start a section- you should also start a paragraph in that section instead of leaving it blank. I prefer not to write a whole section from scratch (as I am better at organizing than writing) but find myself trying to make the page presentable. Then once I have written the section my words are italicized and POV comments are added. I think if you are going to do that then you should write the section / or not be destructive to others words.

As to the RAINN references- it is the leading resource on this topic. That is the reason it is cited. Because it is a good resource. It would be negligent not to cite it. The CDC is also a good resource on this subject and is cited as well. If you would like to see a good example of an Encyclopedia article on rape try Groliers online Encyclopedia. It is subscription only but you can view it here: http://www.ncwiseowl.org/Groliers online Encyclopedia

Although I would welcome RAINN's input on this article I have reason to believe they in fact have not edited it. I actually emailed them and asked them to work on the female-male paragraph (bc I did not feel up to it at the time) and they were unable to. In fact it was empty for so long I finally wrote it. here is part of their mission statement: "RAINN is a frequent resource for television, radio and print news outlets — as well as local, state and national policymakers, law enforcement and rape treatment professionals — on the issues related to rape and sexual assault. RAINN was founded in 1994 by Scott Berkowitz, who continues as the organization’s president."

I did not start the sections on helplines but that is a valid part of an article on rape. When someone mentions the subject the first thing I would mention would be RAINN and their work with the national hotline. Just as the first rape crisis centers were established by NOW and the women's rights movement- RAINN is an integral part of the subject and recent history of rape.

I should also mention that when i found this article it was recommending (seriously) that all rape victims who cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their perpetrator is guilty should go to jail. As an example of this they cited a rape court case which had not yet ended. I was alarmed at the poor level of information being provided and presumably cited by readers. Seeing that according to the World Book Encyclopedia only 2% of accussed rapists are convicted- that would mean that 98% of women reporting their assault would go to jail. I have been reading and contributing to this page for 2 years and the improvement has been amazing.

--Survivor 20:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You make some good points. I guess I didn't realize what a large organization RAINN is at the time I made this comment. However, I still feel that there is a good deal of bias in this article. The other major issue I see is the heavy emphasis on psychology and the victimization aspect of rape because these sections seem to be trying to appeal to the reader's emotions in order to trigger a reaction. More concrete facts and less focus on the psychological effects of rape would make this article more objective. Most people would consider rape to be a horrible crime but this article shouldn't be fixated on that alone. Maybe the article should be split so that there would be a seperate article dealing with the proposed psychological effects of rape.

response:

I have given what you said some thought... I did an assignment on this topic and i had to read all the Encyclopedia articles I could on this topic so I looked at my notes. A typical entry (world book) had these topics covered:

   *  The definition of rape
   * The definition of statutory rape
   * The fact that most rapists are not convicted (only 2% mentioned by world book)
   * Explanations for why victims are intimidated into not reporting the crime.
   * The fact that in trials the issue becomes whether the woman consented to sex.
   * The psychological definition of rape as an antisocial act of power rather than sex.
   * The traumatic after effects suffered by the victim.

But if you are interested in starting a section that is not involved with victimology/advocacy then the encyclopedia of rape also covers these topics: concepts, social movements, offenders, high-profile cases, legislation, influential activists, landmark texts, and victimology to representations in literature and art.

I do find that this wiki article is much more detailed and thorough at this point than those encyclopedia entries (if less dependable at all edits). I think that listing high profile cases would not emphasize victim advocacy as that is a more legal, less psychological perspective. Literature and art is somewhat touched on already but would also be less about the effects of rape and more neutral.

The reason the effects of rape are emphasized is that so little is really understood about them. That is an area of research that is somewhat urgent. Because the effects and aftermath are extremely uncomfortable (self injury and eating disorders) there is a real need to get information out there and delve into it.

I am all for having a section that deals only with statistics, legal issues or even art with no psychology involved. I do think that as long as the psychology is well cited and comes from an authoritative/peer reviewed resource is really belongs on this page.

--Survivor 01:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, I have thrown out some chaff and removed the POV-tag. Maikel 20:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Children conceived by rape

How much counselling or other help is there for people who find that they were conceived by rape or incest? I once read in a women's magazine an article written by a young woman who found (to her great shock) that she had been conceived by father-daughter intercourse (incest). Anthony Appleyard 19:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know but this link was in the external links section http://www.stigmatized.org/

Self Blame

Just started this section. It is sort of a companion to the victim blame section.

There are two main types of self blame: undeserved blame based on character and undeserved blame based on actions. These are called Characterological and Behavioral.

Behavioral self blame refers to victims feeling they should have done something differently (therefore they feel it is their fault).

Characterological self blame is when victims feel there is something inherently wrong with them (causing them to deserve to be assaulted). This type of blame is associated with more psychological negative effects.

Self blame is an avoidance coping skill which inhibits the healing process. The type of thought involved in self blame of victims is illogical thinking (known as counterfactual thinking) which can be remedied by a therapeutic technique known as cognitive restructuring. The main problem for victims is that feeling shame (stigma with the self) produces more psychological problems than feeling guilt (actions). It's easier to change an action than the self. Guilt promotes resolving action and shame promotes pulling away or wanting to be invisible. Withdrawing prevents the victim from seeking help and reporting. Counseling responses found helpful in reducing self blame are supportive responses, psychoeducational responses (learning about rape trauma syndrome) and those responses addressing the issue of blame. (Matsushita-Arao, 1997 ) A helpful type of therapy for self blame is Cognitive restructuring or cognitive-behavioral therapy.--Survivor 21:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

moving drugging to the types of rape section?

I was making a page on my site on types of rape and the one missing here is drug facilitated rape. I realized it's listed under aspects of rape. I tried to move it but i think a rapid edit put it back. I will leave a 'copy' of it here in case. Do you think it's a good idea to move it? I don't feel that strongly about it- it just seemed a better category.

Drug Facilitated Rape

Hypnotic agents such as flunitrazepam (Rohypnol) and GHB, colloquially referred to as "date rape drugs," have been used by rapists to render their victims unconscious before raping them. According to the DEA:

"Victims may not be aware that they ingested a drug at all. GHB and its analogues are invisible when dissolved in water, and are odorless. They are somewhat saltish in taste, but are indiscernible when dissolved in beverages such as sodas, liquor, or beer."[1]

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse:

"Rohypnol can incapacitate victims and prevent them from resisting sexual assault. It can produce "anterograde amnesia," which means that individuals may not remember events they experienced while under the effects of the drug."[2]

The sedative effects of Rohypnol begin to appear approximately 15–20 minutes after the drug is ingested. The effects typically last from four to six hours after administration of the drug, but some cases have been reported in which the effects were experienced 12 or more hours after administration. In recent news it has been discovered that scientists can now detect flunitrazepam and related compounds in urine at least up to 5 days after administration of a single dose of Rohypnol and up to a month in hair.[3]

These drugs are extremely dangerous, and may kill or render the victim comatose. It is imperative that any investigation into the suspected use of date rape drugs involve the immediate carrying out of a blood test, as waiting too long to test for the presence of drugs may cause false negatives.

However, trying to deduce whether date rape drugs have been used from the symptoms is an approach that can cause false positives. In 2003, when the media were reporting a drink-spiking epidemic in Perth, Western Australia, 44 women had their blood tested because they believed they had been the victims of drink-spiking. The West Australian Chemistry Centre tested the blood samples and in these 44 cases, the only substance found in the victim's system was excessive alcohol. Police said that the blood-alcohol level of most of the subjects was significantly higher than what the women had themselves expected. Although this is irrelevent to the issue of whether an assault is rape or not authorities in some instances say:

"While we can't dismiss all cases, the results suggest that a fair proportion of drink spiking is just an urban myth ... It seems that a proportion of young women are getting incredibly intoxicated, and using drink spiking as an excuse to explain behaviour they are not happy with." [4]

However, the legal definition of rape in countries such as the USA also covers a lack of consent when the victim is unable to say "no" to intercourse, due to the effects of drugs or alcohol.[5] In large amounts, alcohol has the same effects as date rape drugs, and causes unconsciousness and memory loss.

Testing kits that claim to detect GHB, Ketamine and benzodiazepines such as Rohypnol in seconds are commercially available under names such as "The Drink Detective".

--Survivor 02:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

well, it edited it out of types AND the other section so i will try to add it again.

It looks okay thus far (2 secs later) so hopefully it will not be deleted. If you really feel it is better in the aspects area you can put it back there. I just thought it made more sense in the types.

"a cool ass crime"???

The first sentence of this entry is that rape is a "cool ass crime". WTF? I'm strictly a Wikipedia user & don't know how to edit but can someone take a look at this? Thanks. Misokitty 23:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Misokitty

I see someone fixed it. I saw this page yesterday and it did not say that then. It gets hacked regularly due to the sensitive subject matter. sorry if it upset you.

--74.130.65.25 23:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)survivor

Don't let vandalism get to you, it's just somebody trying to get attention. The more sensitive a subject is, the more likely somebody is to vandalize a topic about it. Most of the time this stuff is caught by people who watch the Special:Recentchanges page and is fixed in a matter of seconds, but sometimes something slips through the cracks. Koweja 22:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Some issues

"Several widely publicized cases of female-male statutory rape in the United States involved school teachers raping their teenage male students. One infamous example involved elementary school teacher Mary Kay Letourneau, who had two children with one of her students, who was 13 when she began her repeated rapes."

"Repeated rapes" implies coercion to my ear. I'm not sure that was ever alleged in her case. I think we should be careful when dealing with statuory rape to make sure that we are only attributing coercion in cases where it has been alleged.

'Repeated rape' is fact in this case. She was caught, convicted, and paroled. Within about a month she was caught raping him again and taken away to serve her full sentence of seven? years by the female judge. There are many kinds of coercion both physical and psychological female rapists usually prefer the psychological and invisible forms (see discussion below) but I am not sure how repeated rapes implies coercion here. Would you have the same concern if the sexes were reversed? Anacapa 05:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Rape and war go hand in hand. Armies have throughout the ages consisted invariably from males only, and rapes have served a purpose. The rape is used as means of psychological warfare - humiliating the enemy soldiers and undermining their morale as giving them signal of being unable to protect what is valuable to them. Conversely, women as soldiers fight far harder and more cruelly than men and almost never surrender.

This has no citation whatsoever. No doubt there are important things to be said on the connections between rape and war, but this currently looks like original research. There has been much written on rape and war, but this paragraph shows no evidence of having been derived from scholarly literature.

Just two things I noticed while breezing through. --Fastfission 03:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Statuory rape does not require coercion -- and can be repeated. Why not call it "repeated rapes"? Goldfritha 23:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

f-m statutory rape rewording

"Several widely publicized cases of female-male statutory rape in the United States involved school teachers raping their teenage male students. One infamous example involved elementary school teacher Mary Kay Letourneau, who had two children with one of her students, who was 13 when she began her repeated rapes."

this makes the thing seem like she was physically raping him. as far as i have heard, they are still together after several years, which, although it was legally rape, means that this was consensual. hate to sound POV here, the wording i think should reflect this, as well as the controversy in other countries over her imprisonment. it makes it sound as though she was torturing him. Joeyramoney 00:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This is always at issue here because when women rape young men it seems as if the man is initiating it and that is it is in fact consensual. In fact, the female rapist initiates and is responsible for the rapes. She did in fact commit these repeated rapes. I ask that you contemplate this with the sexes reversed and note how male rape of young women is almost always reported. There is never the insinuation that the young woman began the affair with the male rapist or that statutory rape of a young woman by an older man is consensual. As for torture, yes rape is a form of torture although it will probably take decades for this young man to sort his shame out and fight free of this sexual predator as he was 'groomed' and raped repeatedly at too tender and age to know the nature of this crime. Please see [Women Who Seduce Teens: Who's the Seducer] for a better take on this than mine. Anacapa 05:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Male rapist profiles

These profiles seem to be relating only to the kind of rapists who go outside and find random victims. This is despite the fact that most rapes are committed by a person familliar to the victim and in the home.

Could someone clarify this?? Silentium 13:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

FBI profilists created four categories of rapists. They left out the young, horny, raging-hormone, rapist and date-rapist for obvious reasons. This probably can be lumped into a category called crimes of opportunity. Police generally don't have to go looking for this type of rapist as the victim can generally identify him. FBI profilists came up with four rapist profiles to help law enforcement catch rapists.

The FBI limits rape to forcible rape of adult women by men in its statistics. Since there are many other types of rape I question how representative the FBI's profiles are. Is the spousal rapist (male or female) profiled by the FBI for example? Anacapa 05:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Quick Edits- Over-italicized areas

I've gone through the article and weeded out what seemed to me as unnecessarily large amounts of italicized words in the male rape section and throughout the article. Italics are the visual equivalent of forceful talking, and too much of them adds entirely too much force to the words- in other words, the italics made it seem very non-neutral and foreceful on specific topics. (Not that these topics aren't important! I'm very pleased to see such information on here. I just think that adhering to a more neutral "tone of voice", so to speak, would help facilitate keeping the overall article neutral.) Also made a few quickie grammar edits- punctuation, mostly. Please feel free to let me know if anyone disagrees with the changes I've made. LilTigre 23:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Seconding; a number of italicized words didn't even need to be stressed. It's not good writing. Adoubleplusgood 02:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Repressed memories

Psychologists seem to be divided as to whether repressed memories actually exist, so I made mention of that in the section dealing with incest. Adoubleplusgood 02:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It was found that most repressed memory cases were actually created by therapists suggesting memories that never occurred.

response:

I have to say that research on how memories are stored by ptsd victims does support repressed memories: http://www.psych.org/news_room/press_releases/ptsd11404.pdf

You also have to consider GHB victims (causes amnesia) and the overall widely accepted symptoms of PTSD.

http://www.ibiblio.org/rcip/commun.html

Zaidel DW. (1995). The case for a relationship between human memory, hippocampus and corpus callosum. Biol Res. 28(1):51-7.

Abstract:

"Unilateral brain damage which includes the hippocampus leads to memory impairments consistent with hemispheric specialization on the same side. Damage to the corpus callosum, the major connecting pathway between the left and right hemispheres, also leads to memory impairments. This suggests both hemispheric specialization on the hippocampal level and a critical role for the corpus callosum in memory functions. A complete hippocampal formation is present on either side of the brain but traditionally only one is studied. However, a comparison between the neuronal populations in the hippocampus on both sides revealed asymmetry in connectivity among hippocampal subfields. The profile of memory impairments of commissurotomy ('split-brain') patients is described. The results are discussed in terms of a relationship between hippocampus and corpus callosum in humans. As hemispheric specialization evolved, inter-hippocampal connections became less important and the corpus callosum became prominent in memory functions."--74.130.65.25 02:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)survivor

Rape of females by males

Looking at those RAINN statistics, I don't see anything about '1 in 3' women being raped, so I'm gonna delete that bit. If I'm wrong, just change it back. Adoubleplusgood 03:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That is an outdated stat. RAINN now states it is 1 in 6 though most studies cite 1 in 4. Many people say between 1 in 3 and 1 in 6 college aged women will be sexually assaulted within thier lifetimes.

--74.130.65.25 02:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)survivor

Where do RAIN statistics come from? There has been shameless manipulation of rape statistics for political and other purposes. We need to know the source of RAINN's statistics to be credible here. I mean no offense to RAIN. I just need to now where we source statistics.Anacapa 05:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Notable survivors

Has there been any discussions about Notable survivors? I think it is important that survivors know that there are people out there who are not only surviving but thriving, but there are a few issues surrounding the list of notable survivors --- like privacy and whether these bits of info are facts which victims can trust. On this front, If someone other than a celebrity could come out and say that was what happened and the perpetuators of crime do get punished, it would be helpful to victims --- victims of harassment, bullying, peer pressure, hate crimes, personal attacks... It is conceivably less prohibitive for a successful notable person to be open and take actions. Is there any male survivors who has 'come out' and spoken openly about matters that may still be considered taboo? Wklee 00:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you have good intentions and it might be a good idea. the only concern i would have with that is that wiki users would want to also cite stigmitized people who's lives would be endangered by being named. There are whole pages devoted to controversial subjects who have little or no protection from harm at wiki. It's despicable but people will do it here too. --74.130.65.25 02:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)survivor

No such special category as "gray rape."

There is no commonly refered to thing as "gray rape" If you do a google search for "gray rape" you only come up with the expression 5 original times. And two of these times are from this Wikipedia article. Do a google search for violent rape, and you will find over 300,000 hits. Yet, there is no need for an encyclopedic article about "rape" to explain "violent rape" any more than "gray rape." Both terms are self-explanatory. And futher comment is entirely subjective.

Many legal cases fall in a gray area of law. But just like there is no such thing as gray murder, there is no such thing as gray rape. There are gray rape cases and gray murder cases. The Kevorkian murder trials are examples of gray murder cases. If someone wants to explain what is the meaning of a gray area of law, they should do so in an article about American legal system, not about rape.

Seconded, but not exactly for the same reasons. Gray rape is not a precise term, it's an intuitive one. It doesn't need to be stated, just like one doesn't need to call rape "violent". These terms are not in common useage among psychologists. (At least, they never were in my college studies. None of my psychiatrist/psychologist/social worker associates have ever used the term. Half of them had never even heard the term "gray rape" before.) Using the term "gray rape" only furthers the concept that rape itself may have some sort of voluntary participation and/or influence by the victim.

LilTigre 20:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

LilTigre, you just agreed with me. If you do a google search for "gray rape", you will see there is no such recognized category as "gray rape." Someone keeps putting this section back. If you see it again, I ask you to please delete it. It makes the article sound like it was written by some survivor of date rape, that resulted from confusion.

Ah, yes, I did. I thought that was made specifically clear, although my objection is based on useage in psychological and psychiatric circles and not on legalities. If I do see it again, I'll delete it. Also, mind signing some sort of name to your comments? It's a bit strange to talk to someone completely faceless. LilTigre 20:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"It's a bit strange to talk to someone completely faceless." <smile> I know what you really meant say. I normally sign my contributions, but I decline here because the subject matter is so charged. You can call me "Grass." --Grass

That works :3 Thanks, Grass.LilTigre 20:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"my objection is based on useage in psychological and psychiatric circles and not on legalities." My objection was based on useage in psychological, psychiatric and legal circles. --Grass

Redirect

moved from above

I redirected rape to physical humor because I thought the physical humor was supposed to be funny like that.

response: Has this been fixed? I am assuming the same person wrote 'cool' crime earlier as well. --74.130.65.25 03:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)survivor

There should be a way to track the IP addresses of whatever imbecile is playing with the wiki. Might want to ask a mod about it. LilTigre 20:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed: Violent Rape

I removed the sub-heading on "violent rape" because there is no officially recognized category in law or psychology known as violent rape. The expression "violent rape" is self-explanatory, and does not need any further explanation. --Grass

The FBI reports ALL rape it defines as 'forcible' male-female rape and excludes all other types and forms (genders) of rape. We might want to make distinctions between 'forcible' and other forms rape here. IMO, the official FBI definition is absurd vis a vis mass media reports of rape and incest by both sexes in a wide variety of contexts some violent and some ostensibly non-violent. Anacapa 05:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you are saying. Isn't the difference between "forcible rape" and "statutory rape" obvious. What other kind of rape is there? --Grass

"rape is more about power and violence than sex (as confirmed by many rapists who used supposed "non-violent" rape)." There are many different kinds of rapists. Rape is sometimes just about having sex with a particular person as in date rape. Other times rape fullfils a desire to sexually dominate. Some people have fantasies of sexual domination, some have fantasies of sexual submission. Some people break the law to get what they can't legally get. --Grass

The Dark Side of Man has an example of rape of woman by a primate. Clearly in this case although violence was used to commit the 'crime' the purpose of the primate was simply to have sex with the woman. There was no attempt to commit further violence for the sake of power or anything else as soon as the primate was able to accomplish the rape (SEX ACT) unhindered. The FBI charts on violent crime show (at a glance) that rape has one of the lowest correlations with homicide versus other common crimes such as robbery so one has to wonder about Susan Brownmiller's and others' wild claims otherwise that rape is primarily a crime of power. (Homicide be it state-sanctioned (executions) or mere murder is the ultimate form of violent power) Anacapa 05:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sexual aggression, sexual domination and sexual control are kinds of sexual desires various people have. Testosterone not only creates sexual desire in men, it also creates a desire for physical aggression. Note the excessive interest in male teenagers for activities that release physical aggression. Feminists would have you believe this is a cultural phenomenon when in reality it is simple mammal biology. Humans have a neopallium which is usually able to exercise control over the archipallium. Some men (and even women) have higher testosterone levels than others, and some men are more controlled by their archipallium than by their neopallium. Trial lawyers may have high testosterone but they also have a strong neopallium. High testosterone alone is not a predictor of violent tendencies. High testosterone coupled with low IQ is. Very high testosterone creates "roid rage." Androids = testosterone. Androids is another word for testosterone. If we want to lessen rape, then we have to understand the enemy. Some people just want to condemn the enemy and exact vengeance. --Grass

Thanks for bringing thought to a topic that has been shamelessly politicized with absurd yet ubiquituous slogans such "rape is a crime of power but not of sex". I would like to note that men and by extension testosterone have no particular monopoly of sexual aggression. Women (estrogen?) commit sexual aggression too although due to the social double standards, lack of research, and the covert nature of female sexual aggression we rarely see it. What seems to be lacking in many of the causual explanations is the mental/emotional motivations for male or female perpetrated rapes. I suggest a glance at the following article by Patrick Carnes for some sense of this [Erotized Rage and other Sexualized Feelings] Anacapa 05:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Some people have a desire to feel powerful while they are controlling and dominating their sexual partners. And some people have a desire to feel helpless, while they are being controlled and dominated by their sexual partner. Power, domination and control can be intimately connected to sexual desire. This is what bdsm (bondage, discipline, sadism, masochism) and D/s (Dominance/submission) is all about. There is a leather bondage club called "The Power Exchange." Some men rape because they want to have dominant sex. Some men rape because they want to have sadistic sex. Some men rape because they are flooded with hormones, are super horny, and just want to have sex. Overcome with sexual desire, they lose self-control. Some men rape because they always take whatever they can get away with. Some men rape because they feel angry toward all women for the way one woman treated them. Some men rape because they are angry at so often being rejected by women. Some men rape because they themselves were raped. Some men rape because they feel sexually inadequate. Some men rape because they are fixated on one particular female. Testosterone makes men much more physically aggressive than women. Testosterone may play a role in female aggression and female sexual aggression. --Grass

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rape"

WHY?

Why NLU did you revert my edit, "Rape is having non-consensual sex with another"? The present definition that states there needs to be force for rape to be present seems patently untrue. There need not be any force in "statutory rape," or raping someone who is unconscious. Often there is just the threat of force, no actual force. Are you saying if a female willingly has sex with someone because she fears for her life that she is not being raped?

Michael D. Wolok 01:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please put my edit back. Thank you.

Rape is forcing somebody into sexual activity, in particular sexual penetration, against his or her will through use of physical force, threat of injury, or other duress. In just about every country today,

I changed the above first line of this article to read:

Rape is non-consensual sex, in particular penetration of the vagina or the anus. In present times rape is a crime in just about every country.

If you agree with my edit please put my edit back.

Michael D. Wolok 01:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It's an incomplete definition, which still has the same problem that you complained of (since consent is not a defense to statutory rape), and you also took out the pertinent fact that almost every jurisdiction requires sexual penetration. In fact, your edit leads to more issues since it takes out the explanation that if consent were obtained by force, threat, or other duress, it is not valid. --Nlu (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nlu,

The reason statutory rape is a crime is minors can't give consent. If consent is obtained by force, that is not considered true consent, but "consent under duress." "Consent under duress" is not willing consent. "Consensual" implies "willing consent." No one would say that sex that was extracted by threat is "consensual" even if consent is given. I agree with your criticism that I should have included the fact that rape usually implies penetration. But is penetration of the mouth, rape or just sexual assault? How do you feel about my emended edit: Rape is non-consensual sex, in particular penetration of the vagina or the anus. ?

Michael D. Wolok 14:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Still wrong, because very few jurisdictions consider forcible oral sex "rape." I don't know why you are insisting on removing a more accurate definition in favor of your less precise one. If you disagree, please consider taking it to WP:RFC. --Nlu (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

> Still wrong, because very few jurisdictions consider forcible oral sex "rape."

That is exactly what I said, and what my edit says. Are you reading my words. I don't understand why you are saying my definition is less accurate when "force" is not a necessary eleement of rape, consent is a necessary element for rape. Since minors are not able to give consent, that is why we have statutory rape.

Michael D. Wolok 18:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to file a RfC on this, since apparently you don't know how to. However, I don't see how "that is exactly what [you] said" at all. You're not acknowledging that "sex" is vague, and that is a major problem. --Nlu (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

RfC has been filed. Let's see what others have to say about this. --Nlu (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

How is this definition:

Rape is non-consensual penetration of the vagina or anus. It is usually achieved by physical force, the threat of physical force or some manner of coercion. In present times, in just about every country in the world rape is a criminal offense.

I think this is a lot better than "Rape is forcing another to have sexual activity, especially sexual penetration" because 1) physical force is not always an element of rape, 2)oral penetration is not always classified as rape, and 3) forcing someone to kiss you is not "rape." PLEASE NOTE THAT ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT EDIT FORCABLY KISSING SOMEONE OR FORCABLY TOUCHING THEM IN SEXUAL MANNER WOULD BE CONSIDERD RAPE. The current definition says any kind of forced sexual activity is rape.

What say you? Do we still need others?

Michael D. Wolok 04:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Better. But I'd still like to hear what others have to say about this. --Nlu (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

How is this definition:

How is this definition: "Rape is non-consensual penetration of the vagina or anus. Sometimes non-consensual oral sex is classified as rape. Rape is usually achieved by physical force, the threat of injury or some manner of coercion."

or maybe

"Rape is penetration of the vagina or the anus against the wishes of the individual. It is usually achieved by physical force, the threat of injury or some manner of coercion."?

This is the edit as it stands now:

"Rape is forcing somebody into sexual activity, in particular sexual penetration, against his or her will through use of physical force, threat of injury, or other duress."

PLEASE NOTE THAT ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT EDIT FORCABLY KISSING SOMEONE OR FORCABLY TOUCHING THEM IN ANY SEXUAL MANNER WOULD BE CONSIDERD RAPE, AS "SEXUAL ACTIVITY" CAN JUST BE KISSING OR TOUCHING THE BREAST OR BUTTOCKS.

I just did a little research and found a 23 year-old woman was convicted of rape for giving oral sex to a sleeping middle-aged man. Here rape is defined as "a non-consensual sexual act."

Michael D. Wolok 05:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Came here from RfC. Rape has been defined by case law and/or statute in most nations. It would surely be better to source some of those definitions, rather than to argue about the definition here and come up with a "Wikipedians definition". AndyJones 10:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the legal meaning of rape is narrower than the general meaning of the word. "Rape" existed before it was a crime. And different jurisdictions across the world define "rape" in vastly different terms.

I am not sure why the Wikipedian dictionary definition would be any better than one we can agree on here.

Michael D. Wolok 14:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I also found this through RfC. I see no reason to restrict the lead definition to the definition of the crime of rape. It should encompass everything that is considered rape, not just that which can be prosecuted. I find both alternatives a bit awkward, although Michael's version is a bit clearer (and a bit more blunt!). I tried to come up with a compromise wording, but it's exceedingly difficult to include everything that is rape and exclude things that aren't. Perhaps it might be useful to generate a list of what is included in the term and what isn't, and use that list to form the correct opening sentence. Here's a first stab at it:
Rape:
Non-consensual penile penetration of the mouth, anus, or vagina -- this applies regardless of whether the rapist or the victim is the owner of the penis.

Non-consensual tribadism or frottage.

Non-consensual cunnilingus.

Not Rape:
Any consensual act

Non-consensual touching of the breasts, penis, vulva, or buttocks (molestation or sexual harrassment)

Non-consensual kissing

Questionable:
Non-consensual penetration of the vagina or anus with a finger or object. I don't think many people would have a problem calling this "rape" but I'm also not sure it's more commonly called that than "molestation".

Thoughts? Powers 00:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I dunno that touching someone's penis or vagina isn't worthy of the title rape. I mean, isn't that what Frottage is?

Also- almost all the resources I've seen consider penetration with a finger or object to be rape. It's bc lgbt rape is getting recognized. If you leave that out you are marginalizing that community. It's commonly called rape. I have a research page on lgbt sexual assault. --74.130.65.25 23:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)survivor

Undisputed.

I think the following is undisputed:

Penetration of the vagina or anus with any object is considered rape. A person can be raped with a dildo, a coke bottle, a broomstick, or the barrel of a gun.

Forced oral sex is sometimes considered rape sometimes not. Women who are forced to have oral sex sometimes say they have escaped rape. Forced oral sex is often called sexual assualt, sexual battery, or oral sodomy.

I think both Nlu and I both agree as to what constitutes rape. (Nlu, please correct me if I am wrong.)

The only question we have is, which definition is better?

Michael D. Wolok 03:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been avoiding writing a definition of my own, as I didn't want to guide the debate in a particular way, but after hearing from you folks, this is what I'd propose myself, a more legally-based definition, which is yet a bit different (and I would like discussion on this):

Rape is, in most jurisdictions, a crime defined as penetration of the vagina by a penis without valid consent by both parties. In many jurisdictions, the penetration of the anus can also be considered rape, and the penetration need not be by a penis, but can be by other objects such as a finger or a dildo. Some jurisdictions expand the definition of rape further to include other acts without valid consent, including oral sex and masturbation. The lack of valid consent does not necessarily mean that the victim explicitly refused to give consent; generally, where consent was obtained by physical force, threat of injury, or other duress, or where consent was given by a person whose age was below the age of consent, a person who was intoxicated by drugs or alcohol, or a person who was mentally impaired by illness or developmental disability. (When the sexual activity involved a person whose age was below the age of consent, the crime defined is often known as "statutory rape," although a number of jurisdictions use terms such as "unlawful sexual intercourse" to avoid the forcible connotation of the word "rape.")

Given that rape is a legal term, I believe that a legal definition is a proper one for the lead paragraph, particularly since the rest of the article adequately explained situations that might be considered rape by common usage but not considered rape legally, or vice versa. --Nlu (talk) 05:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I got most of the current definition from (as a reference) findlaw.com. I worked in a lot of law offices and it's used in most of their intranet systems along with one or two others. It was better than the merriam - webster definition (which is the leading resource for librarians). I like the def. above except the first sentence. I think that the leading sentence should include non-penis definitions of rape rather than have that in the second sentence. It sounds like only the anal rape can be non-penis penetration ( just a matter of wording i guess). Here is a page that lists resources for definitions: definitions from scholarly resources.

This is what findlaw says:

"The crime of rape (or "first-degree sexual assault" in some states) generally refers to non-consensual sexual intercourse that is committed by physical force, threat of injury, or other duress. A lack of consent can include the victim's inability to say "no" to intercourse, due to the effects of drugs or alcohol. Rape can occur when the offender and victim have a pre-existing relationship (sometimes called "date rape"), or even when the offender is the victim's spouse.

Under a variation known as "statutory rape," some states make it unlawful for an adult to engage in sexual intercourse with a person who has not reached the age of consent (usually 18 years of age)."

In eliminating the word intercourse does that imply that there was no penetration? I think it's reasonable to say intercourse could mean touching genitals without penetration. Especially in certain types of gender-gender combinations.

--74.130.65.25 21:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)survivor

The legal definition of rape changes from state to state, varies greatly country to country. Findlaw is USA-centric. Moreover, the article covers much more than "legal rape." Rape is not just a legal term. The article should start with a general definition. The general definition can be followed by a broad legal definition. If you want a legal definition you need to look in Black's Law Dictionary. There are also lawe encyclopeida.

Newspapers, magazines and book publishers use the American Heritage dictionary. I think the definition I gave is a good general definition. What is wrong with my definition? My definition is very close to the legal definition you gave, just more concise.

A few questions: If someone is developmentally disabled or retarded and legally unable to give consent, does that mean they can never have sex? Is it always illegal to have sex with someone who is drunk? How drunk does someone have to be before it is rape? Can a female be charged with rape for having sex with a drunk guy? --Grass

Hi Grass, I don't know off hand which def. you gave. I was responding to the above request for a more legal oriented definition (broad) and so mentioned that the existing one came from a legal website. I am communicating right now with some survivors to actually expand the vocabulary of rape and broaden as well as get more specific as to the types of rape. I'm not sure I understand your question about consent- but I would say that a mentally disabled person would need to have relations with someone at their own mental level. I think if the person is too drunk to give consent it is certainly rape. Yes a female can be charged with rape if they raped anyone- including a guy. I think the level of intoxication would have to be taken into consideration. This would mean that spiking drinks with everclear or any substance would constitute rape. Having sex with someone who has passed out or clearly too intoxicated to say no is rape.

> "I would say that a mentally disabled person would need to have relations with someone at their own mental level."

Are you saying someone who suffers mental retardation should only have relations with another person who has mental retardation, and not have relations, date or marry someone who with a normal IQ or a high IQ? Are you saying someone who suffers manic-depression should only have relations with another person who suffers manic-depression? Are you saying it is always rape if someone who has a normal IQ has relations with someone who is retarded or vice versa? You seem to be saying someone who is retarded does not have the right to choose who they wish to have relations with? You seem to be saying, you don't respect the wishes of a retarded adult female who wants to date and have relations with a young male doctor because they are not at the same mental level? Should a normal person with an IQ of 180 be prohibited from having relations with someone with an IQ of 100 or everyone who suffers any mental disability? What if a male has an IQ of 180, but is mentally disabled, does this mean this person can't have relations with any normal female?

> "Having sex with someone who has passed out or clearly too intoxicated to say no is rape."

Is this true, even if you are married to this person or dating them, and you know they have no objection to your having relations with them while they are asleep? I don't really think "consent" is the issue, I think the issue is respecting the desires or wishes of the individual. I think people who are drunk should have the right to choose if they want to have relations or not. I've known females who couldn't stand to have sexual relations unless they were totally wasted. Were all men who had relations with these women rapists?

> "I think if the person is too drunk to give consent it is certainly rape."

This begs the question. What do you mean by too drunk to give consent? How drunk is too drunk? Are you saying anytime a female has relations with a guy who is so drunk he is falling off his feet, she should be prosecuted for rape? How do you determine if a person is too drunk to give consent? I don't even know what this means? Are you saying police should not accept the consent of anyone who is drunk to search their property?

A good resource may be the encyclopedia of rape if you are interested in looking up an other resources to answer the above questions. Also- Merriam Webster is considered the most reliable dictionary according to academics.

--74.130.65.25 21:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)survivor

Michael, the main reason why I still don't like the language you used is that it seems insufficiently technical to me, and leaves open too much ambiguity still. Since rape is a legal concept, it should have a legal definition. After some thought, I'm going to be bold and go ahead and insert my definition into the lead paragraph, but please continue to discuss it (replacing "oral sex" with what I consider the more technical "oral copulation"). --Nlu (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Rape is indeed a legal concept, but not exclusively so. I do not see any reason to focus on the legal definition first, especially since it varies among jurisdictions. Many jurisdictions don't even call it "rape"; they call it "sexual assault" or other variants. Powers 23:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I would like to edit the opening sentence to use more general terms as it excludes female-female and some lgbt survivors. I think that would make a better second sentence with more inclusive wording such as "non-consensual sexual intercourse that is committed by physical force, threat of injury, or other duress." This language is less exclusive to non-male-female rape (which has been a big issue on this page lately especially male survivors).

Do you have any recommendations? I will edit it in in a while but am open to new ideas on this. I do think that one was too ambiguous but this one is too narrow.

--Survivor 22:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The opening paragraph appears extremely mangled right now, with sentence fragments and redundant wording throughout. I don't have time to fix it up, and don't want to get involved in an edit war if I take out someone's favorite phrase. =) Powers 23:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with Survivor's proposed language is that most jurisdictions would not view such as rape -- and the jurisdictions that do are adequately conveyed by the part of the definition that indicated that penetration by a non-penis object, oral copulation, or masturbation might constitute rape in some jurisdictions. --Nlu (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should come to a comprimise on this as Nlu's definition is objected to by at least two members. I did not delete any part of your def. but feel it is discriminatory against (for one thing) male survivors. That's a problem we need to resolve. There are four types of rape listed on this page and your opening sentence only allows (really) for one. It's only 1/4 accurate.

I also agree the wording is awkward and it doesn't sound at all professional. I think a shorter, more concise definition for the opening paragraph is in order. Getting specific about body parts like 'penis' right away actually sounds more like a medical definition than a legal one. In which case you would have to list all the body part combinations. It's sexual intercourse. That's pretty encompassing to lead off with. I personally find the findlaw def. to sound better.

--Survivor 01:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing, though, is that the FindLaw definition is legally inaccurate, in most jurisdictions, and it does not use precise legal language, in any case. That was the reason for my rewrite (after I found Michael D. Wolok's definition to be, to be honst, even more lacking in that area). Legal accuracy should not be sacrificed in the name of "non-discrimination." I also don't see how the wording is unprofessional, given that it mirrors California's statutory language. --Nlu (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to start a list at Talk:Rape/Act required by jurisdiction to show what American jurisdictions require for "rape"; I think that will show why penetration of the vagina by the penis still need to be referred to as what is required for rape. --Nlu (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So far, I'm through from Alabama to Indiana, and I'll take this up again when I have time. I must say that the trend is against what I thought was the case -- most jurisdictions have abolished the use of the word "rape" in defining offenses, and those who keep it have often expanded them. Still, I think on the balance the majority of jurisdictions that keep "rape" as an offense's name will be ones requiring penis-vagina penetration, and I think if we start blurring that despite the legal distinction, we might as well merge Rape with Sexual assault (which is what most jurisdictions now use anyway based on what I see). --Nlu (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

RAINN in the history of rape

"An important part of the history of rape is the foundation of RAINN in 1994 by Tori Amos and Scott Berkowitz. RAINN is central to the modern history of the rape crisis movement as it founded the national sexual assault hotline and provides statistics and information to the media."

I put this back into the history of rape. RAINN is the leading resource and the leader in the rape crisis movement. It is a national organization which in fact people rely on internationally (though the hotline is for the US). It is the crisis version of NOW and the women's movement from the 70's. It's an important resource as well as an extremely relevent part of history. RAINN changed everything for rape crisis centers and galvanized the movement.

--74.130.65.25 00:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)survivor

Mary Kay Letourneau incident

The following was added as a famous example of rape:

"One infamous example involved elementary school teacher Mary Kay Letourneau, who had two children with one of her students, who was 13 when she began her repeated rapes."

This is actually an example of "statutory rape" not forcible rape as it implies (the word rape when used alone implies forcible rape ). Whether statutory rape should be treated the same as forcible rape is controversial. Thus I would contend that this incident is not a NPOV example of rape by a female.

reply:

I don't think it is POV so much as it is simply statutory rape - which is a valid type of rape. You could add the word statutory inbetween repeated and rape.

--Survivor 23:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I see here the beginnings of an age-old debate which has never been resolved...is it possible for a woman to forcibly rape a man? The way this article defines rape, it is incredibly unlikely. Antimatter 06:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Types of Sexual assault

I don't want to start a NEW section on this but thought it might help to open up a discussion on the vocabulary of rape.

Stranger rape

-Blitz Sexual Assault -Contact Sexual Assault -Home Invasion Sexual Assault

Statutory rape
Child sexual abuse and incest
Acquaintance or "date" rape
Spousal rape or partner rape
Gang rape
Drug facilitated rape
Communicative or verbal / Virtual reality rape and abuse (such as A Rape in Cyber Space- graphic)
Forcible touching - intentionally and for no legitimate purpose forcibly touch the sexual or other intimate parts of another for the purpose of degrading or abusing their victim or gratifying the actor's sexual desire.
Sexual coercion - is defined as any situation in which one person uses verbal or physical means (including the administration of drugs or alcohol, with or without the other person's consent) to obtain sexual activity against consent. ( Adams-Curtis & Forbes, 2004)
Non-consensual tribadism or frottage.
Non-consensual cunnilingus.

other types of sexual violence

Nonconsensual "noncontact - such as voyeurism is also considered sexual violence." (Esposito, 2006)

as well as the types of rapists (i think intent does make a difference in how you communicate 'rape- but perhaps not in the legal sense. This is more along the philosophical thought line.)

power-assertive rapist, power-reassurance rapist, anger-retaliatory rapist, anger-excitation rapist.

and how they would link to the types of percieved intent of the rapist:

Perceived...

Intent to humiliate
degrade
disempower-----------would link to power-assertive rapist
intent to punish (power, hate crime)
intent to control (power)
intent for sexual gratification
intent to inflict bodily harm
intent to terrorize
sexual exploitation
shame
to show ownership of the victim

--Survivor 23:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this rape?

> "I would say that a mentally disabled person would need to have relations with someone at their own mental level."

Are you saying someone who suffers mental retardation should only have relations with another person who has mental retardation, and not have relations, date or marry someone who with a normal IQ or a high IQ? Are you saying someone who suffers manic-depression should only have relations with another person who suffers manic-depression? Are you saying it is always rape if someone who has a normal IQ has relations with someone who is retarded or vice versa? You seem to be saying someone who is retarded does not have the right to choose who they wish to have relations with? You seem to be saying, you don't respect the wishes of a retarded adult female who wants to date and have relations with a young male doctor because they are not at the same mental level? Should a normal person with an IQ of 180 be prohibited from having relations with someone with an IQ of 100 or everyone who suffers any mental disability? What if a male has an IQ of 180, but is mentally disabled, does this mean this person can't have relations with any normal female?

> "Having sex with someone who has passed out or clearly too intoxicated to say no is rape."

Is this true, even if you are married to this person or dating them, and you know they have no objection to your having relations with them while they are asleep? I don't really think "consent" is the issue, I think the issue is respecting the desires or wishes of the individual. I think people who are drunk should have the right to choose if they want to have relations or not. I've known females who couldn't stand to have sexual relations unless they were totally wasted. Were all men who had relations with these women rapists?

> "I think if the person is too drunk to give consent it is certainly rape."

This begs the question. What do you mean by too drunk to give consent? How drunk is too drunk? Are you saying anytime a female has relations with a guy who is so drunk he is falling off his feet, she should be prosecuted for rape? How do you determine if a person is too drunk to give consent? I don't even know what this means? Are you saying police should not accept the consent of anyone who is drunk to search their property?

--Grass

Wikipedia is not a place for a debate. This is in particular the reason why I think we should stick to the legal definition of what rape is, not what it should be defined as. --Nlu (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Grass,

I can give you my opinions but you will have to look up the legal guidelines on these (if that is what you are after). I think the legal system has let all rape victims down badly and this is in fact stated in many of the encyclopedia entrys I've read (for school).

Re: "Are you saying someone who suffers mental retardation should only have relations with another person who has mental retardation, and not have relations, date or marry someone who with a normal IQ or a high IQ?" Yes, I do. The same approximate level of ability to consent but i'm not sure what the law says. It's just how i feel about it. You are asking some detailed Q's and I can only give my opinion.

Re: "Is this true, even if you are married to this person or dating them, and you know they have no objection to your having relations with them while they are asleep?" If they gave blanket consent to have sex while asleep it is not rape, if they did not specifically (and this does not mean marriage vows/duties) give consent to have sex while asleep then yes- of course it is rape. Marital rape. I in fact know a few people very upset that this happened to them. I think if you just kiss them while asleep and you are a couple it's fine. They would then wake up and give consent.

Re: "Are you saying anytime a female has relations with a guy who is so drunk he is falling off his feet, she should be prosecuted for rape?" Yes, of course. If the man feels it was rape.

re "Are you saying police should not accept the consent of anyone who is drunk to search their property?" I'm not sure how this relates to the subject of rape.

I think there's the issue of consent you are missing here. Rape is something done without consent. Of course if someone gave consent it isn't rape. Not that i'm the rape judge or anything. These are all my opinions. We also had a huge discussion on this page last month on male rape by females. I'm sure it happens all the time unfortunately. I know alot of male survivors.

take care, --74.130.65.25 05:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

> "If they gave blanket consent to have sex while asleep it is not rape, if they did not specifically (and this does not mean marriage vows/duties) give consent to have sex while asleep then yes- of course it is rape. Marital rape. I in fact know a few people very upset that this happened to them."

Suppose, the female did not explicitly give blanket consent to her partner to have relations while she was asleep, but her husband felt she wouldn't mind, and in fact she didn't mind. Is this rape?

> Re: "Are you saying anytime a female has relations with a guy who is so drunk he is falling off his feet, she should be prosecuted for rape?" Yes, of course. If the man feels it was rape.

Suppose he didn't feel it was rape at the time, but felt it was rape after he sobered up? Does someone have an obligation to know what their partner will feel when they are sober? This places a great burden on one partner, and takes all responsiblity away from the one that gets drunk. It seems we are absolving people who drink for their actions and consent while drunk. This is contrary to the way we normally deal with people who are drunk. Suppose two people who are drunk out of their minds have sexual relations with each other. Have they raped each other? Does it depend upon how each one feels after they become sober? Doesn't rape require "mens rea"? All of this has great relevance to the content of this article. I hope eveyone here can see this.

> re "Are you saying police should not accept the consent of anyone who is drunk to > search their property?" I'm not sure how this relates to the subject of rape.

Should "consent" when person is drunk be good for some legal purposes, but not for "sexual relations"?

> I think there's the issue of consent you are missing here. Rape is something done without consent.

Yes, that is the definition I gave.

> Of course if someone gave consent it isn't rape.

Even if they were drunk and they regretted giving consent when they are sober? Even if the person is mentally disabled? If someone over 18 years old gives verbal consent to sexual relations that should mean there is no rape, but the first paragraph of the entry says it is rape.

Types of play during consensual sex.

Humiliation, degradation, disempowerment, punishment, control, power, sexual gratification, intent to inflict pain, intent to cause fear, intent to cause shame to show ownership of the victim. I would just like to pont out that all this is part of consensual sex by people who like bdsm, S&M, and D/s. I submit that many rapists simply act out their sexual cravings when they can't obtain what they want from a willing partner. I think all the desires of a rapist can be looked upon as primal cravings of the archipallium that can have lawful expression. Many rapists may just not be bright enough to realize they can find consensual partners with whom to act out their primal fantasies. I suspect many rapists are just acting out their fantasies becaue they don't realize there are some partners who like things rough, and crave to be treated like slaves. Some consensual partners like to be treated as rough as some rapists treat their victims. Of course there is a bottomless chasm between having consensual sex, and non-sensual sex. But the big difference has to do with the desires and wishes of the passive partner, not the conduct of the active participant. If the active particpant finds a willing partner it is not rape. If he or she doesn't, it is. --Grass

Wikipedia is not a place for a debate?

Wikipedia is not a place for a debate. This is in particular the reason why I think we should stick to the legal definition of what rape is, not what it should be defined as. --Nlu (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Jim Wales, the creator of Wikpedia would disagree with you. First, there is a copyright problem with the definition you inserted into the article. Second, I see very little difference between the legal definition you gave, and the one I gave. Third, legal definitions differ greatly from country to country. Fourth, "rape" is not just a legal term, but a common word. It had meaning before there were laws that governed it. Wikipedia should start by defining "rape" according to its most popular meaning or its first historical useage. This is what respected dictionaries do. If you want to give the legal definition for rape, it should comae after the general definition or the historical one. Michael D. Wolok 06:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you let Jim Wales speak for Jim Wales, and you just speak for M. Wolok, OK? -lethe ^{talk +} 10:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely the legal definition of rape depends on the country... - FrancisTyers 13:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean not for this type of debate. See WP:NOT -- specifically, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, which you are turning it into. --Nlu (talk) 06:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't really looked at the previous discussion, but I can say this: a talk page is for discussing changes to an article, and not for general discussion of the subject. Debates on the subject should be avoided, but debates about the wording of an article are certainly allowed. — TheKMan^talk 06:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting what I am doing. I wish you could find one other person who agrees with you. It seems to me as if you are acting tyranical, forcing your POV and your beliefs on others. We had a debate as to whose definition was better, mine or yours. Then before we got sufficient input from others, you went and inserted word-for-word a definition from another website, which was a third definition. You don't seem to play fair. If I had been so bold to put in some definition without discussion, you would have immediately reverted it. I have no great objection to the new defintion you just added, it is virtually identical with the definition I first inserted, and you reverted. My main objection to it is it is unnecessarily long, overly legalistic and plagerized.

Michael D. Wolok 06:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

False. I did not insert a "word-for-word definition from another website" (which would be copyright violation); I wrote my own based on my understanding of the law (and I've been a criminal defense attorney for more than five years). --Nlu (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

See style guide in Lead section:

The lead section should contain up to four paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide a preview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable. The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, should be written in a clear and accessible style, should be carefully sourced like the rest of the text

At the moment the lead section does not give a preview of the main points, does not summarize the primary reasons and is not capable of standing alone as a concise overview. It goes into far too much detail about one aspect only, namely what is or isn't rape. This level of detail is best covered in the main text of the article. Also it would be much better to use Footnotes rather than external links embedded in the text. See featured article Douglas Adams for example. -- Tyrenius 07:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The lead section tries far too hard to define rape instead of giving an overview of the article. Discussion of what constitutes rape should be discussed in the article. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 09:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And, as I said way above (just yesterday), it focuses too much on the legal definition, no doubt because Nlu is a lawyer. I'd like to take a stab at it but there is apparently much rancor here and I'm not sure I want to get involved. Powers 11:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

How is this?

Here are my suggestions. They are general and not overly legalistic.

"Rape is non-consensual penetration of the vagina or anus. Sometimes non-consensual oral sex is classified as rape. Rape is usually achieved by physical force, the threat of injury or some manner of coercion."

or maybe:

"Rape is penetration of the vagina or the anus against the wishes of the individual. It is usually achieved by physical force, the threat of injury or some manner of coercion."

By the way, "Lethe" is stalking me. I don't know if any administrator can do anything about this.

Nlu sounds very arrogant and is trying to control this page, and force his legalistic version on everyone else. I have no problem with others criticizing my suggestions, but Nlu acts and writes like he owns this place. This is the way Lethe acts in another entry. They are both very insulting, impatient, and quick to condemn the contributions of others.

"Powers", "Jereth," and "Tyrenius," I will support each of you and others who wish to help make the introduction to this article better. If you need my help to stop Nlu from reverting your text, you can count on me.

Michael D. Wolok 22:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I am not editing this article. I have merely made a comment after your RfC request. I would also like to point out that it is not very conciliatory, as Nlu is apparently a lawyer, to give a negative portrayal of lawyers. There are good and bad in every profession. We all know that, but the passages above are way off topic and, in the circumstances, could be considered a personal attack. I suggest you delete such text from above, as a gesture of respect for fellow editors and a statement of your willingness to work towards a consensual solution. For what it's worth, my suggestion for a first sentence is:

Rape is when sex is forced upon someone against their wishes.

There needs to be a summary of the main points of the whole article in the lead section, not detailed examination of what constitutes rape and sex—this should just be summarised, with an indication that it can be seen differently at different times and in different cultures etc. The main text can go into the details.

Tyrenius 01:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with Tyrenius and was going to write much the same thing. Powers 01:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though I'd like to suggest replacing "against their wishes" with, "without their consent". That covers statutory rape and other non-consenting situations. The lede and intro should both be brief yet cover the whole field. -Will Beback 01:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

How's about:

Rape is when sex is forced on someone against their wishes. Statutory definitions, depending on the jurisdiction, can include non-consensuality, as, for example, when someone is asleep or too drunk to give informed consent.

Tyrenius 01:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I tried to be very friendly with Nlu even though he reverted my text without explanation or discusion. Then he said, "I will be bold" and made his own additions without any discussion or agreement. He has been very patronizing. I have tried to make peace with him on several occassions, but he just attacks everything I write without rhyme or reason. Now, he has made all kinds of false accusations against me. He has falsely accused me of saying "sex with an unconscious person is not rape." He acts like he owns this article. See what I wrote to him on his talk page, and how I first tried to work with him here. He has been very patronizing and dismissive.

Michael D. Wolok 02:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, please read the discussion page before adding your own comments.

"Rape is when sex is forced on someone against their wishes."

Not all "sex" against someone's wishes is "rape"!!! If you forcibly kiss a girl on the lips, that is not generally considered rape, nor is forcibly removing a female's clothes and touching her breast and bottocks normally considered rape. This actions would merely be considered "sexual assualt" or "sexual battery." The word "sex" can include a lot of things that are not normally considered rape. I really had no problem with Nlu's change, except it was overly long and legalistic, and seemingly taken from another source. Nlu's change was just an expansion of what I first wrote.

Michael D. Wolok 02:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sex is normally taken to mean penetration, not touching someone's buttocks! Kissing someone on the lips is not considered rape, because kissing is not considered sex. That is why forcible acts of this nature are described as "sexual", not "sex". The article just needs a simple intro. Tyrenius 03:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"Will" wrote:

"I agree, though I'd like to suggest replacing 'against their wishes' with, 'without their consent'. That covers statutory rape and other non-consenting situations. The lede and intro should both be brief yet cover the whole field. -Will Beback 01:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC")

Clearly, Will's definition does not include statutory rape. "Statutory rape" is by definition a consenting situation!!!! If it is a non-consenting situation, it is not "statutory rape" but ordinary, garden-variety "rape." "Statutory rape" is rape even though consent is present. Normally, if there is consent, there is not "rape." Or as they say, "consent" is a defense to the charge of rape. "Statutory rape" does not fall under the general definition of "rape," that is why it is called: "statutory rape." "Statutory rape" means an act not generally considered rape is rape because the law (statute) says so. "Statutory rape" = rape according to law, not rape according to the general meaning of the word. In other words, sexual relations with a consenting minor would not normally not be called "rape." It is the law that makes it so.

Michael D. Wolok 02:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be one sentence that covers every single aspect of the subject. It is an introductory sentence. Other aspects can be included in following sentences. For example:

Rape is when sex is forced on someone against their wishes. Statutory definitions, depending on the jurisdiction, can include non-consensuality, as, for example, when someone is asleep or too drunk to give informed consent. Statutory rape can also include consensual sex in particular situations, such as one of the partners being a minor.

Not so difficult really. Let's concentrate on making it work... Tyrenius 03:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nlu, With all due respect, I like Nlu's intro better. You write: "Statutory definitions, depending on the jurisdiction, can include non-consensuality, as, for example, when someone is asleep or too drunk to give informed consent."

This is very misleading and confusing. The common meaning of the word "rape" is non-consensual sex. You make it sound as if non-consenual sex is only rape because that is how the law defines it. You further seem to imply that "non-consensual sex" equals sex with someone who is asleep or drunk. That is just one POV. The most common viewpoint is sexual relations with someone who is asleep or drunk is not necessarily non-consensual sex. It depends upon the circumstances. For example, if two people are married, and the female doesn't mind if her husband has sex with her during her sleep, few people would call this rape even though she did not give consent. Moreover, no court would find the husband guilty of rape. The wording is very awkward.

Then you write: "Statutory rape can also include consensual sex in particular situations, such as one of the partners being a minor." "Statutory rape" only includes consensual sex. If sex is not consensual, it is not statutory rape, but ordinary, garden-variety rape.

Finally, "force" is not a requirement for rape. The mere threat of force can make an act rape, so can other kinds of coercion or duress. For example, if a police officer tells someone they will arrest them if they refuse to have sex, that can be called rape.

Michael D. Wolok 04:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me to keep Nlu's intro. I'm just responding to your RfC and am not going to edit this article. It's easy enough to amend my suggestion however:

Rape is non-consensual sex. This is usually when sex is forced on someone against their wishes, either through physical force or a threat of violence or other forms of coercion or duress.

However, non-consensual has two meanings. It can be that consent has been expressly denied, or it can mean that is hasn't been obtained (but it hasn't been denied either), when for example the person was too drunk. There needs to be a distinction drawn between the two definitions, and I was attempting to do so. Here, as I said judicial definitions will vary, even between Scotland and England. Here is the Scottish interpretation:

But where the accused has no involvement at all in producing the victim’s state of insensibility and where he happens upon her by chance and has sexual intercourse with her when she is totally unaware of his presence and intentions, then it cannot be established that she demonstrated unwillingness. Therefore, it cannot be shown that any force was used to overcome unwillingness which never existed in fact; therefore, there is no rape.[6]

Here we have non-consensual (as consent has not been given) but not rape, according to the (Scottish) law. That is why I said, "Statutory definitions, depending on the jurisdiction, can include non-consensuality, as, for example, when someone is asleep." "Can" means it is possible, not that it is always the case.

Another distinction that needs to be made is between common usage (and the variation in time and culture), and legal definitions (which as I have shown vary also). A major problem seems to the the wish to make one single statement on the subject, where a NPOV can only be achieved by representing the differing viewpoints, and, furthermore, not by giving ones own opinion but by citing sources and referencing them. Tyrenius 06:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Article Too Long?

This article seems too long for me. Has anyone considered converting certain sections into articles? - Mtmelendez 17:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Mtmelendez. Chop it up. This article is remarkably well cited and referenced. It's good, but its so long. I think it's a Featured article in the making with some minor length changes Antimatter 06:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged the article with the "Very Long" template so that users can discuss it here. I agree with Antimatter that this is a very good article, it just seems that there is too much information on one page, especially when considering the subject matter. It prints into about 34 pages, which definitely surpasses the recommended size of 12 to 15 printed pages (more than 30 to 35 KB of readable text) by the WP:long article guidelines. So please dicuss this recommendation here. Any suggestions are appreciated. Mtmelendez 14:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I was casually reading this article (I'm working on fornication atm), and I think it is too long as well. Splitting up this sort of article shouldn't be too hard, but then I wouldn't know what parts of the bibliography i should move to new pages etc. Here is a lay perspective of how the article might change.

Change the opening paragraph to about 2 sentences
Merge Causes of Rape with Profiles of Rapists and form a new article, perhaps with sociobiological theories as well.
Make 'reporting of rape' a new article, and allow it to expand via cross cultural differences.

Merge 'effects of rape' with the 'loss of privacy' section and some parts of the 'some aspects' section, such as 'victim blaming'

Take the 'law' section into a new article, also expand via cross-cultural differences.

Move 'history of rape' into a new article, but leaving behind a few aspects, such as how it is now considered a war crime.

Delete the 'non sexual usage' section, you've covered that in the introduction.
Move the "quotes" to wikiquote.

Effectively, you want to stick to the basics. Just have a short introduction, a brief history section, analyse the types of rape, and then leave links to everything else. Also, I know that pictures would be too crude, but are there any graphs availiable or something like that? A J Hay 06:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources needed!

You need more sources, for example in the "effects of rape" section. User:CameoAppearance removed "homosexuality" (and not any of the other supposed effects). Try to find verifiable, reliable sources for those items, otherwise people will continue to think most of that shit is just made up. Dabljuh 13:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)