Talk:Rape/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

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

Very recent, excellent source

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)
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)

main image

was changed here with no reason given, to image with an oblique view of the (apparently) relevant scene on a vase. i changed it back here. Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I already talked to that editor about changing images. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, he has to be watched. Johnbod (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Statistics

Flyer22 Reborn Just wondering: Shouldn't it be noted in the summary that the vast majority of rape is committed by males or do you feel this is a given? Jayx80 (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Jayx80, yes, that should be in the lead. I didn't see that you'd added that when I reverted your edits. I've restored it. It was in the lead before (meaning in the past), but it was worded differently and cited to old research. And, as you can imagine, there are some editors who would prefer that this bit not be included in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah okay, thank you for that then! Jayx80 (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Just wanna say I'm glad to see this pop back up on my watchlist with some active editors working to improve it. Good on you. TimothyJosephWood 21:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Jayx80, I'm going to have to ask you again to stick to what the sources state and do not WP:Editorialize. These articles do not need extra emphasis or exaggerations. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn Okay, my apologies. Is there a particular example I did, just so I can better understand. Thanks.Jayx80 (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Jayx80, in the article's edit history, you can clearly see my criticisms of your edits sometimes not sticking to what the sources state and you engaging in WP:Editorializing. Same goes for my reverts of some of your edits at the Domestic violence article and what I stated when reverting you with this edit at the Intimate partner violence article. I gave you examples at Talk:Domestic violence. In the case of the Rape article, look at this edit; besides what you added being somewhat excessive, you changed some material that to text that is not supported by the sources. You changed "can be" to "are frequently." You changed "Lack of consent" to "Lack of freely given consent." With this edit, we see more of the same; you changed "found" to "claimed." I understand removing "found." But "claimed" is an issue per WP:Claim. You could have easily added "reported" or "indicated" in its place. You changed "false" to "likely to be false." We see more of the same with this edit, where you added in "However, some factors have significant causal evidence supporting them." and changed "sometimes" to "frequently," and "often" to "usually." You changed "A number of gender role stereotypes can play a role in rationalization of rape." to "Ambivalent sexist attitudes play a primary role in rationalization of rape." Why remove "gender role stereotypes"? Where is your source for "ambivalent sexist attitudes play a primary role in rationalization of rape"? And then there is this latest edit you made. Why are you adding "frustrated" against "uncomfortable" so that it reads as "uncomfortable/frustrated"? Unless you know that the source supports the term, do not add it. At least you came back and added a source for one part of that edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Jayx80, I would hope you are listening. If not, this is something I would consider escalating to a noticeboard. Jytdog and I are pretty good at catching things like this, but we should not have to monitor your edits. Another thing to worry about with your edits is your use of wording from a site. See WP:Close paraphrasing#Quotation of non-free text and WP:In-text attribution. Quoting material without it being clear where the quote came from, even if one looks at the source from a glimpse, is an issue. For example, a person might see that the quote is from the CDC, but the CDC might be quoting someone else. With this edit, you used victimlaw.org. Why should we care what victimlaw.org states? With this edit, you added "if a victims' advocate had not been requested." Do you know that the source states that? If not, you should not have added it. All of this is what I mean about your edits sometimes needing scrutiny. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the criticism.

As for the ambivalent sexism part, isn't that what the source is about? It's about benevolent/hostile sexism which is called Ambivalent sexism. That's why I changed it.

As per changing false to likely false, they cannot know allegations are false as though it is a definite fact. They simply cannot verify that with rape due to its nature, so it seems highly unsound without adding uncertainty.Jayx80 (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Jayx80, you asked, "isn't that what the source is about?" It is not clear which of the two sources supports the gender roles line, or if both do, but neither is titled "benevolent/hostile sexism" or "ambivalent sexism." The first source is "Neumann, S., Gang Rape: Examining Peer Support and Alcohol in Fraternities. Sex Crimes and Paraphilias," and, currently, there is nothing else given in the reference (no URL, no page number, no nothing). The second source is this 2008 "The kaleidoscope of gender: prisms, patterns, and possibilities" source, from Pine Forge Press, and I don't see the terms benevolent sexism, hostile sexism or ambivalent sexism in the source. So, again, it is not up to you to decide that a piece of text is about something and then add wording for your belief. It is up to you to WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Do read WP:STICKTOSOURCE. This policy also applies to you changing "false" to "likely to be false." It is not up to you to question the source and then add your personal commentary. It is up to you to stick to what the sources state. If you have reliable sources that question the methodology and/or reliability of a source, then you can add material on that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi - protected edit request on 15 September 2017

Please amend reference [60] to read:

Bracha, H. Stefan (September 2004). "Freeze, Flight, Fight, Fright, Faint: Adaptationist Perspectives on the Acute Stress Response Spectrum". CNS Spectrums. 9 (9). Cambridge: 679–685. doi:10.1017/S1092852900001954. ISSN 2165-6509.

Thanks. 92.8.176.91 (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Causes

The "Causes" section only gives reasons for male-on-female rape, as does its source. It doesn't address the male-on-male rape common in militaries and prisons. I recently read about a psychologist who said this was linked to alpha behaviour, which is also the most obvious explanation. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

You mean the "Motives" section. It does state, "No single facet explains the motivation for rape; the underlying motives of rapists can be multi-faceted. Several factors have been proposed: anger, power, sadism, sexual gratification, or evolutionary proclivities." With the exception of "evolutionary proclivities," that doesn't apply only to women. And the Statistics and epidemiology section does note that "research on male-on-male and female-on-male rape is rare." Anyway, the Rape of males article goes in depth about issues men who are raped face; a little of that can be summarized in the Motives section. I wouldn't use the sources from that article, however, since they are generally poor (meaning media sources and/or primary sources). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Rape :: Prosecution

Subhead - Reporting

The first paragraph of this Subheading in the main article of Rape is speaking of Great Britain. The third sentence, however, uses the abbreviation "U.S.". Undoubtedly "U.K." was intended, as the very next and final sentence in the paragraph once again continues the U.K. theme. Please edit this, as I was unable to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innocentantic (talk • contribs)

I don't think that was meant to be UK as they don't have states. I made it into a new paragraph to reduce confusion. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi.

<<The majority, 68.5% of these women answered 'no' when their intention was 'maybe'. The other 39.3% answered that when they have said 'no' really meant 'yes'.>>

Hmm...

68.5% + 39.3% = 107.8% — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krakengreen (talk • contribs) 19:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Use of WP:SCAREQUOTES for "sexual assault"

As seen here (followup note here), I reverted Rebroad's use of quotation marks around the word sexual assault.

As for his use of "does not require," that is unnecessary and awkward wording. Why should that wording be in front of "but may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority, or against a person who is incapable of giving valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, has an intellectual disability or is below the legal age of consent."? We already state "may" to cover all of the bases. And is the "does not require" wording supposed to refer to force, or everything on the list? I ask because the wording certainly is not clear. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the words "does not require" are needed to avoid people assuming that at least one of the items in the list of "may"s need to be true. --Rebroad (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Rebroad, no, they are not, per my argument above. And your scare quotes around the term "sexual assault" certainly are not needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Flyer22 is correct on both issues. Gandydancer (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
The scarequotes are not necessary, and we shouldn't be using wikilinks in quotes anyway. At best the "does not require" is probably needlessly wordy. "May be" already indicates a possibility which is not requisite. GMGtalk 16:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Diagram "graphical representation of rape perpetrators"

This diagram's final category, "Someone whom the woman was in love," is not a complete clause. It should be changed to "Someone with whom the woman was in love" or "Someone who the woman was in love with." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.181.51 (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

"Sexual Slavery"

The sentence "Widespread and systematic rape (e.g., war rape) and sexual slavery can occur during international conflict" implies that sex trafficking (i.e. sex slavery) occurs exclusively or primarily in times of war, but sex trafficking occurs frequently outside of war time, so I propose that this sentence be shortened to "Widespread and systematic rape (e.g., war rape) can occur during international conflict." Perhaps the article should discuss/link to sex slavery/trafficking elsewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.181.51 (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Freeze

Hello all, i bump a lot these daysand with the metoo trend about the "freeze" reaction to agressions and rapes. In the news and medias it's cited as a well known psychological response, as well as a problematic one since law inforcement look for resistance to prove rape. So I made a search on the topic just now on wiki and i barely found anything. Few words and sources in article rape. Same on Fight-or-flight response. An article Freezing behavior about animals predators-preys interaction. Nothing substantial. Did i miss the spot? Should[we start an article Freeze (rape)? Yug (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Yug, you need to find WP:Reliable sources on this first, preferably non-media sources. Per WP:Red link, red links shouldn't be created if the topic is not WP:Notable or is a WP:No page matter. So you should assess whether the red link you added to the article should remain. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Country bias - The United States

Article is regionally biased. It heavily concentrates on the situation and practices in the United States - especial in the section "Treatment" which is all basically about the treatment in the United States but only explains it at the very beginning even though the other pars are also only about the situation in that particular country. I hereby request (since I cannot do it myself) that a template globalise/US|section|date=May 2018 be added to te section "Treatment" of the article. 90.178.238.149 (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2018

In the motives section "However, some factors have significant causal evidence supporting them." is pretty weasel wordy.It come just before mentioning the David Lisak study which gives the appearance that the study is what it is referring too.It would need a source to do this so can the quoted sentence be removed.

Also why is David Lisak mentioned here and no one else, hell not even his co-authors name is given, maybe someone should cut that and add Hypermasculinity to the preceding list with the study as the source.

"both undetected and convicted rapists are... more impulsive, disinhibited, anti-social...and less empathic."Someone needed a study to come to that conclusion! 220.253.119.187 (talk) 10:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Newslinger talk 11:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

An issue in the False Accusations section

Citation 142 is used to support claims that it does not support that also are self-contradictory. In particular, the article states the following concerning the designation "no further police action" (NFPA):

The researchers noted that where the police found a case to be a false allegation but didn't want to pursue charges against the accuser, they marked it as "no further police action" instead. All of these complainants were then charged or threatened with charges for filing a false police report.

However, this is not supported by the original document the citation points to an abstract of. The study instead states:

In 17 cases (2.1 per cent), the case outcome was clearly categorised as a false report and the alleged victim was either charged or told that she (there were no male victims amongst these 17 cases) would be charged unless she dropped the complaint. While this represents only a fraction of the sample, the findings will show a much larger proportion of cases where police were confident, or reasonably confident, that the allegations were false but there was no attempt to institute charges against the alleged victim.[1]

The article appears to claim the "no further police action" cases always resulted in potential charges for the complainant, while the study states potential charges were only always an issue when it was a clearly false report. Additionally, the article seems to imply all of the "no further police action" cases were definitively false allegations, while the study does not. In fact, the closest part of the study that I can find to this is:

In contrast, in 77 or 30 per cent of cases that resulted in NFPA, members indicated that they were confident or reasonably confident that the victim was making a false report.[1]

Finally, the only part (other than the earlier excerpt from the study) I can find to support the comment about the police not wanting to charge the accuser (in the case of "no further police action") is:

Instead, in almost 40 per cent of the cases that resulted in NFPA, the police decision appeared to be predominantly based on reasons to do with the victim.[1]

Nothing in the study implies that police are choosing to not charge in the case of a clearly false accusation. The study is clear about that. These are simply cases many officers believed to be false but did not attempt to press charges.

I'm new here and sorry if my formatting is off (or someone has already said something about this). I just saw something that was self-contradictory (and seemingly at odds with other information in the article, with no mention of the difference in the data) on a page that is currently socially relevant and thought someone should mention it.

References

  1. ^ a b c "Study of Reported Rapes in Victoria 2000-2003" (PDF), Statewide Steering Committee to Reduce Sexual Assault, Office of Women’s Policy, retrieved 2019-06-06

Ynyr3435 (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

sources

some of these are dead links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.195.219 (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The rape of men: the darkest secret of war

I'm surprised to notice that this source[1] is not at all used in the article.

Sexual violence is one of the most horrific weapons of war, an instrument of terror used against women. Yet huge numbers of men are also victims. In this harrowing report, Will Storr travels to Uganda to meet traumatised survivors, and reveals how male rape is endemic in many of the world's conflicts

—Srid🍁 17:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are you surprised, when the source is a media source and not an academic source? Furthermore, various media report on a number of things, but that obviously doesn't mean that all (or even any) of those media sources will be added to the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

___

References

  1. ^ Storr, Will (2011-07-16). "The rape of men: the darkest secret of war". The Observer. ISSN 0029-7712. Retrieved 2019-11-24.

Miriam Gebhardt's claim that as many as 190,000 women were raped by U.S. soldiers in Germany [201]

The source article casts a lot of doubt on Miriam Gebhardt's claim.

[1]

"Gebhardt makes the assumption that 5 percent of the "war children" born to unmarried women in West Germany and West Berlin by the mid-1950s were the product of rape. That makes for a total of 1,900 children of American fathers. Gebhardt further assumes that on average, there are 100 incidents of rape for each birth. The result she arrives at is thus 190,000 victims.

Such a total, though, hardly seems plausible. Were the number really that high, it is almost certain that there would be more reports on rape in the files of hospitals or health authorities, or that there would be more eyewitness reports. Gebhardt is unable to present such evidence in sufficient quantity."

"Another estimate, stemming from US criminology professor Robert Lilly, who examined rape cases prosecuted by American military courts, arrived at a number of 11,000 serious sexual assaults committed by November, 1945 -- a disgusting number in its own right."

for further consideration

[2]

"U.S. troops

In Taken by Force, J. Robert Lilly estimates the number of rapes committed by U.S. servicemen in Germany to be 11,000.[58] As in the case of the American occupation of France after the D-Day invasion, many of the American rapes in Germany in 1945 were gang rapes committed by armed soldiers at gunpoint.[59]

Although non-fraternisation policies were instituted for the Americans in Germany, the phrase "copulation without conversation is not fraternization" was used as a motto by United States Army troops.[60] The journalist Osmar White, a war correspondent from Australia who served with the American troops during the war, wrote: 

   After the fighting moved on to German soil, there was a good deal of rape by combat troops and those immediately following them. The incidence varied between unit and unit according to the attitude of the commanding officer. In some cases offenders were identified, tried by court martial, and punished. The army legal branch was reticent, but admitted that for brutal or perverted sexual offences against German women, some soldiers had been shot – particularly if they happened to be Negroes. [61]

As in the eastern sector of the occupation, the number of rapes peaked in 1945, but a high rate of violence against the German and Austrian populations by the Americans lasted at least into the first half of 1946, with five cases of dead German women found in American barracks in May and June 1946 alone.[59]

Carol Huntington writes that the American soldiers who raped German women and then left gifts of food for them may have permitted themselves to view the act as a prostitution rather than rape. Citing the work of a Japanese historian alongside this suggestion, Huntington writes that Japanese women who begged for food "were raped and soldiers sometimes left food for those they raped."[59]

In 2015, German news magazine Der Spiegel reported that German historian Miriam Gebhardt "believes that members of the US military raped as many as 190,000 German women by the time West Germany regained sovereignty in 1955, with most of the assaults taking place in the months immediately following the US invasion of Nazi Germany. The author bases her claims in large part on reports kept by Bavarian priests in the summer of 1945."[62] " ---

Sorry, this is my first time doing anything on Wikipedia, be gentle. Not going to bother sourcing, but one Redditor postulates that Miriam Gebhardt could be trying to drum up news for her book on the same topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stickerlight (talk • contribs) 15:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/book-claims-us-soldiers-raped-190-000-german-women-post-wwii-a-1021298.html
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany
I agree that the claim is dubious at best, given what's written in the source for that quote. I think we should probably add a disclaimer after the number saying that the number is probably lower according to the source that's already on there. DrinkV0dka (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Female rape of males

I really think an important point may be missed here – culture rejects the idea that a man can be raped by a woman because men are supposed to always want sex. I can find some literature on that if people agree this is needed in the article. With such a delicate matter, I wouldn’t want to make a bold edit. IWI (chat) 00:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

ImprovedWikiImprovment, the Statistics section somewhat addresses this; it states, in part, "Most rape research and reports of rape are limited to male-female forms of rape. Research on male-on-male and female-on-male rape is rare. Fewer than one in ten male-male rapes are reported. As a group, males who have been raped by either gender often get little services and support, and legal systems are often ill-equipped to deal with this type of crime. Instances in which the perpetrator is female, are not clear and lead to the denial of women being sexual aggressors. This could obscure the dimensions of the problem. Research also suggests that men with sexually aggressive peers have a higher chance of reporting coercive or forced sexual intercourse outside gang circles than men without such sexually aggressive peers."[1] As seen with the "on male-on-male and female-on-male rape" mention, the section points to the Rape of males article for further detail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I concur, forced envelopment is just as much rape as forced penetration.[2]1Veertje (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Gwartney-Gibbs PA, Stockard J, Bohmer S (1983). "Learning courtship aggression: the influence of parents, peers and personal experiences-". Family Relations. 35 (3): 276–282. doi:10.2307/583540. JSTOR 583540.
  2. ^ "Can a Woman Rape a Man and Why Does It Matter? | SpringerLink".

It's not something you should have to request be added, there is a clear underlying tone in most of the articles about rape that basically all rapes are committed by men.- The Axolotl of Justice The Axolotl of Justice (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Concur with the above comments. I propose adding something to the Scope Section of the article along the lines of 'Rape can include male against female, male against male, and female against male', with the two articles mentioned above, namely Gwartney-Gibbs and McKeever, as references. However, are there still restrictions on who can edit the article? I was going to simply proceed with this edit, and a template came up indicating there were some restrictions. Sue2016 (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

What is it you are concurring with? And why do you think your suggestion is needed when the Scope section states, "Victims of rape or sexual assault come from a wide range of genders, ages, sexual orientations, ethnicitities, geographical locations, cultures, and degrees of impairment or disability."? And when, like I stated, the Statistics section notes what it notes? That stated, in the Scope section, we could include "rape of males" in some way. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm also not sure why your proposal neglects to include "female against female." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that, and in answer to the above question, I'm concurring with the suggestion made on 27 February back in 2019 by editor IWI, that female against male rape is something which is rejected by our culture, because men are supposedly always wanting sex, and the implied suggestion from IWI that we include something more specific about this in the article. Logically this would fall under the Scope Section. And yes, point taken about the need also to include "female against female" within the Scope Section, if we are to make such an amendment. Sue2016 (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
While I don't object to the Scope section including "rape of males" in some way, I'm not convinced that it should get into issues covered at the Rape of males article. The Scope section is currently very small. And adding material there on the issues discussed in the Rape of males article would be giving WP:Undue weight to men as victims. As for a topic like "made to penetrate" with regard to men, that can go in the "General" subsection of the "Definitions" section. Also, to repeat, we already cover the fact that "most rape research and reports of rape are limited to male–female forms of rape. Research on male-on-male and female-on-male rape is rare." This and a bit more (including dismissing women as sexual aggressors) on the topic of the rape of males is in the "Statistics" section. To me, it seems that text such as "As a group, males who have been raped by either gender often get little services and support, and legal systems are often ill-equipped to deal with this type of crime" fits better in that section to accompany/provide insight into statistics regarding the rape of males. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2020

I am requesting to add Phoolan Devi on see also section. 45.125.220.162 (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

This topic is a bit too broad for adding links to specific notable cases in See Also – Thjarkur (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I think we should remove the image of The Rape of Proserpina.

This article focuses on a type of sexual assault. The artwork "The Rape of Proserpina" focuses on Proserpina being abducted and not actually being raped. From this artwork's Wikipedia page: "The word 'Rape' is the traditional translation of the Latin raptus, 'seized' or 'carried off', and does not refer specifically to sexual violence." 2601:205:4100:BD4:28F4:F6C1:27C2:CE61 (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you're right... Gandydancer (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
There has been no disagreement--I shall remove the image. Gandydancer (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

American exceptionalism

Is there any legitimate reason why the section on statistics is divided into "World" and then just one of the world's 200 countries? Is this country more important than the 96% of people who live outside it? Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Generally the reason is just that there has been more research in the US, and that research is more accessible to English speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.114.4 (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

"Assrape" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Assrape. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 18#Assrape until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Un assiolo (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Verification needed?

The text says "Worldwide, sexual violence, including rape, is primarily committed by males against females" but the source given does not mention this. It only mentions what kind of violence it is they recieve but do not compare the two. Obviously this is true, but I think better citation would be needed. Because I also would be interested how MUCH more likely this is. 50.1%? Or 99.9% ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:21A7:EF00:D96D:F843:D61B:B338 (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

No consent defense and DNA evidence - please clarify?

Can somebody clarify this? "Consent defense" means the accused admits the deed, but claims it was consensual. What would be the point of a DNA test if the accused already agrees that sexual intercourse took place?

A 1998 report by the National Institute of Justice found that DNA evidence excluded the primary suspect in 26% of rape cases and concluded that this "strongly suggests that postarrest and postconviction DNA exonerations are tied to some strong, underlying systemic problems that generate erroneous accusations and convictions". However, this study also noted that analyzed samples involved a specific subset of rape cases (e.g. those where "there is no consent defense"). Ketil (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Map about the rape of women

I think that since rape affects all genders that it would be less biased to display a map of rape in general instead of having a map which is only about the rape of women, that is if such a general map exists. Thomas Norren (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

% of men that are rapists

cf

  1. EU-27 Fundamental Rights Agency EU-27 statistics on Rape http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2014-vaw-survey-main-results_en.pdf
  2. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#By_country
  5. 1% of humans have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

any estimates?

Thank you, coming in from cognitive sciences and some help groups

PS If 99% of women think that 99% men are potential rapists, then instead of reaching out for help in a potentially threatening situation, women would not turn to men and put themselves in even more danger. That's not what we want of course, so ... what % of men are rapists? Imagine 99% of men are NOT rapists, but normal humans and would offer help, you could turn to them for help - that would increase prevention of assaults drastically !

cf the resources above: Perpetrators of rape are often serial criminals. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence

That concurs with other insights on the instinctual sexual break regarding incest, or insights on the 1%-ers = the 1% of humanity with an antisocial personality disorder (a neural disorder in the inner brain (can often be made visible with a brain scan and fmri scan), often portrayed as with 4 traits that alternatively flair up and come more to the forefront/retreat for another: narcissism, psychopathy, Machiavellianism, sadism. Their psychopathy axe = malfunctioning feedback loop on consequences, so not caring about consequences, those 1%-ers follow up on an impulse.

Idem self domestication of homo sapiens: group elemination of violent individuals, in favor or the survival of individuals that have insights/skills that favor the whole group. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-domestication#In_humans https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acOZT240bTA&ab_channel=UniversityofCaliforniaTelevision%28UCTV%29 SvenAERTS (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Lead image

On the image file page for the lead image "Comprehensive Scale of Rape (2018) - LRW-SCALE-11.svg" the description contains the following sentence: "For mapping purposes, we have divided that range into 5 levels". Is the creator of the image associated with the site the data was sourced from? If not, what are the bases for the categories? What criteria makes rape endemic in a country, and what criteria must the prevalence of rape in a country fail to satisfy in order to not be considered endemic? The Elysian Vector Fields (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rape/Archive_25&oldid=1149097791"