Talk:Rape

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Rape is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
March 7, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted


My last edit...(Effects/Emotional and Psychological)[edit]

My deletion of content today is definitely fueled by my own COI on this topic, but even if I was completely neutral on rape, the reference does not support the content. The reference uses blogs and opinions of individuals to support its claims. This reference doesn't match the lowest standard on WP to establish veracity. Nice try. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
As you yourself note, I think it is important to approach this from a neutral point of view, as difficult as that may be when the article is about a controversial subject. I noticed that you described the content as "nauseating" in the main edit (revert) that you made to the page itself. The fact that the content is disturbing to you, however, isn't a reason to revert the edit if the content is properly referenced. I will admit that the Popular Science article was not a good reference, because it did indeed depend on blog posts and dead links. However, the Popular Science article does include some references to much more scholarly articles with very similar content. The links may be dead, but it won't take much effort for me to find active links to the scholarly articles with this content. I plan to give this a day or so to give you a chance to respond, and then to restore this content (or very similar content) with better references. I recognize that the content is disturbing and controversial but that is not a reason to avoid it if it can be properly referenced. Moreover, if we are going to remove this content purely because we find the content disturbing, then the previous sentence (which I note you left in) regarding similar physical responses by male survivors should also be deleted for the sake of neutrality. I would question the reference on that one, actually, because a journal on obstetrics and gynecology seems a questionable source for information about male survivors. It is a disturbing subject, but if we are going to discuss it for male survivors, we need to do so for female survivors as well. So in sum--yes, my reference was questionable but there are good references out there for this subject, so it won't be possible to dismiss this purely on the grounds of it being disturbing content. Dash77 (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Need much better references. I've seen discussion about physical arousal during rape/sexual assault and there's some research on it and how to does affect both reporting, CJS response, and mental health. That said, that edit needs to be worded more encyclopedic. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough! The deletion was based upon the reference. I am honest enough to admit a COI, so that can be ruled out as the reason for the removal of the content. The reference itself is a 'reprint' (if there is such a thing in the digital universe) of the same article in a different media source.(I traced it to a blog.) Look here, and here where I have found no mention of the pleasurable nature of rape for women (or men). I know you can't prove a positive statement by the absence of a negative statement, (logic) but I think I would have run across the information sometime, somewhere in my readings. Also, since the content I removed described a physiological response, the reference should be based upon MEDR and not popular literature. Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS) (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I fixed it Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Barbara (WVS), regarding your revert, I had to go ahead and note in the edit history that the sexual arousal/sexual pleasure content is correct. Experiencing sexual pleasure during rape is one of the things that psychologically devastates a rape victim, because it makes them question whether or not they truly didn't want the rape. Similar has been documented regarding victims in cases of child sexual abuse. When it comes to adults raping adults, there is not much research out there on the "sexual pleasure during rape" aspect, mainly because the victims aren't willing to admit to it because of the stigma associated with it. Like this 2003 The Trauma of Sexual Assault: Treatment, Prevention and Practice source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 56, states, "As with men, some women experience orgasm during sexual assault and this can be a source of difficulty (Sarrell and Masters, 1982). We are not aware of research demonstrating how common this response is or the range and intensity of any difficulties with which it is associated." This 2013 Recovery: How to Survive Sexual Assault for Women, Men, Teenagers, and Their Friends and Family source, from Columbia University Press, page 29, states, "A few women do have orgasms when they are raped, something they usually don't want to admit to anyone. If this happened to you, you are probably devastated. You might think it means you must have secretly enjoyed the rape, that the myths about women being masochistic and wanting rape are right. And you know that if people found out, they wouldn't sympathize much with you as a victim. You are also deeply ashamed and likely to despise yourself. To some extent, your worries are justified -- most people will take your orgasm as evidence that you enjoyed the rape and so won't sympathize with you. But those people are wrong." The next page of the source goes on to explain how a person might orgasm during rape. In this 2014 Psychopathology and Psychotherapy: DSM-5 Diagnosis, Case Conceptualization, and Treatment source, from Routledge, page 141, the scholars recount the case of Jason, who stated that his rapists (male perpetrators) laughed at him because he had an orgasm while being raped; the men stated that he must have liked being raped since he had an orgasm. Jason started crying when retelling his story and was wondering if he was gay because he had an orgasm during the rape. And when it comes to the child-adult aspect specifically, there are a lot of scholarly sources mentioning the matter, like this 2010 Disability and Child Sexual Abuse: Lessons from Survivors' Narratives for Effective Protection, Prevention and Treatment source, from Jessica Kingsley Publishers, page 134, or this 2011 Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church: A Decade of Crisis, 2002-2012 source, from ABC-CLIO, page 174.
There should definitely be something about this in the article. Well, the child sexual abuse stuff can stay regulated to the Child sexual abuse article. Anyway, our editors need to leave their personal POVs at the door on these issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And, Jytdog, thank you for fixing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

A superb edit, Jytdog, with an excellent reference. A single case study mentioned in a book about arousal is probably not appropriate as discussed above. Listen, the little episode of finger-wagging at me for deleting inappropriately referenced content is probably not necessary and there are plenty of times where I have admitted a conflict of interest without a problem. That is not the issue for this particular edit: the reference was bad. Flyer, for all the content that you put into the talk page, more of it should go into the articles. I've noticed a lot of editors leave content suggestions on talk pages (not just you) but then wait for someone else to insert it. Go ahead. Be bold! Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS) (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Barbara (WVS), the issue here is that you let your COI get in the way of retaining verifiable and accurate information. This is not about case studies. It's about the fact that there are reliable scholarly sources that support what you removed. You claimed above, "I have found no mention of the pleasurable nature of rape for women (or men)." You clearly did not look hard enough. Furthermore, the body finding pleasure doesn't mean that the person finds it pleasurable. As seen here and here, regarding your views and/or your research methods, this is not the first time you have done this type of thing. I've edited plenty here, for years, as many know. I am not that interested in heavily editing Wikipedia anymore; many editors get like that after editing at this site for years and years. And I recently noted on my talk page what my issues are with this site. There are select Wikipedia articles that I mainly focus on these days. I do not simply go to talk pages suggesting improvements. If I want something improved, I usually do the work myself. The exceptions are when I am debating someone on the talk page, pointing to sources that they can easily find themselves, especially when I am challenging their edits, or when I am gauging reactions about what can be done to improve an article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Just a thought, but as a social worker, I have unfortunately had experience in this area, and it is unfortunately a thing. Stay tuned for lots of other objectively terrible reasons why I'm no longer in the field. TimothyJosephWood 00:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts Flyer and I strongly agree. At the risk of again being publicly shamed, I would like to see some of the info I tried to add included in the article. Many people just do not understand this aspect of rape at all and the more that we can do to include it in our articles, the better. Anyone that thinks that in these "modern" times we are more understanding of the horror that a women that has been raped goes through only includes the act itself needs to think again. I have worked with victims for several years and I can say this with some authority. The only "nauseating" thing about it is that some people continue to find it nauseating. Gandydancer (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

For the lead sentence, making clear whose consent is needed[edit]

Doc James, just to explain why I reverted you here, I did so because stating "without the person's consent" is not the same as stating "perpetrated against a person without that person's consent." The first wording says "the person's", but who is that person? The consent cannot come from any person; one cannot validly give their consent for a person to rape another. The consent has to come from the person in question. Stating "perpetrated against a person without that person's consent" makes it clear that the consent needs to come from the person in question. In 2015, I reverted because of a similar issue with not noting where the consent must come from.

Do you see what I mean? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

IMO this is overly complicated "a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration perpetrated against a person without that person's consent."
It can be simplified without changing the meaning to "a type of sexual assault involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration without the person's consent."
"usually" is not really needed
And "the person" replaces "perpetrated against a person" as the person indicates already that it must come from the person in question
The prior version is needlessly complicated. "perpetrated" is an overly difficult word. This means less people will understand what rape actually is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Doc, I objected to "the person's consent," per what I stated above. It begs the question: Which person's consent? Like I stated, the lead sentence should be clear that the person we are referring to is the person who was raped. The wording "perpetrated against a person without that person's consent" is clear about that. "Usually" is used because, as made clear lower in the article, rape is usually defined in the law by sexual intercourse/sexual penetration against one's will, while other sexual acts/non-penetration against one's will are not defined as rape as often. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Perpetrated is a common word; I can't see it causing a comprehension problem. But the sentence needs a rewrite, because at the moment it says "Rape is a type of sexual assault ... perpetrated against a person without that person's consent", which implies that there are other forms of sexual assault that could occur with consent. SarahSV (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't view the "without that person's consent" wording in that way, and I doubt readers generally would. But what wording do you propose? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The first sentence of the Definitions section states "initiated by a perpetrator against a victim without their consent." We could use that. Or, to be clearer, "initiated by a perpetrator against a victim without the victim's consent." But Doc James prefers to stay away from the word victim in medical articles. And, in Romeo and Juliet law cases, it's common that the underage people don't see themselves as victims. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I would keep it simple in the first sentence. Off the top of my head: "Rape is sexual penetration without consent." If you want it longer, you can unpack it in several ways: "Rape is sexual penetration, including sexual intercourse, without the consent of the victim". Or "Rape is the sexual penetration of a person without that person's consent", and so on. SarahSV (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The reason that I prefer "sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration" is because penile-vaginal sex is still prioritized in enough laws, and this usually equates to "sexual intercourse" under those laws, while other types of sexual penetration may not be considered rape and are instead regarded simply as sexual assault. The article covers this. And the reason I prefer to keep "usually" is because the article notes that non-penetrative sex may also be considered rape. "Usually" leaves room for rape not solely being defined as penetrative. I also think noting that rape is a sexual assault in the first sentence is better than putting it in a separate sentence, but I could support it being in a separate sentence.
I could go with "Rape is usually sexual penetration, especially penetrative sexual intercourse, of a person without that person's consent." Or something like that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I get that the sentence I just suggested would grammatically fit if I changed "of a person without that person's consent" to "without the consent of the victim," but I'm trying to avoid "victim," per what I stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That penetration is not always required is doubtful. The source (Encyclopedia of Rape, p. 169) doesn't elaborate, so I would question that unless you can find other sources. There's nothing wrong with using the word victim; the legal definitions do. SarahSV (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

That reference cites pages 169-170. Have you looked at page 170? If the source is misused in the article, then that needs to be fixed. When it comes to legal definitions of rape, I am not aware of countries that don't require penetration (except for cases that consider rape and sexual assault to be the same thing, and the cases that consider any form of child molestation to be child rape), and I was trusting the addition of that source (which I did not add; I think Doc James added that source, but I'll have to look in the edit history to be sure). If we look at this 2014 Preventing Sexual Violence: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Overcoming a Rape Culture source, from Springer, page 38, it supports the content that the aforementioned source supports; it states, "In some instances, rape is defined as a penetrative offence [...] This is in contrast to the much broader definition of rape at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), where rape was defined as 'a physical invasion of a sexual nature committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive'. Some definitions thus treat sexual assault, sexual violence and rape interchangeably, whereas definitions that focus on the penetrative element of the offence tend to treat sexual violence as the broad, umbrella term that includes sexual assault as a non-penetrative sexual offence and rape as a penetrative sexual offence. To complicate matters further, in some instances, sexual assault is used interchangeably with rape as a penetrative offence."
I know that some scholarly sources define rape broader or make a case for some non-penetrative sex acts to be defined as rape. As noted in the Non-penetrative sex article, non-penetrative sex isn't even defined consistently. Some sources, for example, consider oral sex to be penetrative, while other sources don't...especially in terms of oral sex on the vulva (rather than oral penetration of the vagina). And what I stated about some forms of sexual penetration being regulated to sexual assault instead of being categorized as rape stands, as noted by this 2016 Crime and Criminal Justice: Concepts and Controversies source, from Sage Publications, page 49.
It seems that you object to "or other forms of sexual penetration" because you feel that it "implies that there are other forms of sexual assault that could occur with consent", but similar could be stated of the suggestions that don't include "or other forms of sexual penetration." I'm considering other alternatives, but I've been over them a lot. I've looked at a lot of rape definitions, including dictionary definitions. The current wording is the result of having repeatedly considered what is the best wording to accommodate the different definitions of rape. For example, we included something like "in which a person is [...]," but then that was changed because we occasionally got people wanting to add "in which one or more people are [...]," as if we were neglecting gang rape.
As for "victim," I can be fine with using it, but I still feel that Romeo and Juliet law cases should be kept in mind. There are a number of sources that address the topic of consensual sex between an 18-year-old and 17-year-old, for example, being labeled rape...especially since the age of consent is inconsistent. For example, this aforementioned 2016 Crime and Criminal Justice: Concepts and Controversies source, from Sage Publications, page 49, states, "Some would consider the crime of statutory rape a victimless crime, as individuals in these cases often do not define themselves as victims." That stated, this argument is usually made in the case of those who are close in age. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

More on non-penetration[edit]

Re: non-penetration, see p. 169. It says Germany passed rape laws that did not involve penetration. But it doesn't explain and it sounds unlikely. It won't let me see p. 170. SarahSV (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, unless there are reliable sources that cast doubt on that source's statement, I'm not sure that we should doubt that source. And there is also the "Preventing Sexual Violence" source that I cited above.
On a side note: I'm sure that you saw, but Jytdog changed "perpetrated" to "carried out." I considered doing that, but it was used and changed before, and, on Wikipedia, I generally try to avoid what may have been debated in the past. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
It appears that the source misunderstood the 1997 German law. It's described here, Section 177. Note: "especially if they ... entail penetration of the body (rape)". SarahSV (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I just got through looking at different sources about rape in Germany, including sources in the Rape in Germany article, and I'm not sure what to believe on whether or not non-penetrative sex counts as rape in Germany, especially when considering how rape and sexual assault are used interchangeably by some of these countries, but I removed "as in the case of Germany" for now. Its rape law also changed in 2016. There is still the matter of what I stated above with sources. On top of that, some sources make it seem like the convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence does not limit rape to sexual penetration. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm moving this sentence here, because I find it doubtful: "In some instances, penetration is not required for the act to be defined as rape."[1] That source seems to base the claim only on Germany, and it appears not to be correct of Germany, so we should find other sources. SarahSV (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Smith, ed. by Merril D. (2004). Encyclopedia of rape (1. publ. ed.). Westport, Conn. [u.a.]: Greenwood Press. pp. 169–170. ISBN 978-0-313-32687-5. 
It is not only based on Germany. It is also used to support the statement that "The 1998 International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda defines rape as 'a physical invasion of a sexual nature committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive'." And I already cited a source above that makes it clear that this definition is broader than sexual penetration. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
We need a source that states clearly that rape is not always penetration. It makes no sense to call non-penetrative sexual assault "rape", so that claim is a bit of a red flag. That doesn't mean it's false, but it does mean we need high-quality sources stating it plainly. Is there a UN definition? SarahSV (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
This 2014 Preventing Sexual Violence: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Overcoming a Rape Culture source, from Springer, page 38, is quality enough. It is WP:MEDRS-compliant. There is nothing that states that the source needs to be even higher in quality. I repeat: The source states, "In some instances, rape is defined as a penetrative offence [...] This is in contrast to the much broader definition of rape at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), where rape was defined as 'a physical invasion of a sexual nature committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive'. Some definitions thus treat sexual assault, sexual violence and rape interchangeably, whereas definitions that focus on the penetrative element of the offence tend to treat sexual violence as the broad, umbrella term that includes sexual assault as a non-penetrative sexual offence and rape as a penetrative sexual offence. To complicate matters further, in some instances, sexual assault is used interchangeably with rape as a penetrative offence."
Your contention that "[i]t makes no sense to call non-penetrative sexual assault 'rape'" contrasts that source and other sources that note that the terms rape and sexual assault are sometimes used interchangeably. It contrasts my statement that some scholarly sources define rape broader or make a case for some non-penetrative sex acts to be defined as rape. It also neglects my statement about the how the definition of non-penetrative sex (or outercourse) is defined inconsistently. Non-penetrative sex does not simply mean groping/fondling.
I will get back to this matter later. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Flyer, these are not good sources. They take one misunderstood or poorly worded definition, and from that they extract a general claim. (What is meant by "invasion" if not "penetration"?) Rape is penetrative sexual assault. If there is a legal definition that says otherwise, let's cite it.
The terms rape and sexual assault are sometimes used interchangeably in the sense that the latter is used in place of the former, but not vice versa. SarahSV (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
What part of WP:Reliable sources or WP:MEDRS states that the sources I cited are not good sources? If I cite more, are you simply going to state that they aren't good sources? An IP recently stated similarly at a different talk page, but medical editors supported the sources I listed there. As you know, we go by what WP:Reliable sources state. And some WP:Reliable sources make it clear that rape is not always defined as penetrative. Furthermore, this article does not only concern legal definitions, and that is because rape is not solely a legal topic. But like I stated, I will get back to this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I can't see the relevance of MEDRS to this. An ideal source would be a scholarly legal source that discusses definitions of rape around the world and notes that they do not always include penetration. Or a report of a real case of someone being prosecuted for rape where there was no allegation of penetration.
The only point I was making about sources is that if the article is going to include a surprising claim, we need to cite a very reliable source and write with a high degree of precision, so that we can be certain the source hasn't simply misunderstood something (as the Encyclopedia of Rape entry may have done, though we can't see page 170 so perhaps it's clarified there). SarahSV (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Re: Rwanda, they seem to have concluded that rape involves penetration, according to Human Rights Watch. See Case Law of the International Criminal Tribuanal for Rwanda, 27. Search for "non-consensual penetration, however slight". SarahSV (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I had a chance to rest and look at more sources. As for your latest comments, you can't see the relevance of MEDRS to this, even though the topic of rape is a medical topic in addition to being a legal topic? A significant amount of material in this article is based on medical sources and the setup of the article is based on WP:MEDMOS#Sections. The topic of rape concerns a number of fields, all represented by WikiProject tags at the top of this talk page. So I can't agree with your comment that "an ideal source would be a scholarly legal source," just like you don't agree that ideal sources for the Veganism article are veganism organizations such as The Vegan Society, despite the fact that we continue to get editors stating that we should be prioritizing the Veganism Society's definition because it is authoritative. Just like the definition of veganism is inconsistent in the literature, so is the definition of rape. Doubly so for rape. No, more than doubly. The legal sources differ. There is no universal definition of rape, and many of the sources we come across are Americanized. Even when looking for sources for global definitions of rape, the matter is never addressed in its entirety because comparing rape cross-culturally is difficult for a number of reasons, including the fact that researchers define the term differently. There is nothing in the WP:Reliable sources guideline that would disqualify this Preventing Sexual Violence source and this Crime and Criminal Justice source that I listed above, or the vast majority of the sources that I am listing below. The sources are in line with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, given the range of fields covered by the topic of rape. Rape has legal definitions, medical definitions, psychological definitions and social definitions, as various scholarly sources note, including some in the article. And WP:MEDRS states that "academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers" is a type of ideal medical source. I follow that; I don't just cite any ole book.
Rape usually means sexual intercourse or some other form of sexual penetration. I have not challenged that. In fact, at this talk page, I have twice debated Doc James on not having this article merged with the Sexual assault article. I have been against that since not all countries use the terms rape and sexual assault interchangeably, and since rape is notable in its own right, and since groping a woman's breasts, for example, is rarely ever considered rape (if ever), and is never legally considered rape (except maybe for Sweden, which is a country I will get to in a moment). But I am stating that there are instances where rape is defined broader than sexual penetration by sources and rare instances of it being legally defined beyond sexual penetration. See below:
A few general sources defining rape beyond sexual penetration (over the years).

1. This 1999 reprint Sexuality in America: Understanding Our Sexual Values and Behavior source, from A&C Black, page 173, states, "Defining rape is complicated by the fact that there many types of definitions. [...] Some researchers base their definitions on legal definitions, which makes them subject to the same biases as legal definitions; others make conscious decisions to deviate from legal definitions, which they find biased or inadequate. [...] Prior to the 1970s, rape definitions of sex often included only penile-vaginal sexual intercourse. This definition has been criticized as too phallocentric, promoting the ideas that an act must involve a man's penis and must have the potential for reproduction to count as 'real sex' (Muehlenhard, et al. 1993b; Rotkin 1972/1986). Currently, most definitions of rape use broader conceptualization of sex, including many kinds of sexual penetration (e.g., penile-vaginal intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, anal intercourse, or penetration of the genitals or rectum by an object). Some definitions are even broader, including behaviors such as touching someone's genitals, breasts, or buttocks (Estrich 1987; Koss 1993a)."

2. This 2007, revised Cambridge Handbook of Psychology source, from Cambridge University, page 839, notes that researchers are divided on whether any (as in every) kind of unwanted sexual activity should be classified as rape.

3. This 2012 Sexual Violence and Abuse: An Encyclopedia of Prevention, Impacts, and Recovery source, from ABC-CLIO, page 628, states, "Though terms and definitions vary, in criminal law, many jurisdictions define rape as a type of sexual assault involving sexual intercourse, or other forms of penetration of a person without that person's consent. [...]. For U.S. jurisdictions, the criminal acts used to define rape vary according to the type of sexual activity (e.g., with or without penile penetration) and who can or cannot be the victim or offender. Some jurisdictions have a broad definition of rape that includes all forced sexual activity. In addition to types of penetration, these forced sexual activities may encompass nonpenetration sexual activity including oral copulation and masturbation. Other jurisdictions define rape in a narrow fashion to cover only acts involving the penile penetration of the vagina and/or anus of a female, treating all other types of nonconsensual activity as sexual assault." Notice how the source calls oral sex "non-penetrative sex," which is what I was stating above about some sources defining non-penetrative differently? That stated, I read one review that indicates that all of the U.S. states define rape by sexual penetration.

4. This 2015 Interpreting Sexual Violence, 1660–1800 source, from Routledge, page 16, notes that whether or not non-penetrative sex is included, and whether or not anal and oral sex are considered equal to vaginal sex when dealing with rape, is considered. The source states that there is little consensus on these views. And looking at how different U.S. states define rape, I agree with that. Penetration with the fingers, for example, is often considered less severe than penile-vaginal penetration in terms of rape law. And, yes, I know that this source is about the eighteenth century, but it's not focusing on the eighteenth century for that part.

5. This 2016 Psychology of Gender: Fifth Edition source, from Routledge, page 547, states, "You might expect that rape is a straightforward concept with a straightforward definition. However, there are many definitions of rape. Definitions vary regarding the specific behavior that distinguishes rape from other sexual acts. The most conservative definition of rape restricts the behavior to penile-vaginal penetration. Other definitions include other forms of sexual contact, such as kissing, fondling, oral sex, and anal sex." Yeah, this definition is very broad since forced kissing being defined as rape is unlikely.

Let's look at Sweden.

Regarding Sweden

I was reminded of the Assange case when researching this topic, and that reminded me that the definition of rape in Sweden is very broad. See the sources in that article, especially the translated text.

1. Also see this 2009 The Local source, which states, "In many countries, and in many people’s minds, rape means penetration, usually by a penis, into a mouth, vagina or anus. In Swedish rape law, the word can be used for acts called assault or bodily harm in other countries."

2. This 2017 National Review article states, "The image of hordes of immigrants raping Swedish women, however, is, to say the least, overheated. Getting accurate statistics on rape in Sweden is difficult. On one hand, the government, in obedience to feminist diktats, has broadened the definition of rape very considerably to include many things that most Americans would not consider rape."

3. This 2013 How to Work with Sex Offenders: A Handbook for Criminal Justice source, from Routledge, page 33, states, "The possible reasons for this high rate of reporting are debated due to Sweden's broad rape definition and because of the high propensity to report. Sweden passed new legislation on April 1, 2005 to strengthen and clarify an individual's right to 'sexual integrity and sexual sexual determination' and protect children and young adults from sexual violations (Regeringskansliet, 2005). This legislation updated the definition of sexual offense to 'sexual act,' broadening the meaning and ruling out any situations where the act could be seen as voluntary and mutual."

And then there is Rwanda, and some text noting that some countries have followed Rwanda's line of thinking.

Regarding Rwanda

Regarding Rwanda, you stated, "What is meant by 'invasion' if not 'penetration'?" Well, that is just one interpretation.

1. This 2011 Defining Rape: Emerging Obligations for States Under International Law? source, from Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, page 369, states, "It seems that the events in Rwanda, such as the use of the objects thrust into sexual organs, which in a conservative definition would fall outside the boundaries of the offense, inspired the broad definition, and led to a concentration on the intent of the act - that is, as a sexual invasion, rather than its actual technicalities. This is progressive in that the definition opens the way for a variety of acts that the perpetrator intended to be sexual and the victim experienced as invasive. It is therefore victim-sensitive since it considers the experience of the victim as the starting point. However, the definition is still qualified to the extent that there needs to be a 'physical invasion', not including, for instance, sexual touching, which could be considered a lesser form of sexual violence. The judgment has been criticized for its dwelling on 'invasion' of the body, which is seen by some as referring to 'penetration'. However, it does not solely refer to penile penetration but also the use of other body parts and objects. Rather, 'invasion' was purposefully chosen instead of 'penetration' to focus on rape from the perspective of the victim, who is invaded, rather than the perpetrator."

2. Talk of rape in Rwanda often points to the Akayesu case, which defined rape beyond sexual penetration. This 2013 Transitional Justice in Rwanda: Accountability for Atrocity source, from Routledge, page 277, states, "The Akayesu case also advances a progressive understanding of sexual violence. The case resulted in the first conviction of rape as a crime against humanity and genocide and the judgment gave the first ever definition of rape in international law, finding that rape is an act of aggression that 'cannot be captured in a mechanical description of objects and body parts'. It defined rape as a physical invasion of a sexual nature, committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive', which went far beyond the usual definition framed in terms of sexual violence, finding that sexual violence need not even be physical."

3. This 2013 The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law source, from Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, page 551, states, "The Trial Chamber of the ICTR gave a broad definition of rape (para. 688) as 'a physical invasion of a sexual nature, committed on a person under circumstances with are coercive'. The Chamber noted in this context that coercive circumstances need not be evidenced by a show of physical force; 'threats, intimidation, extortion and other forms of duress which prey on fear or desperation may constitute coercion. The Trial Chamber added that sexual violence, including rape, was not limited to physical invasion of the human body and may include acts that do not involve penetration or even physical contact."

4. This 2014 Principles of International Criminal Law, from OUP Oxford, source, page 2310, states, "973 The elements of crime were formulated to reflect the case law of the international criminal Tribunals. In the Akayesu case, the Rwanda Tribunal defined rape as a physical invasion of a sexual nature that must be accompanied by coercion, while the Yugoslavia Tribunal, in the Furundzija case, first characterized rape as (i) sexual penetration of a bodily cavity of the victim (ii) using coercion or force or threat of force against the victim or a third person.

974 However, the ad hoc Tribunals modified their approach after the Elements of crimes were adopted. In the Kunarac et al. case, the Trial Chamber of the Yugoslavia Tribunal found this emphasis on the coercive element too restrictive. In the Court's view, a comprehensive comparison of the world's criminal law systems shows that the accent has been less on the exercise of coercion or use of force than on whether it occurred against the victim's will. Element (ii) was therefore reformulated. The Appeals Chamber affirmed the Kunarac definition. The result is that focus of the definition of rape has shifted from the perpetrator's objective to the victims opposing will."

5. This 2015 Comparative, International, and Global Justice: Perspectives from Criminology and Criminal Justice source, from Sage Publications, states, "[I]n later cases, Trial Chambers of the ICTY declined to follow this [the Akayesu] approach. Instead, they surveyed how rape had been defined in national jurisdictions, and, in two cases, defined rape in terms of sexual penetration of enumerated parts of the body using force or coercion, or threats of force or coercion (p 254). In further cases before the ICTR, the Akayesu definition has sometimes been followed, but other cases have applied the ICTY definition. In national laws about rape, traditional rape inquiries have focused on the victim and the issue of consent, but a number of jurisdictions such as Canda, Italy, and numerous U.S. states have adopted the Akayesu approach. For example, Canada has replaced rape with sexual assault which recognizes the element of aggression and recognizes that rape is a crime of violence and domination and is not about sexual passion (Eboe-Osuji, 256)."

Of course, there's also the aforementioned Preventing Sexual Violence source which states that Rwanda was going beyond sexual penetration with the "a physical invasion of a sexual nature committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive" definition.

I've argued that "usually" should remain in the lead because there are some cases where sexual intercourse is not solely defined by sexual intercourse or sexual penetration. A lot of sources also state "usually" when they define rape by sexual intercourse or sexual penetration. One could ask: "Why would they do that if rape was always defined by sexual penetration?" But it's not like there's only one reason. Either way, it's clearly not WP:OR to state "usually."

Sources that qualify the term rape with "usually" or "generally."

1. This 2001 Drug-facilitated Sexual Assault: A Forensic Handbook source, from Academic Press, page 3, states, "Rape is generally defined in state laws as forced or nonconsensual sexual intercourse."

2. This 2010 Legal Nurse Consulting Practices, Third Edition' source, from CRC Press, page 99, states, "The crime of rape generally refers to the act of nonconsensual sexual intercourse in which the perpetrator forces the victim by using physical force, threat, or other duress."

3. This 2011 Human Sexuality: The Basics source, from Jones & Bartlett Publishers, page 225, states, "More commonly, the word rape refers to nonconsensual sexual behavior, generally forced penile penetration of a bodily orifice."

4. This 2013 Clarke's Analytical Forensic Toxicology source, from Pharmaceutical Press, page 289, states, "Rape is usually non—consensual sexual intercourse, and in some states it refers only to penile—vaginal penetration."

5. This 2016 An Invitation to Health source, from Cengage Learning, page 593, states, "Rape generally refers to sexual intercourse with an unconsenting partner under actual or threatened force."

6. This 2016 The SAGE Encyclopedia of Marriage, Family, and Couples Counseling source, from Sage Publications, page 1513, states, "The term rape generally refers to an act of sexual intercourse that involves force or coercion, or when the victim cannot give consent."

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The above mixes up several issues. To recap, this is about the first sentence:

"Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without that person's consent."

Problems: (a) no source for usually, and (b) assault means that the act was non-consensual (bearing in mind the complexities of consent), so the sentence says non-consensual twice.

Briefly:

  • Rwanda requires penetration; the Swedish allegations against Assange involve penetration; the Rape in Sweden article is unclear.
  • This is about penetration, not intercourse, not penises. All the sources under the "usually/generally" heading are about intercourse and/or penises.
  • It's best to avoid tertiary sources, unless they're very high-quality.
  • What is required is a high-quality and appropriate source (not a bare RS or MEDRS minimum), preferably a scholarly source that cites its sources, that says unambiguously that rape has been defined as non-penetrative sexual assault (again, not necessarily entailing intercourse or a penis). It would also be good to cite an example of a conviction for rape, as opposed to sexual assault, for a non-penetrative sexual assault.

SarahSV (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's productive to keep debating if you are just going to keep disregarding the sources or what they state, declaring them as not good enough. You asked me to show that rape does not always involve sexual penetration. I did. To recap:
1. I provided general sources stating that non-penetrative sexual acts may be defined as rape. Your suggestion of "It's best to avoid tertiary sources, unless they're very high-quality." does not comply with our WP:Verifiability policy. Going by the sources on rape, I don't see that the statement that "rape does not always require sexual penetration" falls under the WP:EXCEPTIONAL portion of WP:Verifiability. Furthermore, scholarly legal book sources are often WP:Tertiary sources. And our WP:Tertiary sources policy states, "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." And that is exactly what this case is -- a case where the tertiary sources are summarizing the literature on a topic that is contradicted by primary and secondary sources. Not liking what a number of WP:Reliable sources state and then suggesting that they are not good enough because they are tertiary sources is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. More on this and "very high-quality" at my number 5 point below.
2. I provided sources that explicitly state, or otherwise make it very clear, that Rwanda did not require sexual penetration in the Akayesu case, and that some cases have followed Rwanda in its Akayesu ruling. The Akayesu case was a conviction case. I repeat that this The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law source explicitly states, "The Trial Chamber of the ICTR gave a broad definition of rape (para. 688) as 'a physical invasion of a sexual nature, committed on a person under circumstances with are coercive'. The Chamber noted in this context that coercive circumstances need not be evidenced by a show of physical force; 'threats, intimidation, extortion and other forms of duress which prey on fear or desperation may constitute coercion. The Trial Chamber added that sexual violence, including rape, was not limited to physical invasion of the human body and may include acts that do not involve penetration or even physical contact." It is very clear to me that Rwanda has not always required sexual penetration for a sexual assault to classified as rape. There is no need for me to provide any other sources on that matter when I have provided a number of quality scholarly sources on it above, but I could easily provide more. Another source is noted at my number 6 point below.
3. I pointed to and provided sources making it clear that Sweden does not require sexual penetration for a forced sexual act to be classified as rape. I don't see that what is stated in the Rape in Sweden article is truly ambiguous when it comes to non-penetrative sex acts being classified as rape. Unless you can show that Sweden does require sexual penetration for a sexual assault to be classified as rape, I'm inclined to go by sources that state "In many countries, and in many people’s minds, rape means penetration, usually by a penis, into a mouth, vagina or anus. In Swedish rape law, the word can be used for acts called assault or bodily harm in other countries." and "[The Swedish] government, in obedience to feminist diktats, has broadened the definition of rape very considerably to include many things that most Americans would not consider rape.", and "This legislation updated the definition of sexual offense to 'sexual act,' broadening the meaning and ruling out any situations where the act could be seen as voluntary and mutual." The Assange case is neither here nor there; I only mentioned it because it reminded me of that fact that Sweden's rape classification is very broad. Some sources noted this broadness during the Assange case. More on Sweden at my number 6 point below.
4: Rape is still first and foremost defined as forced sexual intercourse, and sexual intercourse is usually defined as penile-vaginal sex and/or as other penetrative sexual acts. And it's still common that penetrative forms of sexual assault not involving the penis are classified as sexual assault instead of as rape. Some of the sources listed above and in the article are clear about this. So it is not surprising that rape sources use the word sexual intercourse or focus on the penis, or the penis penetrating the vagina. A number of sources also use the word usually with the word sexual penetration. So I still stand by my "usually" argument.
5: Your statement about "what is required" actually is not what is required; it is your opinion. And your definition of high-quality in this case is clearly debatable. A legal book source, which may be biased in its definition of rape due to the fact that it is focused on how America defines rape, and/or due to the fact that rape is defined differently across the world, does not make it a better source than the scholarly book sources I provided above; some of those are legal/criminal sources and/or do cite their references. I see no review articles on rape definitions, except for one or two focusing on America, or very old ones like this 1992 "Definitions of Rape: Scientific and Political Implications" source or this 1993 "Detecting the scope of rape: A review of prevalence research methods" source. There is nothing on PubMed about rape definitions (except for stuff like "law enforcement officers' perception of rape and rape victims" or "defining 'coercion' and 'consent' cross-culturally)." So your standards are completely unreasonable. There is no logical reason to doubt that the Akayesu case in Rwanda did not require sexual penetration when a number of solid scholarly sources state that it did not. Whether these sources are secondary or tertiary makes no difference. They are WP:Reliable, and are supported throughout the literature on the Akayesu case (WP:Due weight).
6: If anything, you have yet to show that rape is always defined by sexual penetration (emphasis on always), while I have provided a number of sources either explicitly stating that it is not or otherwise indicating that it is not. Even the aforementioned 2011 Defining Rape: Emerging Obligations for States Under International Law? source, from Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, states the following on page 112: "A limited number of countries have removed any requirement of penetration, for instance, the Polish Criminal Code [says] : 'any act intended to satisfy some sexual needs in the attacker.' [...]." It also states that Sweden's rape law has led to misinterpretation problems, including an interpretation that it focuses on sexual penetration. But, again, other sources state or imply that Sweden's rape law is broader than that, which is the main reason the prevalence of rape in Sweden is so high. Looking at this translation of the Swedish rape law, I do not see that it states that sexual penetration is required. In fact, it states "or endure another sexual act" in addition to stating that rape is forced sexual intercourse. If we look at Norwegian's rape law, section 192, it also appears to be broad, stating, "a) engages in sexual activity by means of violence or threats or b) engages in sexual activity with any person who is unconscious or incapable for any other reason of resisting the act, or C) by means of violence or threats compels any person to engage in sexual activity with another person, or to carry out similar acts with himself or herself, shall be guilty of rape and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years." I see no mention of "sexual penetration" there, and the term sexual activity is broad. In fact, this 2015 Women and Violence: The Agency of Victims and Perpetrators source, from Springer, page 131, explicitly cites Norwegian not only as having a gender-neutral rape law, but one that does not require sexual penetration. And if we look at this 2012 The Economist source, which analyzes rape definitions and the prevalence of rape (and mentions Sweden as well), it states, "The physical definition of rape varies too: English law defines it only as non-consensual penetration of any of three orifices by a penis. Elsewhere the crime includes other kinds of sexual assault." This 2015 Fair Labelling and the Dilemma of Prosecuting Gender-Based Crimes at the International Criminal Tribunals source, from Oxford University Press, page 30, states, "Some legislations go even further when they exclude the penetration element, and consider that any act that might satisfy the offender's sexual needs would be enough to find him guilty." Once again, the Akayesu case is cited (I mean that the "Fair Labelling" source cites the Akayesu case as an example of rape being defined broadly to include non-penetration). So from what I'm seeing by examining the rape literature is that stating "rape always requires sexual penetration" is the exceptional claim. As for any other convictions noted in the literature or media, if we go by this 2012 The Hindu source, "Penetration is not necessary for establishing the offence of rape, the Supreme Court has said." The man was convicted of rape even though there was no proof that sexual penetration had occurred. It does seem that the court had reason to believe that the girl may have been penetrated without tearing the hymen, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Very recent, excellent source[edit]

I am in the middle of some concentrated editing effort and can't get to incorporating this ref into the articles right now but it is a gold mine: http://file.scirp.org/pdf/AASoci_2017030815005071.pdf

Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS)   09:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS), that source currently copies almost the entire "General" subsection of the "Definitions" section. I do not consider sources that do this, plagiarize Wikipedia like this, to be good sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
You are correct, but there is still content in the journal that is not in WP. Feel free to not use the source.
Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS)   12:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
There is no guarantee that the source has not plagiarized other sources. It can be used to access additional sources, though, since it cites its sources (well, except for citing the fact that it copied some Wikipedia wording). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)