Talk:Rape/Archive 16

Why is the sociobiological section there?
Does anyone believe rape is do to "evolutionary pressures"? Does any school out there teach this? Any qualified professionals take this seriously? Are there any credible reports of someone raping women as an "evolutionary strategy" to pass on their genes? And then they have this crazed Camille Paglia person quoted as some men and women are genetically encoded to "allow themselves to be more vulnerable to rape." Have you read her page? Is this wacky art professor who wants to legalize drugs, considered a credible expert in this field? How about we change it to, "although not a single school or credible institution teaches this, during slow news days the media sometimes covers crazed crackpots with these ridiculous theories, so we'll link to a poorly made article about that."  D r e a m Focus  14:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the article it links to sums up the situation rather well. "Such theories are highly controversial, as traditional theories typically do not consider rape to be a behavioral adaptation. Some object to such theories on ethical, religious, political as well as scientific grounds." The mentality of the rapists who targets the mouth or ass is the same as the one going for the vagina.  Also, battered women are raped constantly, but the abuser isn't trying to impregnate them ever chance he gets, he just wants sex.   D r e a m Focus  15:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The sociobiological mentions have been heavily debated here on the talk page, mainly due to one editor who kept trying to make the sociobiological theory more prominent in this article (under different user names and such); just check the talk page archives for that mess. It used to simply be under the title Theories (if my memory is correct on that front). I would say it having its own section under Causes is WP:UNDUE, given that it is not as prominent a theory as the other suggested causes/motivations and is highly controversial. Some of the other causes/motivations should have their own sections before the Sociobiological theory should. The main point is that it was cut down due to all the issues with mentioning it, and it should probably be cut down again...to just a link. Flyer22 (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed it. There is already a section called "Motivation for rape", linking to the main article by that name, where it is listed, and its own article linked to.   D r e a m Focus  05:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly support removal- it had much more space in the main article than it should relative to other content. sonia ♫  05:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Though it's linked in the Motivation for rape article, which we link to, it wasn't directly linked in the Motivation section, and so I linked it where we already mention it. Flyer22 (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

False rape factual accuracy is disputed
The template refers me to the talk page, however the talk page doesn't have any currently active discussions about the section.

I would like to know what is disputed about the factual accuracy of the section, so that we can collaboratively work on fixing the problem. A terribly rated article like this on a important and controversial topic needs all the help it can get. --24.186.212.218 (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok it turns out that the discussion is under the headline Armistice. --24.186.212.218 (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

the modern criminal justice system?
The section on history had the following statement that appeared directly after the discussion of ancient history:
 * The modern criminal justice system is widely regarded as unfair to sexual assault victims.

As phrased, it contradicted what directly follows, which was worded in the past tense and clearly referred to times prior to the 1970's. It's also unclear whose system is being referred to. I changed this to read
 * Until recently, the criminal justice system of many countries was widely regarded as ...

I also removed the reference, since, as well as no longer applying, it is incomplete as there is no "Macdonalds" in any other reference on this page.

I'm not sure if this is the correct reading; someone with more knowledge should review this. I should also add that the statement as formerly worded does not pass neutral POV standards (see WP:NPOV), and would need to be reworded before being readded. Benwing (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say the Macdonalds reference should have been removed; it still applies as having been true for that time period. The statement is now left without a references, unless other references in the paragraph back it up. Further, Macdonalds being the only Macdonalds reference in the article is no reason to remove it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite of the lead making the term difficult to define
I reverted James500's edits because the lead was already extensively worked out here on the talk page, and James500's rewrite made the definition confusing and sloppy; not to mention...it defines rape first and foremost as the name of a statutory crime in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and other countries...and he added text that clearly needed sources. Further, his tagging of various statements (with the tags "dubious"/"where?"/"who?"/etc.) are uncalled for. All it takes is tagging a section with one large tag. And when a statement says "In America," it is pretty clear where..."where" is. Flyer22 (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I want to point out that he is apparently adding the same definition to other rape-related articles as well. Flyer22 (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that we've gone back to a more sensible system. Rape is far more than "the name of" anything.  Basically every country on Earth defines it as a crime under some circumstances, and it can still exist even in government-less places and situations that are not criminalized in a particular place.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The existing lead is no good because it is technically wrong.

There is no definition of the word "rape". There are multiple conflicting definitions both at common law and in a stack of statutes. Massively conflicting definitions. In fact the word has been redifined so many times that it has just about lost all meaning.

The present definition in the article does not purport to be a colloquial definition of the word rape. It says "in criminal law" rape means this ... Unfortunately it is not an accurate statement of what the word "rape" means as a term of art in criminal law (in every single jurisdiction). What rape means, at this moment, in criminal law is first and foremost "the name of a statutory crime in" various countries and possibly the name of common law offence in a few others.

And what text have I added that needs sources? (For the avoidance of doubt printed copies of Acts of Parliament and law reports etc are sources, if that is what you are referring to)

As for tagging a section with one large tag, if you show how to do that, I am perfectly prepared to do it.James500 (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing how the current lead is technically wrong (or how rape has no definition), considering that, as these source show, rape generally means:


 * the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.


 * any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.


 * A criminal offense defined in most states as forcible sexual relations with a person against that person's will.


 * Rape is the commission of unlawful sexual intercourse or unlawful sexual intrusion.


 * The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.


 * Our current lead says, "In criminal law, rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent." That's pretty consistent with the general definition of the term rape. We already go over the different definitions in the Definitions section, which largely pertains to jurisdictions anyway. But rape usually means sexual intercourse (penetration) against a person's will.


 * For past work-throughs of the lead in determining how to define rape, see Talk:Rape/Archive 12 and Talk:Rape/Archive 14. Both discussions are recent enough. And they are how we arrived at the current lead.


 * As for adding text that needed sources, an example would be your version of the lead, where it says Rape is the name of a statutory crime in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and other countries.


 * And tags? I mean tags such as the one currently found at Adolescence. Flyer22 (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed solution
The present definition could probably be fixed if the words "in criminal law" at the start of the page were replaced by the words "when used otherwise than as a legal term of art". Does anyone has any objections to that? James500 (talk) 05:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I replied above. First, I want to understand how "In criminal law" is wrong to use...when rape is generally defined by law...and by law as sexual intercourse (penetration) against a person's will. Flyer22 (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

1 The present definition says that absence of consent is always an element of rape. That is certainly not true. See, for example, section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

2 The present definition says that rape is a type of sexual assault. That is not true if the jurisdiction does not have an offence called sexual assault. To give one example, before the passing of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, England and Wales did not have any such offence. Rape was a form of "indecent assault on a woman" (section 14 of the 1956 Act) and, after 1994, also "indecent assault on a man" (section 15).

3 Determining what rape usually consists of (if anything) would be a non-trivial exercise in comparative law. Do your dictionaries have the resources to carry that out or credentials that would cause us to listen to them. This stuff doesn't look like it's coming from Butterworths or Sweet and Maxwell. Who are they?

4 Your dictionaries do not agree with each other as to what the definition of rape is, or with your definition.

5 What do you mean by "sexual intercourse"? The word "penetration" does not appear in your definition. Penetration of what? With what?

6 Some of the definitions offered by your dictionaries are flagrantly wrong.

7 If these dictionary definitions are your sources, they should be cited in the article.

8 The way in which you have conflated these definitions looks like OR.

9 Are they all intended to be definitions of the word rape as a legal term of art, or are they intended to be colloquial definitions?

James500 (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The absence of consent is what rape is. It does not have to be an expressed word of "no." Consent can simply mean without one's permission, such as if the victim is passed out drunk, or against one's will. If it is not against one's will, then it is not rape. "My dictionaries" do agree with each other as to what the definition of rape is -- they all clearly state that rape is sexual intercourse against a person's will. If they did not all state that, then I would not have cited them. "Indecent assault on a woman" is sexual assault as far as I see. Why are you saying that just because a jurisdiction may not have an offense called sexual assault, it is not sexual assault? There are different titles for rape too, but it is still rape. And what do you mean "penetration of what"? We all know that in regards to sex or forced sex, penetration counts as vaginal, anal or oral penetration. True, plenty of jurisdictions only define rape as vaginal penetration, and we go over that in the Definitions section. The point is that "sexual intercourse" covers every type of sexual penetration, and sometimes even non-penetrative sex. I am not conflating definitions or creating WP:OR. If anything, you are conflating definitions and nitpicking at trivial matters in regards to the general definition of rape. There is nothing colloquial about the fact that rape means sexual intercourse against a person's will. Further, you can question sources all you want, but when they are WP:Reliable sources, they may be used here at Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

10 Has it occurred to you that when the Free Dictionary refers to "most states", they could well be referring to the constituent states of the United States (which leaves out all Commonwealth countries, to begin with) James500 (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with how rape is generally defined? Every dictionary we pick up defines it as forced sexual intercourse/intercourse or some other sexual activity carried out against a person without their consent. Most definitions define it that way, period. The lead should go by the most common definition of rape first. Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

11 In "criminal law" of where? Rape cannot have any meaning "in criminal law" if it is altogether not used as a term of art in a jurisdiction. According to laws regarding rape, this is the case in Canada.James500 (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We had this debate before. Its somewhere in the archives now. Points I previously made: The legal definition changes between nations and even states. This article is not just about one nation, but something for an international community. A credible dictionary seen as a reliable source is the Webster's dictionary. It says at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rape%5B3%5D that rape is defined as "unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent". I think that definition works very well. Usually sexual intercourse, but not always, it including other things as well. The debate also went into how in the massive number of news articles found in Google news archive search, the term "sexual assault" is used interchangeably with "rape" regularly.  D r e a m Focus  10:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Used interchangeably by people who have no legal credentials or knowledge, and who do not know what they are talking about, and whose opinions do not therefore count as to the question as to what it means as a legal term, and who are only doing that because they are ignorant and do not know any better.James500 (talk) 11:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that Webster's dictionary is a reliable source for the legal meaning of any word. Try, for example, taking a look at their definition of bigamy. Whoever wrote it either completely failed to grasp the concept of a void marriage or just completely ignored it. That is not a mistake that a competant lawyer could make.James500 (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus, your dictionary definition is basically the same as the ones I cited above. However, I do not feel that we should include the "usually of a female" bit, as it is not a neutral definition, and we already go over the "most rape victims are female" issue a little lower. Some sources even state that male-male prison rape is just as prevalent. I also do not feel that the lead needs to include/go over "forcibly," "valid consent" and statutory rape. In my opinion, we should just stick to the "without that person's consent" wording. That covers "forcibly," "valid consent" and statutory rape as well (as people below the legal age for sexual relations are, by law, considered incapable of consenting to such acts with a person of legal age). Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually changed my mind about touching on "forcibly" and "valid consent," per my alteration to the lead, as witnessed below. It makes the lead clearer, and adds more to what was a single line before. Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If there is one jurisdiction where the word rape is not used at all, the words "in criminal law" should be omitted or at least qualified by "except in such and such" because they are demonstrably untrue.James500 (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If the word rape is not used at all, then how is it a problem to state "in criminal law"? Rape is a matter of law, which is why so many dictionary definitions, including the one cited by Dream Focus, state, "unlawful sexual activity" or "unlawful sexual intercourse." But your example of something being rape even if it is not called rape is exactly a point I made higher above, in response to you. Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be a problem because Canada has "criminal law".James500 (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean Canada does not have "criminal law"? I'm not seeing how it is a problem if they have it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just use the definition from the dictionary I listed above. No need for anything else.  No one is going to check the legal definition in every single nation and province/state/territory/whatever out there to see if that its what its called in criminal law everywhere.   D r e a m Focus  10:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have checked. Lawyers will check. In fact, some of them won't need to, because they will already know.

All I am asking you to do is to omit the words "in criminal law". Then it will be fine.James500 (talk) 11:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have answered you above. But as for removing "in criminal law," how is using "in criminal law" any different than using "unlawful sexual activity" or "unlawful sexual intercourse"? Considering that rape is a matter of law, which is why this article is tagged as law-related, how do we then convey that rape is determined by the law (legal system)? Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * One answer to this would have been to use an expression like "in the criminal law of those jurisdictions where the term is used". Or "of some jurisdictions". Or "of X number of jurisdictions". Although I think what you have now is okay.James500 (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I expanded the lead with Dream Focus's source (without including that whole definition), added the sources I cited above, as well as a World Health Organization source, and moved the "in criminal law" part to the end (specifying that "rape" is most often defined in criminal law). Now will you change your definition of rape from the name of a statutory crime in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and other countries in the Laws regarding rape article? That definition completely gives more weight to other countries than the United States, for example. Flyer22 (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My intention is to expand the list until it includes every jurisdiction that has an offence called rape. Something of this nature will be necessary as the article should contain complete details of all offences of rape (probably moved to sub articles for each jurisdiction as at Rape in English law) If the list becomes too long, I will probably fix it by substituting words to the effect of "in the jurisdictions listed in section such and such of this article below" possibly with an internal link i.e. "in the countries listed here" where the word "here" is linked.James500 (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, it seems you are okay with the new lead. Good. Glad we got that sorted out. But as for the Laws regarding rape article, I still state that the initial definition of rape should be clear/should reflect the general definition, as this article does. There should be no emphasis on any particular countries for the initial definition. Flyer22 (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as the criminal law is concerned there is no general definition of the word "rape". The definition of the word "rape" is whatever the statute, that happens to be in force at that place and at that time, says that it is - nothing more and nothing less. The definition of legal terms of art is, right or wrong, not done in a teleological manner.James500 (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as criminal law and most definitions of rape go, there is a general definition of rape. As I stated above, "Every dictionary we pick up defines it as forced sexual intercourse/intercourse or some other sexual activity carried out against a person without [that person's] consent. [Consent can mean expressed consent or otherwise.] Most definitions define it that way, period." That goes for most legal definitions of rape as well. What is so difficult about defining the lead of the Laws regarding rape article that way? It's not as though rape is ever considered to be "sexual acts with consent." People under the age of consent are, by law, deemed too young to consent. People who are mentally incapacitated are deemed unfit to consent. People tricked into sleeping with someone by impersonation may be considered to not have consented. "Consent" is most definitely the main issue in regards to rape. In the first past discussion I linked you to above (how we achieved consensus that first time), editors researched just about every definition of rape. While rape is usually defined as a sexual assault, rape being defined as "any sexual assault" is the exception, not the rule. The Laws regarding rape article should reflect this one in its initial definition. The same problem with your definition of the term in this article is the same problem with your definition of the term in that article. I objected to it being the main/initial definition, and I'm not okay with it being the initial definition in a different article related to rape either. The lead just looks plain messy. I will be tweaking that lead later, whether I have to put "usually defined" backed up by reliable sources or whatever. Flyer22 (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Dictionaries are not sources of law. They cannot tell you what the legal meaning of the word rape or any other word is.James500 (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What concerns me is this:
 * You appear to be asserting that there is a single legal definition of rape. There isn't.
 * You appear to be asserting that that the definitions of rape in various statutes etc can be conflated. They can't.

If you were going to talk about the definition of rape, you would absolutely have to talk about it being "usually defined" or, more probably, "most frequently defined" as something (with those words at the start before you say anything else). That said, I have serious doubts that you are going to find out what it is most frequently defined as by looking at dictionaries. Let's look at Webster's definition: Where's the mens rea? At most they have stated the actus reus. I thought it looked funny. This sort of mistake doesn't bode well.
 * Another user, Espoo, told me something to the effect that modern dictionaries record the most common usage of a word and are not interested in whether it is being used correctly.James500 (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, what I wrote is not messy.James500 (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * James500, will you stop trying to teach me what rape is and isn't? This is a topic I have studied extensively, among other sexual topics, and need no lesson in. You are wrong when you say dictionary sources cannot tell you what the legal meaning of the word rape or any other word is. Dictionary sources tell us what the legal meaning of words are all the time. Further, there are legal dictionaries, as displayed on this talk page before, and I included a legal dictionary version of one in this article's lead. I could also get a hold of more specific, "praised" ones. Or encyclopedias. You act as though I am only relying on dictionary sources for my stance. I said, "That goes for most legal definitions of rape as well." I also said, "In the first past discussion I linked you to above (how we achieved consensus that first time), editors researched just about every definition of rape." I am not asserting that there is a single definition of rape. I am not conflating anything. I am asserting that rape is "sex without consent." What some states or jurisdictions define as "sex" and therefore "rape"...does not negate the basic definition of rape -- which is "sex without consent."


 * What concerns me is this:
 * You appear to be asserting that rape is something that is quite difficult to define. It isn't. It all comes down to sex without consent. And whether it is called "rape" or "unlawful sexual intercourse" or has no name at all, it is still rape.
 * You appear to be asserting that the definitions of rape in various statutes etc. are so distinct that "rape" has lost its meaning. It hasn't. When someone goes to a police station, and says, "I was raped," we all know what they mean, or assume we know what they mean -- "Sex performed on me without my consent." Whether that state does or doesn't define a particular sex act as rape is beside the point, as "sex without consent" is still viewed as rape...no matter what any particular state or jurisdiction calls it. That is why all these other expressions, such as "unlawful sexual intercourse," are just seen as another definition/aspect of rape and is why we go over it in the Definitions section.


 * I would not have to state "usually defined" or "most frequently defined" when defining the basic definition of rape, which is "sex without consent," just as I have done in this article. Just as the Sexual assault article currently states, "...is an assault of a sexual nature on another person, or any sexual act committed without consent." I am quite aware that modern dictionaries record the most common usage of a word and sometimes are not interested in whether it is being used correctly. But then again, I did say the "general use," now didn't I? And these dictionaries are not incorrect in defining rape. Any lawyer would state that these dictionaries in fact have it right on this one, but that "what constitutes 'sex' varies and therefore what constitutes 'rape' varies." But, as I stated, I am not simply talking about dictionary sources.


 * And, yes, what you wrote is messy, per WP:LEAD. You don't define the term straight-up. And, yes, per statements above, it can be defined straight-up. You go into all these country and jurisdictions aspects first, and even assigned a "which" tag to the end of the "and other countries" part (among others), as though every country going by this should be specified in the lead, which is just messy. And then the lead goes past the "no more than four paragraphs" standard. It's a mess. One I will be fixing later. But I am not interested in debating all of this with you any further. You can maintain what you believe, as I cannot take that away from you, and I will maintain what I believe. Flyer22 (talk)


 * The article is about the subject rape itself, not the legal definition of it. Make an article called Rape (legal) if you want.  Or list of rape laws by nation and state which links to what the law is in each nation.    D r e a m Focus  16:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus, I agree that this article is about the subject of rape itself, but that includes the legal definition. That is what rape encompasses. After all, what is rape if not pertaining to law? True, rape is about forcing sex on a person either way. But the act is usually viewed as a crime, which means it usually concerns law. Thus, a Rape (legal) article would be redundant. Most of what is in here could also go in that article. And if all the legal aspects of rape were removed from this article, where would that leave this article? Not in a very good place. I don't see how there is any way to build on an article titled Rape without it being connected to law. A List of rape laws by nation and state sounds good, though. Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean, the opening statement doesn't have to include any legal definition at all. Some states don't even call it "rape" anymore, but say "sexual assault".  Sexual activity of any kind with a person without valid consent is rape.  If Afghanistan you can legally buy a seven year old boy for a sex slave.  If you only go by the legal definition of rape, in their nation that wouldn't be considered rape.  So we'd be listing the legal definition of just certain countries.  Best not to have the lead defining what it means in any nation's legal terms, but of course give examples of the difference in rape laws around the world in the article itself.    D r e a m Focus  18:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, good points. Although if "sexual activity of any kind" includes "only the fondling of the breasts or the buttocks," for example, I personally wouldn't call that rape. But my personal opinion is not the issue. What has been stated here about defining the term is. So, again, good points. That is why we agreed to remove "In criminal law" from the beginning definition. I do feel that saying "The term is most often defined in criminal law," as the lead currently does, is fine, though. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Dream Focus, I was not talking about the definition in this article. I was talking about Flyer22's proposal to amend the definition at the start of Laws regarding rape. This discussion is taking place in the wrong forum. My understanding is that that makes any conclusion formed about that article from this discussion invalid. Could we please discuss the article Laws regarding rape on the page Talk:Laws regarding rape and not here.James500 (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Either way, we were talking about the definition of rape. I understand your point about this being the wrong place to discuss what should go into the other article. I don't have much more to state on that matter, however. I only have a problem with that article's lead not giving the definition of rape in relation to consent first and then going into all the state/jurisdiction stuff. And of course the lead having too many tags and not being four paragraphs or less. Once I tweak that lead (whenever that will be), that is if you don't beat me to the cleanup first, and you have any objections to my tweaks, we can/should discuss it there. Flyer22 (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am in the process of replying to your comments above on the page Talk:Laws regarding rape.James500 (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Definition of rape / sexual assault
The Oxford English Dictionary says that while once rape was used to exclusively mean sexual intercourse without consent it is now used interchangeably with sexual assault.


 * "sexual assault n. the action or an act of forcing an unconsenting person to engage in sexual activity; a rape; (Law) a crime involving forced sexual contact, variously defined as inclusive or exclusive of rape." And


 * Rape "a. Originally and chiefly: the act or crime, committed by a man, of forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse with him against her will, esp. by means of threats or violence. In later use more generally: the act of forced, non-consenting, or illegal sexual intercourse with another person; sexual violation or assault.

This ref also says "rape is generally defined as forced or nonconsensual sexual contact." and than uses the terms interchangeably.

Thus I propose we merge these two pages to stay current with current usage with sexual assault the more preferred term legally and medically. The legal community has moved from rape to sexual assault do to the more gender neutral nature of the latter "many states have renamed the laws of rape to sexual assult"  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I stated to you at WikiProject Medicine: That "variously defined as inclusive or exclusive of rape" bit shows why the terms are not necessarily the same thing, though. Rape is a type of sexual assault, yes. But not every sexual assault is rape. That's the point WhatamIdoing was making. Most definitions and legal systems generally still stick to "intercourse" for defining rape, including the Oxford source you cited above. People were against your suggestion of merging before for these same reasons. And there should definitely be an article titled Rape here at Wikipedia, as that is the most common name a person will be looking for in regards to forced sex. There is also no way to prove that sexual assault is the more preferred term legally and medically. I doubt that if it were, though, most organizations dealing with trauma to rape victims, such as RAINN would have "rape" in their title. Flyer22 (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I also propose that if you want this article moved/merged, that you start a proper move/merge discussion about it so that the larger community can weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Many use the terms completely interchangeably with every rape being a sexually assault and vice versa. Yes some do not and historically this was more the case but current usage per all the refs I have provided current literature / legal stuff uses the terms interchangeably. This law text is interesting Rape was also historically only by a man on a women who is not his wife and some continue to use it in this way.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"Most modern statues define rape as (1) obtaining sexual intimacy with another (2) by force or threat of force (3) without legally effective consent due to incompatibility" Page 255   Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's like I stated before: That still doesn't make the terms always the same thing. While rape is a type of sexual assault, sexual assault is not always rape. That's reason enough to keep the articles separate. And while some current usage of the terms use them interchangeably, not all do. I cannot even be convinced that most do. Further, I maintain that the Rape article should definitely exist, no matter what. What your sources are showing me is how rape is defined. "Rape" is still the most common term for forced sex. "Sexual assault" being used in place of "rape" is pretty common too, but people usually specify when they mean rape. I wouldn't have much of an issue with merging, as long as it is the Sexual assault article that is merged into this one. But I still feel that the articles are better left separate. Flyer22 (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Doc James, even if "rape" altogether ceased to be a used as an extant legal term, it would still be independantly notable on grounds of historical importance (the study of legal history is an academic discipline). From the point of view of sociology or psychology, I am unable to comment. The articles should not be merged but it might be that some material could be transferred from one to the other.James500 (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * IMO what we have now are co tracts and that fact that Flyer is okay with a merge as long as the title remains rape supports this. Many use the terms fully interchangeably. That some use them with slightly different meanings is not IMO enough justification to have two seperate pages that quote the exact same literature. Rape is the historical term for sexual assault since sexual assault was only first used in 1883 the word rape is much older. The issue of merging and the issue of the article title is two separate issues and one should not be based on the other. While "sexual assault" is currently the more common term in scientific and legal literature as shown in the refs above rape is more POV and probably has greater general usage. I prefer the more NPOV / scientific / legal terminology but consider mergeing a more important goal in that it reduces duplication of content. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Doc, I'm just not seeing "sexual assault" as "always rape" or "usually rape." And that's the problem. There is no slightly different meaning here. A man is never convicted of rape because he felt a woman's breasts without her consent. Thus, there is a clear difference between rape and other forms of sexual assault, the words often being used interchangeably or not. I also don't view "sexual assault" as the more common term for "sex without consent" in scientific and legal literature. And feeling that the title "Rape" is POV...is POV itself. Rape is a perfectly fine title, in my opinion, and one with a more specific meaning too. Since "sexual assault" could simply mean "he felt her breasts." Flyer22 (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In Canada no one is every currently changed with rape as this charge no longer exists (since 1983). The same applies to much of the USA as the rape charge no longer exists in many locations. The legal system has changed the name they use. Has anyone even looked at the refs I have provided? The term is POV as it only applies to males who have sex with female. We know acknowledge that sexual assault can occur between same genders and be perpetrated by women. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Doc, I meant the definition of rape, which usually pertains to some form of sexual penetration. Whether we call it rape or "unlawful sexual intercourse" or whatever, a man is still never convicted of "touching a woman's breasts." Therefore, much difference still exists. And "rape" does not only apply to males who have forced sex upon females. Flyer22 (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No that man would be charged with class one sexual assault. Some of the lay press would refer to it as rape. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are major distinctions is my point. "Charged" is not the same thing as "convicted." And it's not just "lay press" and laypeople who distinguish between rape and sexual assault. And even with rape being called "unlawful sexual intercourse," for example, it is still categorized as rape. Flyer22 (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, every nominate offence should be listed under its own name, by which I mean the name it is given it the statute that created it. A person who wants to find section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is going to look for "rape". A person who wants to find section 3 of that Act is going to look for "sexual assault". Far from merging these two, we need a new article for the new offence of "assault by penetration".James500 (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please people provide references to your source. We are a global community. I have no idea what country the sexual offenses act is from. And every country / language does not get pages with their own spelling / common word usage. If people search for rape or for sexual assault they should both go to the same wiki page that covers the topic in depth. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the articles for this is the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 has offences with the same name, as does the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (there is no article but the offences under this Act are listed at Sexual offences in the United Kingdom. The first two articles should have links to legislation.gov.uk. in the external links section at the end where you can get texts of all these documents.James500 (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Other offences that are apparently still called rape in California, New York State and New Zealand are listed at Laws regarding rape. And you could try the websites PacLII and AustLII for Australia and the Pacific.James500 (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess one thing we would all agree upon is that all rape is sexual assault. Thus sexual assault is as broad or broader term compared to rape. Thus sexual assault would in a sense be a parent article to rape as it would cover everything the rape article covers. Thus all the discussion of rape could take place on an article called sexually assault similar to how Type I-Distal RTA is dealt with fully on the article about renal tubular acidosis. BTW we do not usually link to wiki pages as supporting refs. Now off I wonder back to something more productive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted this discussion to some of its relevant WikiProjects. We'll see if others weigh in from those. Flyer22 (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My opinion on this matter has not changed. Rape is an important subtype of sexual assault, just like the common cold is an important subtype of upper respiratory tract infections.  There are many kinds of non-rape sexual assaults, such as fondling someone or forcing someone to kiss, just like there are many kinds of non-common cold URTIs, such as strep throat and influenza.  Different places handle different types of sexual assault differently (for example, treating forced kissing as a petty crime but rape as a major crime), just like doctors treat different URTIs differently (for example, recommending no medications for the common cold but prescribing antibiotics for strep throat).  The articles IMO should not be merged, just like common cold and upper respiratory tract infection IMO should not be merged.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Although the two terms do seem to be moving towards interchangeability (especially in the legal world), I don't think they are completely interchangeable yet. Personally, I think merging the two would be premature, although this may change in a few years. Kaldari (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a good analogy here is the term sodomy versus the various modern concepts it once encompassed (anal sex, etc). The term sodomy is in the process of becoming antiquated for both legal and social purposes, but we have an extensive article on its historical importance, both legal and social. Similarly, even if the word "rape" is eventually abandoned as a legal and social term, it will still have historic importance. At present, despite passing out of favour in some legal contexts, it continues to be widely used in social and cultural contexts and is more familiar to most people than sexual assault. As such I think a merge would not only be unjustified at this time, but even in the future a historical article on rape will make sense. Dcoetzee 04:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On that note: Something I meant to state earlier about keeping this article titled Rape is that we must also keep in mind the associated rape articles, such as Rape statistics, Date rape or even Sociobiological theories of rape. Surely, all these articles are not going to be retitled by substituting "sexual assault" for "rape." They are not talking about sexual assault in the general sense. They are talking about a specific aspect of sexual assault -- what is known as "rape" or "unlawful sexual intercourse" or some variation of that. There is no point in having this article titled anything but Rape when "rape" is so obviously specific/generally used to refer to forced sex. In plenty of articles on Wikipedia, for example, when there is a case of a woman having been raped (fictional or otherwise), the article states and links to this Rape article, not to the Sexual assault article. And the way RAINN defines sexual assault, as seen at Sexual assault, is the way a lot of jurisdictions define it as well. I just cannot see it as a good idea for the Rape article to cease to exist by title. The Sexual assault article would have to be merged into this one for me to accept a merge even a little bit, even with sexual assault being broader than rape in most definitions. I'd accept Rape being retitled to Sexual violence before I'd accept it being retitled to Sexual assault. Flyer22 (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is the international legal definition "defined rape as a physical invasion of a sexual nature under coercive circumstances". Intercourse not mentioned. So we are not going by the legal definitions. We are not going but more modern usage. But we are going by the old usage as mentioned by the OED? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Customary international law exists in parallel with national laws. That definition does not determine the definition of rape under national laws because the offence of rape that it refers to is a seperate offence that exists in addition to all the other offences of rape under national laws. James500 (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We are going by legal definitions/reasons, and various other reasons for keeping the articles separated, Doc. I'm not sure what you want me to state, other than to agree with you that this article should be titled Sexual assault instead of Rape. I cannot. Flyer22 (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mainly I am wanting people to provided referenced to support there position what ever it is. This decision should be based on the best available literature. We are here to present mainstream opinion not our own. I am the only one in this entire discussion that has provided a single reliable reference. But I have just come across another one and have changed my opinion :-)


 * 2002 WHO Pg 174 . Defined "Sexual violence includes rape, defined as physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration– even if slight – of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts or an object. The attempt to do so is known as attempted rape. Rape of a person by two or more perpetrators is known as gang rape." After finding this I agree that there is sufficient evidence support both that I no longer have a strong feeling either way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Doc, we were not simply going off of personal opinion. We were mostly tackling this from mainstream opinion/definitions. Some of us are not in the habit of providing sources for things that are well-known -- such as the fact that while rape is sexual assault, not all sexual assault is rape. Your sources were partly backing that up. And this and other rape-related articles contain more than enough sources to show that rape and sexual assault are distinct enough from each other in some contexts. James500 was also directing you to sourced content, even if not specifically providing the sources here on this talk page. I pointed to a sourced section of the Sexual assault article citing material by the leading American anti-sexual assault organization (RAINN). I see you found the WHO source. Stuff like that is exactly what I and others were/are talking about. I'm not sure what more to state about this, but the matter does seem settled for now. Flyer22 (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is strange based on peoples feeling here that attempted rape redirects to rape. Should it not redirect to sexual assault? Have changed it... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't feel it's strange, as I'm guessing anyone who redirected it to Rape did so because the Rape article extensively covers what rape is about. But I have no issues with you redirecting it to Sexual assault. Flyer22 (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have redirected the page attempted rape to attempt crime because that is what it would be charged as. Attempt is a seperate inchoate offence that existed at common law. In England and Wales, for example, an attempt to commit rape would be charged as an attempt to commit crime, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, not as sexual assault contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, because the maximum penalty is higher. I can't imagine that this would not be the case elsewhere.James500 (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope not the case elsewhere. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have redirected it again to Attempt crime. That should be beyond argument. James500 (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the point Doc was making about redirecting it to Sexual assault is that since attempted rape is sexual assault but not rape, redirecting it there made/makes more sense than redirecting it here. But redirecting it to Attempt crime works just as well, of course, since it is that too. Flyer22 (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I wrote my previous remark before I read Doc James comments. How about turing it into some kind of disambiguation page or giving it its own article if it really is ambiguous. And where elsewhere?James500 (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems fine to redirect it to either of the three articles. If an article is created on it, then I would prefer it not just be a stub and show the actual potential to grow. As for where else, I think Doc was referring to here in the United States -- that people can be charged with attempted rape. On a side note: Shouldn't Attempt crime be titled Attempted crime? Flyer22 (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There needs be a link to attempt crime whether or not there are other links.

The location of attempt crime should be discussed at Talk:Attempt crime rather than here.James500 (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not understanding what you mean about a link to Attempt crime. Clarify? Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if everyone on the planet started saying sexual assault (not likely), the word still has a long historical record with the word and concept of rape (as forced sexual intercourse or forced sodomy) having many historical references. Let's not let political or legal correctness outweight commonsense here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not everyone has caught up with the modern definition of rape. The cover article of this month's Ms. magazine is all about how the FBI refuses to update their definition of rape from meaning only "forced vaginal penetration" (which doesn't even include male rape victims). And since the FBI is responsible for tallying all of the rape statistics in the U.S. each year, this is actually a pretty big discrepancy. If we were to lead readers to believe that sexual assault always equals rape, they would be very misled by the FBI's rape statistics. Kaldari (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Definitions section
The Definitions section of this article was a total wreck. I've tried to clean it up some. Feel free to refine it further. Kaldari (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice cleanup. And, actually, before you added the FBI definition there, we already clarified the FBI's strict definition of rape in the Statistics section at Rape. Although that section only says "excludes all rapes except forcible rapes of females" and doesn't mention whether this is specified to vaginal penetration only. Flyer22 (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Doc James has further cleaned up the section and beefed it up a little (such as with information about non-penetration being able to be classified as rape). I still feel that a bit of the information from the previous text (before Kaldari's cleanup) should be mentioned, though. This text, although maybe not in these exact same words (especially since the non-penetration bit is again mentioned):"Some jurisdictions also consider rape to include the use of sexual organs of one or both of the parties, such as oral copulation and masturbation. The victim does not have to be penetrated to be raped; the perpetrator can use objects to stimulate the genitals. The perpetrator can use their hand to stimulate the genitals."


 * Basically, I feel that "non-penetration" should be clarified a bit, as it was before. Surely, forcing someone to kiss you is not legally classified as rape, for example. Flyer22 (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)