Talk:Rape/Archive 18

False accusation of rape
There's a sentence in the false-accusation section: "Furthermore, nearly all the women which police had deemed to have made a false accusation were severely disadvantaged, coming from the lowest socio-economic background with only three of them having any education beyond high school; therefore being very vulnerable to intimidation, from both the police and the accused, and lacking adequate legal resources. " - this is not sourced and is not neutral, it is someone's opinion and should be removed - period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.111.108 (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Rape Investigation Handbook
I was just doing some reading through Google Books on the topic, and was impressed by the coverage and scope of the Rape Investigation Handbook (Savino, John O and Brent E. Turvey, 2011, Elsevier Inc.). Its coverage of varying jurisdictions and statues is particularly lacking in this article. It's also jam-packed with additional reference sources. -Miskaton (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good find, Miskaton. Thank you. Hopefully, someone will get around to using it. I have a combination of laziness and being busy going on these days when editing Wikipedia articles, so I won't be significantly expanding anything at this artile any time soon. Flyer22 (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Rape by Wermacht
There is no section telling about the biggest mass-rape - done by the Wermacht soldiers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht#Mass_rapes_2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.197.165.235 (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Rape at College
Studies have shown that women in college are much more likely of being raped than other groups. Does anyone think that this would merit a section in this article? Charbon (talk) 06:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Complete rewrite
This article is a complete mess. 213.67.3.59 (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be a good thing if you would specify how it is "a complete mess." Since not everyone is going to agree with your assertion, simply saying it needs "a complete rewrite" and is "a complete mess" does not help. Otherwise, it makes us think you are a WP:Troll. I of course feel that the article still needs work, but I certainly wouldn't call it "a complete mess." Complete messes of Wikipedia articles to me are those that are mostly unsourced, mostly inaccurate, or both. I also cannot stand horribly formatted articles. This article fits none of that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree; the criticism is too general. But I noticed some major problems: I was looking for info on rape of slaves, and found none. Also, there are three sources for the Aquinas attribution, none of them primary. This should be linked to the writing of Aquinas directly, or removed as unverified by a source.Witnessforpeace (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

Prevention
Please consider adding this to the "Prevention and treatment" section:

Sexual assault may be prevented by secondary school, college, and workplace education programs. At least one program for fraternity men produced "sustained behavioral change."

Thank you. 67.6.191.142 (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Done--Hazel77 talk 18:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Defintions Of Rape In Sex
The article reads: ''“Some jurisdictions continue to define rape to cover only acts involving penile penetration of the vagina, treating all other types of non-consensual sexual activity as sexual assault. In Brazil, for example, the legal code defines rape as non-consensual vaginal sex. Thus male rape, anal rape, and oral rape are not included. The FBI uses the following definition of rape in compiling their annual Uniform Crime Reports: "The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will." This has been interpreted to mean only forced penile-vaginal penetration.”''

While good, it does not even address that under these definitions, females can not be charged with “Rape” as a primary criminal complaint and can only charged with “Sexual Assault,” regardless the nature of the sexual act itself. This is a critical element, because it avoids the stigma of being labeled a “rapist” and being treated like a flasher, streaker, or even “masher” (a rather obsolete term for someone who fondles, gropes, or otherwise touches another person in a sexual fashion, consensually or otherwise). To address this I propose:
 * “Some jurisdictions continue to define rape to cover only acts involving penile penetration of the vagina, treating all other types of non-consensual sexual activity as sexual assault. In Brazil, for example, the legal code defines rape as non-consensual vaginal sex. Thus male rape, anal rape, and oral rape are not included. The FBI uses the following definition of rape in compiling their annual Uniform Crime Reports: "The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will." This has been interpreted to mean only forced penile-vaginal penetration where the perpetrator is male and the victim is female.”

A REDDSON

Since 2009 the law in Brazil has been clarified to accept other forms of rape than non-consensual vaginal sex. The page should be edited to mention that. 03:32, 11 December 2011‎ User:189.62.199.45


 * - {{on hold)) - you need to provide WP:RS reliable sources ot support any edit requests. Please feel free to discuss or present a new request with supporting sources. Thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course. The funny thing is, my source is the very same reference of the original text, the Brazilian Penal Code (as expected since the law changed only in 2009, probably after that particular paragraph was written). Anyway, the issue is that the reference is in Brazilian Portuguese. Here's a link to the Brazilian penal code: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto-lei/Del2848.htm#art213 You can still see the old with a stroke through. The current definition reads: "Constranger alguém, mediante violência ou grave ameaça, a ter conjunção carnal ou a praticar ou permitir que com ele se pratique outro ato libidinoso". If I may risk myself in a free translation, it means something like "To force someone, through violence or grave menace, to have carnal conjunction or to practice or to allow to be done to him any other libidinous act.". Notice also the reference to the 2009 law that broadened the definition or rape (link http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2007-2010/2009/Lei/L12015.htm#art2 ).


 * I changed the article. Since Brazil has changed its definition, it no longer serves as an example of an exception to the general rule.  I put in Scotland, instead, since apparently only men can be rapists in Scotland (since rape there requires that a penis be used). Banaticus (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Issue Is Addressed.
The section that caused my discomfiture has been rewritten adequately; While by no means perfectly, it most certainly addresses an inherent gender bias in most regions (Wikipedians can not be held responsible for antiquated ideas in the law), and the fact that it does reflect that some regions and institutions HAVE updated their thinking is commendable. Unless there is a further matter to resolve, this section can and should be moved to the archives.A. J. REDDSON

Changed FBI definition of rape
FBI has recently (December 2011) modified it's definition of rape. The revised definition is "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim".

Revised Rape Definition Approved:

AnitaRmenon (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)anitaRmenon
 * Yes, it's been added to the article and I tweaked it, going over what the definition used to mean and what it means now. Flyer22 (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

== The Mongols were accused about two to three times of sexual abuse (rape) at Bokhara, or Samarqand and Baghdad and in the alleged case of the Muslim women and girls where there was alleged compulsion on both sides under Ogotai ==

The Mongols on the whole treated the genders equally in war for their time, but there were exceptions such as complaints at Bokhara or Samarqand and Baghdad of sexual abuse, and there was the alleged case of the Muslim women and girls under Ogotai Khan who were requisitioned it was rumoured by the Dzungars or "Left Wing" either for the archers described by an abbot or for marriage.

The Mongols in fact shared what others perceived as their pillage and loot among all under their rule directly and indirectly including setting up a postal service and digging wells needed under the circumstances, rebuilding China etc., they thought themselves natural and attractive when of the actual Mangqol ethnicity many if not all of whom were apparently white and plump, and by their apparent standards of intercourse they did not think they particularly harmed the women, who did have children subsequently often, though their wives in two instances were childless probably due to some factors. They called such women Nokeger (feminine of Nokor, meaning Friends/Women Friends) and they also let them accompany them as warriors on occasion, as reported by an abbot and later at times allowed them the rank of Beki, as in the Niucha Mongqol-un Tobcha´an. They also had the technical legal right of divorce.22:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC) DeborahAltar22:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the Mongol postal service was second to none, but this article is not about whether Mongols were "a good thing" or "a bad thing" in any overall sense. It's just about rape. Paul B (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Total BS
This article is very BIASED. It doesn't mention the number of times a so called "rape victim" refused a lie detector test(which is suspsicious) or the fact that if you have sex with a drunk girl it's automatically rape if she wakes up the next day and doesn't like you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.243.100 (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable sources which state that there is a trend for women to report casual sex they had while inebriated as rape, please do provide them. If not, this does not warrant inclusion by any stretch of the imagination. Incidentally, your personal experience does not imply that the article's statements should be tarred with the broad brush of "total BS". sonia ♫ 08:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

New 2012 Post-Conviction DNA Testing and Wrongful Rape Conviction Study
DNA tests eliminated between 8 and 15% of convicted offenders and supported exoneration. About 46% were indeterminate http://www.urban.org/publications/412589.html (173.164.194.214 (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)) Also, a recent report shows that only 6% of rape cases lead to convictions http://www.esrc.ac.uk/impacts-and-findings/features-casestudies/features/19277/understanding-why-rape-cases-are-dropped.aspx Therefore, these new DNA tests apply to the cases with the STRONGEST evidence--that 6%. Imagine how much larger the number of false accusations is in the 94% of cases that are dropped.(173.164.194.214 (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC))

Quote on victims to perpetrators.
"The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1999) estimated that 91% of U.S. rape victims are female and 9% are male, with 99% of the offenders being male."

Does this statistic include prison rapes for males and females? I've read by some estimates that around 140,000 males a year are anally raped in prisons (so not including other forms of abuse). Some info to muse here: http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2001/prison/report7.html

Does anyone have a source on female prison rapes? Or any other sources? The 9% rape victims being male and 91% being female seems highly dubious when all sources of humans beings being raped is taken into account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telekenesis (talk • contribs) 08:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Etymology
?? As in The Rape of the Lock? --Pawyilee (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead again
Dream Focus, yes, part of the reason I objected to "or is unconscious or incapacitated" being in the lead is because this is sufficiently covered by "incapable of valid consent." But, as stated in my previous edit summary, it also has to do with the complication of the term "incapacitated." I did not state "difficult to prosecute means that it isn't accepted as a form of rape." What I stated was "sex while 'incapacitated' is too complicated of an issue to list by name. It's very difficult to prosecute as rape." What I mean by that is...although "incapacitated" usually means that the person is almost or completely unable to function normally, a lot of people use "drunk" and "incapacitated" synonymously, and that therefore listing "incapacitated" as a definitive form of rape implies that any time a person has sex with a drunk person or a person under the influence of some drug, the non-drunk or otherwise non-intoxicated person has committed rape. This source, though not the best, goes over the "incapacitated" issue I'm talking about. The topic is something that is better left to the body of the article where we can explain the matter in detail, considering that, if going by "incapacitated means drunk or high on a drug," most such cases are not rape and most of the ones tried as rape fail. Even most of the ones where all indication point to the victim not having been able to function normally. Yes, "abuse of authority" also means the victim didn't give valid consent, but "abuse of authority" is less ambiguous and more straightforward than "incapacitated." I don't see how the previous lead, which you and I agreed on, is lacking or at all hindered by keeping "unconscious or incapacitated" out of the lead. But I do understand leaving "unconscious" in, and, so that the new addition doesn't sound redundant, have reworded it as "or with a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as a person who is unconscious or incapacitated." Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Googling "Incapacitated drunk" or "Incapacitated does not mean drunk" shows more of what I mean. And some texts on Google Books and Google Scholar discuss the matter as well. Flyer22 (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

75% to 80% of rape accusers have no DNA evidence
I was reading the article on the Duke Lacrosse case and noticed the prosecution mentioned this. Can anyone find an actual statistic on this? It's very interesting because it says something about the credibilty of rape accusers Poppurrpop (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * DNA evidence doesn't say anything about the credibility of the victim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.166.228 (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Heidi Jones
This woman, a weather announcer for WABC in New York, was sentenced to community service for false accusations. I don't think she's notable in herself, but I keep coming across references to her in political discourse. It may be needed that something be written about the circumstances of this crime, if it is going to continue to be a cultural marker. I have many references of her being referred to or being charged and sentenced, but nothing about the crime itself that's being used as a political football. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Forcible rape
The page uses the term "forcible rape" several times but never clearly explains what it means (and "forcible rape" redirects here too). --C S (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead and Definitions section use "physical force," which is what is usually meant by "forcible rape." To me, the words "physical force" explains it all and I don't see any other way to describe it...other than saying "physically restraining the person and forcing them to engage in a sexual act." The only other thing that is meant by "forcible rape" is coercion, which the article also of course mentions. Flyer22 (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That might be your definition, but it's unclear to me that's what's generally accepted as "forcible rape" (legally or otherwise) or even the definition used in the rest of the article. The FBI has recently (in 2012) done away with its definition of "forcible rape" and gone with one definition of "rape":  "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."   Nonetheless, let's examine its longstanding definition of "forcible rape" which lasted from the 20s until just recently.  In an FAQ:"If a male slips a date rape drug into a female’s drink with the intention of having intercourse with her but was not able to get the victim away from her friends, would the classification of the crime be aggravated assault?"


 * "No. If police determined that the male had intended to rape her, then the proper classification must be attempted forcible rape. The UCR Program defines forcible rape as 'The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.' Further, the Handbook states ''Against her will' includes instances in which the victim is incapable of giving consent because of her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity (or because of her youth)"


 * So, according to the FBI, forcible rape includes consent. In fact, statutory rape is clearly included.  What are the sources you are using to justify your definition?  --C S (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not my definition. I don't go by my definition when referring to Wikipedia articles. "Forcible rape" does usually mean physical force or coercion, based on the reliable sources in the article, both in the lead and in the Definitions section, elsewhere in the article and on Google Books and Google Scholar. You can look over those sources and see the ways that they describe rape. Most of those sources clearly use "forcible rape" to mean "physical force" or "coercion." Rape by physical force is also of course included in the FBI's current definition...among instances in which the victim is unable to give consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity, such as the victim being incapacitated by the ingestion of drugs or alcohol. If any part of this article uses "forcible rape" to mean anything other than physical force or coercion, then that should be clarified. But, usually, when using those words, the sources are not referring to the latter scenarios. And I've never seen statutory rape defined as "forcible rape" unless it involves physical force or coercion. It seems that you are stating that all rape is "forcible," as in the offender forced -- created -- the situation. But, as the article shows, all rape isn't defined as "forcible." And of course forcible rape includes consent. All rape is about consent, with the clarification that people below the legal age of consent or those who are intoxicated to the point of being incapacitated or who are otherwise mentally challenged cannot consent to sexual activity. Flyer22 (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * These sources also usually mention forcible rape as separated from rape by way of mental incapacity or underage laws, clearly indicating that "forcible rape" is not usually defined as the latter two; and as stated, this is made clear when they describe forcible rape by mentioning some aspect of physical force. Flyer22 (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For those interested, the topic of "force" was discussed last year. See Talk:Rape/Archive 17. Flyer22 (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

legit/illegit rape
successful conception due to rape is because the psychology of the victim's unconscious informs the physiology of the endocrine system to proceed with the conception. 98.14.193.230 (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Any scientific evidence to back that statement up? Any reliable news source of scientific journal say that?   D r e a m Focus  11:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay Todd Akin. C6541 (T↔C)  20:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Editor at a fictional couple article ignoring sources and saying that coerced sex doesn't count as rape/that it's WP:FRINGE
Can I get some help from one of the editors here regarding this? I tried to contact User:Dream Focus initially, but that user's page is semi-protected. 218.108.168.130 (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources call it that, no doubt at all. The capable administrator Drmies seems to have gone in and taken care of the problem.   D r e a m Focus  07:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Bethrotal
Please provide a link to [bethrotal|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrothal] where this word is occuring in the the article as this is a term which is not well-known to non native English speaking persons. Aenchevich (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Violence against Men
Through the article there is a Violence Against Women window under the rape column, could there please be a Violence Against Men window as well, to stay within equality, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_men is the male equivalent which is at the moment not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexRSP (talk • contribs) 03:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You could just add it. Rape of male victims is less common, all told, but the use of rape with implements as an abuse is not uncommon in hazing and harassment cases that have escalated to violence. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP is obviously right about adding it yourself. But I'm not sure what you mean about "through the article." You are speaking of Template:Violence against women and Template:Violence against men, but Template:Violence against women is only in the History section. The article is of course mostly about rape against girls/women because rape against girls/women is significantly more common and has traditionally been defined as rape, but that section is completely about the rape of women (unless it is also considering the rape of boys). I don't at all object to using Template:Violence against men in this article, but it doesn't fit in the History section. We should therefore find a better spot for both templates to be placed close to each other. I don't think that they should be separated. Flyer22 (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that you're probably also talking about the templates at the bottom of the article. Out of the five templates there, you could add Violence against men to Template:Abuse. Adding it or Violence against women to Template:Sexual ethics is shaky, considering that the Violence against men and Violence against women articles are not only about sexual abuse. Flyer22 (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe this article should probably divide into sections the different forms of rape as current research shows that rape is not carried out in the same style by all (such as, 1) male rape of females, 2)male rape of males, 3)female rape of males, and 4)female rape of females). Primarily as much of the article refers to rape by a male on a female but not on the other categories, despite current research showing females raping males is on the increase.

The fact is rape is a genderless crime. Perpetrators of all sexual assaults including rape can be females in as much as they can be males and the victims of such attacks can be males in as much as females. Just because Irish, American, and British government statistics say sexual assaults occur on women more often than men does not mean it doesn’t happen the other way. The difference is female perpetrated sexual assaults on males are underreported in comparison to male perpetrated sexual assaults on females. Why? The answer is simple if a man makes a statement that he has been sexually assaulted by a female, then, he is ridiculed and mocked by the various authorities that are suppose to protect him. Why? Again the answer is simple; our media outlets in Ireland, America, and Britain will air and print a story of females attacked by males more often than males attacked by females because it is the social norm and will attract more attention to their product (I.e. their newspaper, or T.V. programme).

In a case in Co Offaly in Ireland in 2008, two young boys were raped by their mother but due to an absence of appropriate law in Ireland she could only be found guilty of incest and not rape. This was because in the three laws that deal with sexual assault in Ireland (Irish Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981, the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990, and the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences Act) 2006) only man is perceived capable to possess a Mens Rea (guilty mind) in the Actus Reus (guilty act) of rape, while woman cannot. Many rape laws around the world have changed to gender neutral terms rather than gender specific terms. While Ireland has remained ignorant to these changes, they had made attempts where the latter two Irish laws do have gender neutral terms, however, the former law (1981) still prevails in the area of rape. There is also biological scientific evidence that shows that a male may have an erection due to emotions (such as fear) which are similar to a female (where she becomes lubricated) which shows the male (or female) victim is not a willing participant in sexual intercourse. Maybe if we stopped promoting just females as victims and just males as perpetrators of rape, then maybe we would be able to change the system, and be equal, thereby, dealing with the issue of rape more productively.

The article could possibly be broken down to include the many types of sex predators identified by current researchers (such as child abusers, accomplice, coercion, and adult rape). Many researchers conclude that rapists do not act the same and suffer from paraphilias (such as Infantophilia or Nepiophilia (sexual preference for children aged 0-3), Paedophilia (sexual preference for children aged 4-10) Hebophilia (sexual preference for children aged 11-14), Ephebophilia (sexual preference for adolescents aged 15-16), Teleiophilia (sexual preference for adults 17 years or older), and Gerontophilia (sexual preference for elderly people)). Also included is Androphilia (sexual preference to males) and Gynophilia (sexual preference to females). Also the article may mention that many rapists additionally suffer with other paraphilias (such as voyeurism (sexual gratification by watching unsuspecting strangers naked and engaged in sexual intercourse) and troilism (sexual gratification watching partner (while aware) engage in sexual intercourse with a third party in sexual offences). While males tend to display voyeurism, females tend to display troilism). Please find a list of references that may help. Ps I would do it myself but i don't want step on anyones toe, plus my inexperience on writing for wiki articles.

Anderson, I., & Quinn, A. (2009). Gender Differences in Medical Students’ Attitudes Towards Male and Female Rape Victims. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 14 (1), 105-110.

BBC News. (2011, November 28). Zimbabwe women accused of raping men 'for rituals'. Retrieved November 28, 2011, from BBC News: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15876968

Berner, W., Briken, P., & Hill, A. (2009). Female Sexual Offenders. In F. M. Saleh, A. J. Grudzinskas, J. M. Bradford, & D. J. Brodsky, Sex Offenders: Identification, Risk Assessment, Treatment, and Legal Issues (pp. 276-285). Oxford: Oxford Unversity Press.

Bonnes, S. (2011). Gender and Racial Stereotyping in Rape Coverage. Feminist Media Studies, 1-20.

Cortoni, F. (2010). The Assessment of Female Sexual Offenders. In T. A. Gannon, & F. Cortoni (Eds.), Female Sexual Offenders: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment (pp. 87-99). West Sussex: West-Blackwell.

Cortoni, F., & Gannon, T. A. (2011). Female sexual Offenders. In D. P. Boer, R. Eher, L. A. Craig, M. H. Miner, & F. Pfäfflin, International Perspectives on the Assessment and Treatment of Sexual Offenders (pp. 35-54). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Davies, M., & Rogers, P. (2006). Perceptions of Male Victims in Depicted Sexual Assaults: A Review of the Literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 367–377.

del Busto, E., & Harlow, M. C. (2011). American Sexual Offender Castration Treatment and Legislation. In D. Boer, R. Eher, L. A. Craig, M. H. Miner, & F. Pfäfflin, International Perspectives on the Assessment and Treatment of Sexual Offenders (pp. 543-571). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Denov, M. S. (2003). The Myth of Innocence: Sexual Scripts and the Recognition of Child Sexual Abuse by Female Perpetrators. The Journal of Sex Research, 40 (3), 303-314.

Doroszewicz, K., & Forbes, G. B. (2008). Experiences With Dating Aggression and Sexual Coercion Among Polish College Students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23 (1), 58-73.

Flowers, R. B. (1995). Female Crime, Criminals, and Cellmates: An Exploration of Female Criminality and Delinquency. McFarland & Company.

Ford, H. (2010). The Treatment needs of Female Sexual Offenders. In T. A. Gannon, & F. Cortoni (Eds.), Female Sexual Offenders: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment (pp. 101-117). West sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Freeman, N. J., & Sandler, J. C. (2008). Female and Male Sex: A Comparison of Recidivism Patterns and Risk Factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23 (10), 1394-1413.

Freeman, N. J., & Sandler, J. C. (2007). Topology of Female Sex Offenders: A Test of Vandiver and Kercher. Sex Abuse, 19, 73-89. Gannon, T. A., & Cortoni, F. (2010). Female sexual Offenders: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment - An Introduction. In T. A. Gannon, & F. Cortoni (Eds.), Female Sexual Offenders: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment (pp. 1-7). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Glancy, G., & Saini, M. (2009). Sexual Abuse by Clergy. In F. M. Saleh, A. J. Grudzinskas, J. M. Bradford, & D. J. Brodsky, Sex Offenders: Identification, Risk Assessment, Treatment, and Legal Issues (pp. 324-339). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Harkins, L., & Beech, A. (2009). Assessing the Therapeutic Needs of Sexual Offenders. In J. L. Ireland, C. A. Ireland, & P. Birch, Violent and Sexual Offenders (pp. 97-131). Devon: Willan Publishing.

Harris, D. A. (2010). Theories of Female Sexual Offending. In T. A. Gannon, & F. Cortoni (Eds.), Female Sexual Offenders: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment (pp. 31-51). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Heidensohn, F., & Gelsthorpe, L. (2007). Gender and Crime. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (pp. 381-420). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lambert, S., & Hammond, S. (2009). Perspectives on Female Sexual Offending in an Irish Context. Irish Journal of Applied Social Studies, 9 (1), 15-32.

Laws, D. R., & O'Donohue, W. T. (2008). Definitional issues: Problems with Defining sexual Deviance as Mental Disorder. In D. R. Laws, & W. T. O'Donohue (Eds.), Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment (pp. 1-21).

McCartan, F. M., Law, H., Murphy, M., & Bailey, S. (2011). Child and Adolescent Females who Present with Sexually Abusive Behaviours: A 10-Year UK Prevalence Study. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17 (1), 4-14.

Miner, M. H., West, M. A., & Day, D. M. (1995). Sexual Preference for Child and Aggressive Stimuli: Comparison of Rapists and Child Molesters using Auditory and Visual Stimuli. Behavior, Research, and Therapy, 33 (5), 545-551.

Muehlenhard, C. L., (1998). The Importance and Danger of Studying Sexually Aggressive Women. In C. Struckman-Johnson, & P. B. Anderson, (Eds.), Sexually Aggressive Women: Current Perspectives and Controversies, (pp. 19-48). New York: The Guildford Press.

Muskens, M., Bogaerts, S., van Casteren, M., & Labrijn, S. (2011). Adult Female Sexual Offending: A Comparison between Oo-offenders and Solo Offenders in a Dutch Sample. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17 (1), 46-60.

News 24. (2005, August 24). Man 'gang-raped' by 3 women. Retrieved November 25, 2011, from News 24: http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Man-gang-raped-by-3-women-20050824

Ni Bhraonain, E. (2008, July 16). Incest Mother is Convicted of Sex Assault on Her Two Sons. Retrieved November 30, 2011, from Irish Independent: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/incest-mother-is-convicted-of-sex-assault-on-her-two-sons-1433727.html

Pervin, L. A., & Cervone, D. (2010). Personality: Theory and Research (11th ed.). Wiley and Sons.

Pino, N. W., & Meier, R. F. (1999). Gender Differences in Rape Reporting. Sex Roles, 40 (11/12), 979-990.

Pozzulo, J. D., Dempsey, J., Maeder, E., & Allen, L. (2010). The Effect of Victim Gender, Defendant Gender, and Defendant Age on Juror Decision Making. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37 (1), 47-63.

Rousseau, M. M., & Cortoni, F. (2010). The Mental Health Needs of Female Sexual Offenders. In T. A. Gannon, & F. Cortoni (Eds.), Female Sexual Offenders: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment (pp. 73-86). West sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Sandler, J., & Freeman, N. J. (2011). Female Sex Offenders and the Criminal Justice System: A Comparison of Arrests and Outcomes. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17 (1), 61-76.

Saradjian, J. (2010). Understanding the Prevalence of Female-Perpetrated Sexual Abuse and the Impact of that Abuse on Victims. In T. A. Gannon, & F. Cortoni (Eds.), Female Sexual Offenders: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment (pp. 9-30). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Sarrel, P. M., & Masters, W. H. (1982). Sexual Molestation of Men by Women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 11 (2), 117-131.

Simonson, K., & Mezydlo Subich, L. (1999). Rape Perceptions as a Function of Gender-Role Traditionality and Victim-Perpetrator Association. Sex Roles, 40 (7/8), 617-634.

Slotboom, A. B., Hendriks, J., & Verbruggen, J. (2011). Contrasting Adolescent Female and Male Sexual Aggression: A self-report study on Prevalence and Predictors of Sexual Aggression. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17 (1), 15-33.

Smith, R. E., Pine, C. J., & Hawley, M. E. (1988). Social Cognitions about Adult Male Victims of Female Sexual Assault. The Journal of Sex Research, 24 (1), 101-112.

Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson, D., & Anderson, P. (2003). Tactics of Sexual Coercion: When Men and Women Won't Take No for an Answer. The Journal of Sex Research, 40 (1), 76-86.

Struckman-Johnson, C., & Anderson, P. B. (1998). "Men Do and Women Don't": Difficulties in Resarching Sexually Aggressive Women. In C. Struckman-Johnson, & P. B. Anderson, (Eds.), Sexually Aggressive Women: Current Perspectives and Controversies, (pp. 9-18). New York: The Guildford Press.

The Columbus Dispatch. (2008, August 16). Boy's parents sue to get his baby from mom, 21. Retrieved November 25, 2011, from The Columbus Dispatch: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2008/08/16/janecrane.ART_ART_08-16-08_B1_T0B1RSR.html

The Daily Telegraph. (2009, June 19). Black Widow Woman who Drugged, Raped Ten Men. Retrieved November 25, 2011, from The Daily Telegraph: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/black-widow-woman-who-drugged-raped-ten-men/story-e6freuy9-1225737488169

The Gaurdian. (2005, April 28). Woman jailed for raping man. Retrieved November 23, 2011, from The Gaurdian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/28/2

The Mirror. (2011, July 13). Karate Expert Keeps Shop Burglar as Sex Slave for Three Days. Retrieved November 25, 2011, from The Mirror: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/07/13/karate-expert-keeps-shop-burglar-as-sex-slave-for-three-days-115875-23267221/

The Spokesman Review. (1997, June 28). Jury Finds Woman Guilty Of Rape, Assault: Spickler-Bowe Becomes First Woman Convicted Of Raping A Man In Spokane. Retrieved November 23, 2011, from Spokesman Review: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/1997/jun/28/jury-finds-woman-guilty-of-rape-assault-spickler/

Vandiver, D. M., & Walker, J. T. (2002). Female Sex Offenders: An Overview and Analysis of 40 Cases. Criminal Justice Review, 27 (2), 284-300.

Wijkman, M., Bijleveld, C., & Hendriks, J. (2011). Female Sex Offenders: Specialists, Generalists and Once-Only Offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17 (1), 34-45.

Wijkman, M., Bijleveld, C., & Hendriks, J. (2010). Women Don’t Do Such Things! Characteristics of Female Sex Offenders and Offender Types. Sex Abuse, 22 (2), 135–156.

Wilson, W. (2011). Criminal Law: Doctrine and Theory (4th ed.). Essex: Pearson Education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.35.92 (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, IP... First: While rape is a genderless crime, it's a fact that most rapes are committed by males (boys or men). Second, some of those philias you listed are not paraphilias. Teleiophilia, for example, most certainly is not; that is normal sexual attraction -- sexual attraction to adults. And saying that "androphilia (sexual preference to males)" and "gynophilia (sexual preference to females)" are paraphilias is akin to saying that heterosexuality is a paraphilia, or that gay men/lesbians are suffering from a paraphilia. Third: Infantophilia/nepiophilia is pedophilia. Four: You, or rather some of your sources, are inaccurate on the pedophilia, ephebophilia and teleiophilia age ranges. "Ephebophilia" can go all the way up to 19. Age 17 is not usually defined as an adult, especiallly in the West, and cutting off the ephebophilia age range at 17, as if an ephebophile wouldn't find a 17-year-old sexually attractive, makes even less sense than the hebephilia age range giving the impression that a hebephile wouldn't find a 15-year-old sexually attractive. At least there can still be drastic physical development between 14 and 15. Not so much in the case of 16 between 17. And finally: Philias refer to people's mental states. Rape is physical (except for the cases where people define "emotional rape" as a part of rape). There's no way that we could know if anyone, for example, is a pedophile. Unless a person has been diagnosed as a pedophile, we can't state that they are a pedophile. And rape simply is not divided up into philias. 80.241.211.33 (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Em excuse me for disagreeing with you but first it is not a fact that male commit rape more than females, It is a fact that most men and boys are convicted of rape. This is because most states don't ave laws that recognise female rape of males, however, those that do have seen female convictions on the rise as outlined by a number of the recent citations provided above (most articles are within 1-2 years). This is as The Oxford Handbook of Criminology highlights due to gender neutral terms been added into law where female physical aggression is clearly on the increase. Second although all the philias mentioned are not paraphilias (for example teleiophilia is not), the others are and/or were. Androphilia (sexual preference to males) and gynophilia (sexual preference to females) were once listed in the DSM as paraphilias. So gays/lesbians were once thought of suffering from a paraphilia. However, thankfully this has changed. Obviously I did not explain myself well in this part, so I will rephrase it for you. When sexual preditors are diagnosed they are often diagnosed as for example Andro-pedophile and/or Gyno-ephebophile ect ect because sexual predators have been noted in scientific studies as having preferred targets. They rarely go for any random gender (except for when substances are involved)at any age but rather target specific genders and specific ages and that is a fact as many studies have repeatedly found this to be the case. Third infantophilia is most defiantly not pedophilia (most females are infantphiles while more males are peodophiles). There is a very good biological reason why infantophilia is not the same as pedophilia and this is outlined by Laws and O’Donohue (I’ll let you read up on it and become educated). Fourth, I nor my sources are incorrect on any of the age ranges for pedophilia, ephebophilia and teleiophilia. As you can see most of my sources are recent (unlike much of citations within the article itself where most are over ten years old). Science does not stand still, it moves on and it identifies new phenomenon which adds to our knowledge of a subject. Just because you don’t think it does not make sense, does not mean that is the case. While most people in society might agree with you that this makes no sense but it makes perfect sense to a rapist which is what scientists have been working on for years identifying.Unless you work in the field of psychology or psychiatry then you would not understand the workings of a rapists mind. Rapists do have cut off points on their targets and that’s what makes them more abnormal compared to other criminals. While societies view on rapists is how laws function in each society (one size fits all approach), thankfully when it comes to treating rapists, doctors can apply the many new techniques they have developed which results in a sharpe reduction in recidivism by the individual. Rapists often possess a moral parameter which is often linked to past abuse they had endured. This brings me to the fifth point; philia’s do make reference to an individual’s mental state. Rape is not just an act of physical aggression; it is a lot more than that. It is also psychological aggression and not just by emotional rape but because as I pointed out above, most rapists have a philia that is abnormal to the rest of society. They harbour a feeling of entitlement to act as they do, with whom they want, and on how they go about it. Rape is a quite complex behaviour where many rapists plan and carry out their attacks on their targets, which would go about referring to other psychological states (intentionality, motivation, rationality and reasoning, and decision making to name just a few) and so to answer your final question, there are plenty of ways we can identify if a person will be a pedophile based on sophisticated scientific methods. The fact is the majority of rapists themselves have in fact been raped themselves and when they rape others they often choose targets close to or similar to the age they were raped and so rape is classified by philias. Unless you can provide me with some citations and links that say opposite to what I have stated then by all means please provide them, otherwise accept scientific facts. Alternativly please do read up on the articles I provided, I am sure they will educate you. Ps I have added two links which might help you. They are not very reliable in comparison to my citations above but they are all I could provide at the moment. The first is by Scientific American (a semi-formal science web site that informs readers and provides further citations) (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pedophiles-erotic-age-orientation) and the second is Chronophilia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronophilia) by wikipedia (which is not really reliable but does provide excellent sources). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.35.92 (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mind you disagreeing with my statement that it's a fact that most rapes are committed by males (boys or men), but the data, experts and tons of reliable sources on this topic disagree with you. To state that it is not fact that most rapists are males is to state that females are usually somehow able to physically overpower males, or that women often drug men or have sex with men while the men are sleep just to rape them. Your logic is also basically stating that females are so much smarter/more clever at raping that they simply don't get caught as much as males, which is a silly argument that I've heard/read before (by laypeople who are always males). The only other argument is to state that males feel so ashamed about being raped by a female that they don't report it. While the prevalence of female rapists may be underreported, it is ludicrous to state that this is why male rapists are reported so much more than female rapists. Fact is there are simply significantly more male rapists than there are female rapists, even in cases of child sexual abuse and statutory rape. In fact, all experts state that there are significantly more male child sexual abusers and pedophiles than female child sexual abusers and pedophiles. They also state that most serial killers are males. You want citations? This article is full of them, and they are mostly about boys/men raping girls/women. And since you consider most of the sources in this article to be old, let me just state that you can find many within 1 or 2 years that state the same thing.


 * No, "androphilia (sexual preference to males) and gynophilia (sexual preference to females)" were not once listed in the DSM as paraphilias. Homosexuality/homophilia was. Androphilia and gynephilia can also refer to heterosexuality, and neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality are considered paraphilias (well, homosexuality generally isn't considered one by scientists these days), so that's why you are wrong about that. Infantophilia is indeed pedophilia, just like this source states. Pedophilia is defined as a sexual preference for prepubescent children. Infants and toddlers are prepubescent, so it is quite silly to argue that infantophilia is not pedophilia. It would have been better if you'd described it as "a subclassification of pedophilia," like the source I listed does. You suggest that I read up on these things, but you need to. I won't buy that "most females are infant[o]philes while more males are peodophiles" without high-quality sources saying so. With hebephilia, there is an ongoing debate among experts about whether or not it is a paraphilia/mental disorder. It's not officially listed as either, and neither is ephebophilia. Ephebophilia includes normal adult sexual attraction -- sexual attraction to those who mostly or completely look adult (the only difference is that these individuals have a sexual preference for this age group). As for the age ranges, with the exception of hebephilia, you are wrong if you believe that they are consistently or usually defined that way. The infantophilia age range is not always defined as 0-3. The first source I listed above shows that. Even the age range for hebephilia has not always been consistent; again, the source I listed above shows that. These days, it's more commonly listed as 11-14. The age range given for ephebophilia varies more so, but the term was revised by Ray Blanchard et al. and they define it as 15-19, as seen in this 2008/2009 source where they state that the ephebophilia age range is 15–19. It's silly to define ephebophilia as starting at 15 and ending at 16 anyway, for the reasons I've noted. Many 15-year-olds look 17 and all 16-year-olds look 17 (as there is not much time for physical change between the ages), and it's not like it's easy to identify who is 15-19 by just looking at them; that age group generally look the same age (except for the 15-year-old boys who are still biologically/physically catching up with the girls), and the underage ones often do pass as adults because they biologically are adults and look it, except for the cases where 15-year-olds look younger. Furthermore, the sources you listed above, while most of them may be appropriate for the topic of rape, are not the best sources to use for defining paraphilias/mental disorders. Those things are supposed to be supported by medical journals or other medical sources because of the Identifying reliable sources (medicine) guideline. I stand by my statement that "philias refer to people's mental states. Rape is physical (except for the cases where people define 'emotional rape' as a part of rape)." I stand by my statement that there's no way that we could know if a person is a pedophile unless the person has been diagnosed as a pedophile. And I stand by my statement that "rape simply is not divided up into philias." I stand by everything I've stated. Unless speaking of child sexual abuse, there is no proof that "the majority of rapists themselves have in fact been raped." Even when talking about child sexual abusers and/or pedophiles, there is debate as to whether or not most were sexually abused. Some sources state that most were; others state that most weren't. To me, it's you who needs to accept scientific facts. I never stated that there was not a psychological component to rape. But rape is defined by the act, just like the intro of this article showcases. 80.241.211.33 (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And most of the sources in this article aren't that different in age than the ones you've listed. Most of this article's sources are from the 2000s. 80.241.211.33 (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And I already knew about that scientificamerican.com article and the Wikipedia Chronophilia article; in fact, I figured that the scientificamerican.com source is where you got the description that the ephebophilia age range is 15-16. But even it uses the word "mostly," saying "mostly attracted to 15- to 16-year-olds." As for the Wikipedia article, if you notice, the only age range it currently gives is the 0-3 infantophilia age range. But like I stated, that and the other age ranges (except for hebephilia) that I discussed above are not defined consistently. 80.241.211.33 (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a phrase about want and ignorance in individuals on topics of salience where want can be satisfied by providing holistic knowledge on an issue but ignorance can never be satisfied because the individual is not interested, they believe as they believe and that’s the end of it. I see this is the case with you. Incidentally most of the articles I have cited articles that are by female authors and are experts in the field of rape (so forget the argument of sexism “by laypeople who are always males” and “all experts state that”). In most jurisdictions there is no law against rape of a man by a woman, Fact. This is why there are more convictions recorded with male rapists in contrast to female rapists. Second yes women are smarter in that they have a higher level of Machiavellian intelligence meaning they can anticipate outcomes of events quicker than males. As outlined by Cortoni & Gannon (2011) and the International Perspectives on the Assessment and Treatment of Sexual Offenders (2011) (to name just a few) authorities ignore claims by males that are raped by females. Male victims are made to feel ashamed and are often ridiculed. The common statement they are told is they shouldn’t be complaining. Females are thought by authorities that they are incapable of committing such acts but as they have been shown time and time again, they are. What studies have found where there are gender neutral terms is that women are just as capable as men. Researchers have even found an evolutionary link where in countries like Russia and in African countries where the female population is higher than males, the incidence of female rape of males is higher, specifically for ritual purposes and criminalized fertility clinics. So yes, to answer your question females do drug, do use weapons and do overpower males in order to rape them (read the newspaper links I provided in my citations). Recent findings where physical assault has now been made gender neutral in most countries have found an almost equal level of convictions between the two genders and that is quoted in the handbook of criminology. So I guess we will find out when gender neutral terms are applied to rape in all countries if it is just a male thing or if both are equally capable because until then we can’t have a like for like study comparing the two variables. Most studies do argue for males as being the more likely candidate to be rapists but then as I have stated the majority of countries don’t recognize in their laws a female raping a male.

You seem to be fixated on right and wrong but can relax a little. You are correct androphilia and gynophilia were never listed in the DSM as paraphilias but when doctors (in the past) diagnosed homosexuals, they often made reference to androphilia/gynophilia. I never wrote homosexuality was considered a paraphilia these days, so don’t be creating your own statements, instead read what I did write. The sources you provide are citations from a number of websites rather than reliable sources. I told you when I included the last citations I provided that they were quick articles that I could access there and then because I figured you wouldn’t bother reading up on the topic but at least I had provided over fifty other citations that are extremely credible, you couldn’t provide me with one, not one reliable citation and yet you want everyone to take your view. Come on, you can do better than that, can you not provide any studies that you have read so that you can give a brief description? But then I didn’t think you read anything on the topic, just folk science articles. Once again the age limits for infantophilia are correct as stipulated by Laws and O'Donohue (2008) in Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment. You might be able to view this on google books or something (you can now see where the age limits of the philias are applied). I am not going talk further on this again, I think Laws and O'Donohue (2008) and my previous argument on the 17 November outline this very well and that you probably will never grasp the difference between peodophila and infantphilia. As for high quality sources on these issues, they don’t get any higher than Cortoni, Gannon, Berner, Briken, & Hill, Laws, O'Donohue, Pozzulo, Dempsey, Maeder, Allen, Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson Anderson, and Denov (all cited above) but I think you mean unless you say it, it won’t matter (because you are the highest scource in this area). It’s the same with your argument on ephebophilia, and hebephilia, where you can only provide wikipedia articles and other unreliable websites. It has nothing to do with how old a target looks to the perpitraitor because as I wrote in my last argument on the 17 November 2012, most rapists plan out their attack and know the age of the victim and this age is often reflected in the age when the rapist had him/herself been attacked. So nothing entirely to do with physical appearances but as you didn’t neither read my argument properly nor read up on any of the articles provided, you are going to stick to your biased belief which is your prerogative, but please don’t try to contaminate the issue of rape to others. On the issue of appropriate sources for paraphilias/mental disorders where you think mine are not because they are not medical, I might point out to you the DSM which is a medical Manuel is reviewed by a number of professions. Most notably psychologists are included and those psychologists that have been reviewing the latest edition of the DSM are none other than many of them I have cited above. You can stand by whatever statement you wish; it does mean it is true. It is most likely is false but we live in a free world. My concern would be how you would react if you came across a male who claimed he was raped by a female, most likely you who dismiss him as a lier. You are quite wrong when you say “rape is defined by the act”, rape is not just defined by the act because in every legal case there consists the mens rea (guilty mind) whereby the prosecutor has to show the individual had the mental capabilities of committing the act. Incidently the reason the Scientific American article uses the word mostly because in science there are no facts, only science fiction, or science plausible. Anything else would be pushing science to positivism which it is not. As Popper’s theory of falsification states what is true today is false tomorrow because we can never have absolute sufficient evidence, meaning researchers cannot take all the subject matter in their studies because it would be time consuming and expensive. Rather they look at one area at a time and merge the other studies together which generate other scientific studies, thereby achieving a holistic approach. I can’t believe I have to give a science lesson to someone on Wikipedia but there you go. I suppose there is no helping some people so let’s just agree to disagree with each other because I cannot see you reading any reliable articles other that website blogs etc etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.35.92 (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As you can see, I took a break from your commentary. You have demonstrated that you sometimes don't know what you are talking about on this issue, as demonstrated by my correcting you above. You act as though you are so much more educated about this than me, even despite my correcting you. And now you assert that I'm being ignorant because I go by data, expert analysis and common sense on the topic of rape? You, sir (no doubt that you are a "sir") are being ridiculous. I am also a sir, but I'm clearly not the kind who issues ridiculousness about there being doubt that most rapists are male all just to make me feel better about my sex/gender. Yes, the logic that females are so much smarter/more clever at raping that they simply don't get caught as much as males is a silly argument and it's one that I've read/heard from male laypeople only. Now you included. Experts have naver made such a silly argument, especially since there is the fact that men are usually physically stronger and more sexually aggressive than women and this adds to why more rapists are men. The argument that "in most jurisdictions there is no law against rape of a man by a woman" and that "[t]his is why there are more convictions recorded with male rapists in contrast to female rapists" is also ridiculous. That you would even state that or that "women are smarter" so definitively and that this plays a role in the fact that there aren't as many women reported as rapists just shows that I cannot take anything you state on this topic seriously. I suppose that you want me to believe that most teenage rapists aren't male either. Female teenagers are just as likely to be rapists as teenage males. Absurd. As absurd as if you were to state that most girls and women are just as likely as boys and men to be serial killers. Some of your commentary has been inaccurate rambling, with you spinning or misinterpreting what sources state all for your own benefit.


 * I already relayed that "The only other argument is to state that males feel so ashamed about being raped by a female that they don't report it. While the prevalence of female rapists may be underreported, it is ludicrous to state that this is why male rapists are reported so much more than female rapists." I never stated that females don't use drugs, weapons and overpower males in order to rape them. I relayed that, "To state that it is not fact that most rapists are males is to state that females are usually somehow able to physically overpower males, or that women often drug men or have sex with men while the men are sleep just to rape them." Emphasis on "often" and "usually." I don't believe that these are usual occurrences at all, and data and experts support me on that.


 * I'm not fixated on right and wrong. I just don't like personal theories -- such as "there are possibly or likely as many female rapists as there are male rapists" -- being given as much weight as what research has consistently shown to be the case. I noted common sense. Even common sense should tell you that stating there are possibly or likely just as many female rapists as there are male rapists is absurd. And my belief on that has nothing to do with being conditioned to believe that most rapists are males, but is rather due to what I noted above. I know what you wrote and you wrote that "androphilia (sexual preference to males) and gynophilia (sexual preference to females)" are paraphilias and were listed in the DSM as paraphilias. I stated that you are wrong about that, and (as you half-assed admitted) you are. And this is not just a website, and this source from the Mayo Clinic is not just a source from a website either. Like I stated, the first source is from Ray Blanchard et al. (a reserach journal on PubMed) and they are the current researchers defining ephebophilia. They are also the main ones defining hebephilia. The Mayo Clinic is a well-respected medical research group and they are relaying a lot of the collected data on pedophilia in that source I listed. To call either source unreliable is as silly as some of your other comments. Unlike you, I didn't refer to any unreliable or poor/medicore sources. I told you, "the sources you listed above, while most of them may be appropriate for the topic of rape, are not the best sources to use for defining paraphilias/mental disorders. Those things are supposed to be supported by medical journals or other medical sources because of the Identifying reliable sources (medicine) guideline." You provided at least one definite medical journal -- Psychology, Health & Medicine -- (although journals such as The Journal of Sex Research can also be argued as medical), but whether or not it is (they are) appropriate for defining paraphilias/mental disorders is another matter. I don't need to provide "over fifty other citations that are extremely credible." I provided sources to prove two points I was discussing. I don't "want everyone to take [my] view." I'm not the one ranting on the talk page like this is a forum even though such ranting goes against WP:NOTAFORUM. I'm not the one ranting on a talk page with inaccurate assertions all the while claiming that the sources listed support those inaccurate assertions. Nor am I the one listing sources from just any researcher I come across. Newsflash: A ton of researchers write books about topics, and do independent research, and give their own opinions on those matters. A ton of books by researchers can be found asserting things that are in stark contrast to what scientific consensus is. That is why when making statements about what scientific consensus is or giving the impression that something is scientific consensus, we are supposed to go by high-quality sources from authorities such as the American Psychological Association, etc., and peer-reviewed journals. But by all means, maintain that your sources are the best and that mine are unreliable. It just further shows that you aren't interested in listening/understanding at all, and are only concerned with being right. That, sir, is what being ignorant is about. Your commentary has an air of condescension, and it is extremely annoying and laughable at the same time. Once again, as for the age ranges, with the exception of hebephilia, you are wrong if you believe that they are consistently or usually defined that way. "My" sources show that. And to act as though infantophilia, a clear subset of pedophilia, is usually distinguished from pedophilia by medical experts and other researchers in these areas is as asinine as other things you've stated on this talk page. It's quite backwards and hilarious that you stated, "It's the same with your argument on ephebophilia, and hebephilia, where you can only provide wikipedia articles and other unreliable websites." Erm, no, that is you who did that, sir. You indeed. And chronophilias are all about how old a target looks to the perpetrator (that's the correct way to spell it, not "perpitraitor") and arguing against that shows me even further that you know or rather understand very little on these topics. Stating that "most rapists plan out their attack and know the age of the victim and this age is often reflected in the age when the rapist had him/herself been attacked" shows you barely know what you are talking about. Most child sexual abusers, statutory rapists and rapists in general know how old their victims are bcause they know the victim. Most child sexual abuse offenses, statutory rapes and rapes in general are committed by people the victim knows.


 * Males being rapists significantly more than females are has been shown in the animal kingdom in general. You speak of "evolutionary link"... Well, there are a few researchers who argue that it can be a part of a male's biology to rape. Sociobiological theories of rape focuses on males raping females, not the other way around. You stated "please don’t try to contaminate the issue of rape to others." Yes, the same goes to you, sir. The same goes to you. You stated, "Most notably psychologists are included and those psychologists that have been reviewing the latest edition of the DSM are none other than many of them I have cited above." I state, "Not many of them." And I also point out that Ray Blanchard et al. are among the psychologists/sexologists reviewing the latest edition of the DSM. You stated that I "can stand by whatever statement [I] wish; it does mean it is true. It is most likely is false but we live in a free world." I repeat: Yes, the same goes to you, sir. The same goes to you. No, I would not dismiss a male who claimed that he was raped by a female, especially in the case of a boy, or call the male a liar (that's the correct way to spell it, not "lier") simply because the sex/gender aspects have been reversed to the more unlikely occurence. And, yes, I am quite right when I state that "rape is defined by the act," as even as there "consists the mens rea (guilty mind) whereby the prosecutor has to show the individual had the mental capabilities of committing the act," it is about the act that was allegedly committed. Everyone knows that there is a mental aspect of rape, so that is beside the point. You stating that "in science there are no facts, only science fiction, or science plausible" is just another ludicrous statement. No scientific facts exist? Well, that's news to scientists. It's not a science lesson at all, but rather simple stupidty. I agree that there is no helping some people and that we should agree to disagree with each other. Now let's see if you will keep your word and don't reply here again at all. But then again, someone may remove our debate, as it does, as mentioned, violates WP:NOTAFORUM. 80.241.211.33 (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Notable examples?
Should we include a list of notable persons who have experienced or survived rape? I know it's an unpleasant subject, but we have list articles like List of suicides, on which I've worked extensively. Obviously such a section would have to be heavily scrutinized to make sure that any inclusions/additions follow WP:V/WP:CS/WP:IRS, and are not allowed to descend into tabloidesque speculation. I would certainly keep it on my Watchlist. There are a number of notable people who have gone on the record as having experienced or survived rape; any such list would include them, and not any persons that are rumored or speculated to have experienced it, or who have denied it. Thoughts? Nightscream (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A separate article would be a good idea. All the rape victims out there would see how many famous people had it happen to them, and managed to still recover and make something of their lives.  All of these people would most likely to have their own Wikipedia articles already, such as Fiona Apple who has publicly spoken about getting raped when young, etc.   D r e a m Focus  09:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a separate article be predicated on how long the list is? Nightscream (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a problem, per se, with such an article, but it would need custodians who kept a very careful watch on it to prevent it from getting out of control, and inclusion in such a list would need to be scrupulously managed according to established Wikipedia policies on relevence, undue weight, reliable sourcing, and living person writing. -- Jayron  32  13:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I would keep it on my Watchlist, much as I do with the List of suicides article, which, when I originally discovered it, was lacking citations for much of the notables listed there. I had to start a consensus discussion because another editor involved with it challenged the need for citations in it, and after the vast majority in the discussion agreed with me, I removed all the unsourced people listed in it. I would do the same with the rape article, which I'm sure would be targeted for vandalism, and uncited content. Nightscream (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I do have profound misgivings about this one. The whole topic of categorisation is problematic, and the mere existence of reliable sources does not mean that a subject would be comfortable with the identification. For example English law specifically prohibits it unless the victim has chosen to forgo anonimity, but even then the victim may change her mind, and not want to be remembered for an event which she wants to put behind her. WP:VICTIM helps, but whatever the motives behind the list the difficulty in knowing whether the subject would consent to inclusion does seem to me a serious obstacle. --AJHingston (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hell no. Not under any circumstances, ever. This would be about as gross a violation of the intent of basic WP:BLP policy as one could imagine - and would undoubtedly have serious legal implications for anyone editing from the many jurisdictions where rape victims are granted anonymity. AndyTheGrump (talk)


 * We'd call it List of rape victims who have publicly talked about their rape and are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article for them, or something of that sort. Have the qualifying information up top.  They have to have publicly stated it, and a reliable source must be there to confirm it.  We can then discuss people who were raped and murdered by crazed fans being added, or historical figures such as Joan of Arc and Laurence of Arabia.  If the person was dead, would it cause any distress to anyone to mention that?  What if it had happened at least a century ago and no living person who knew them or could be effected by the news still lived?   D r e a m Focus  18:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a related discussion (related in topic, though it looks like it was started in a manner entirely unconnected to this one) at WT:BLP. My comments there are germaine here as well.  -- Jayron  32  18:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It is my belief that the naming of victims of rape on Wikipedia could prevent the course justice. It is quite possible that a woman (or man for that matter) that has been raped would be wary of coming forward to report the attack incase their name was suddenly plastered allover wikipedia. As for the UK law that grants victims of rape life anonymity, it is present for a reason, and if you are sitting at your computer in a jurisdiction away from the UK, just think what would happen if you were identified, and then came on holiday to the UK.

Just because the law prevents it in one country, it does not give one carte-blanche to do as they please in another, thesedays every tap you make on a keyboard is logged and traceable. Markdarrly (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this intended to be part of the Notable examples discussion above? Why did you place it under a different heading two discussions below? Nightscream (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, you, AndyTheGrump and AJHingston misunderstood me. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough with my initial post at the top.

I'm talking about instances in which the person has opted not to remain anonymous, and has chosen to discuss it publicly. How do you guys feel about that? Nightscream (talk) 04:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I worry about the threshold test for inclusion, and how we could be sure that members of the list would be happy about being there. I do realise that you were not advocating 'outing' - believe me, my reaction would have been very much stronger if so. Obviously the information that a woman had been raped would have to appear in their article and be based on reliable sources. I would hope that editors would have applied WP:VICTIM in a way to have excluded that in many cases, and have due regard to the laws of the relevant countr(y)/(ies). But firstly, once people create lists, there is a desire to flesh them out for completeness. It might be seen as encouraging the adding of the information to BLP articles in order to include them in the list. Secondly, whilst I have no desire to conduct the necessary research I can be confident that there are people who gain some sexual gratification from reading about rape victims even if that contains no information about the details of the rape itself, and they will be particularly interested in notable people not only because they may be particularly attractive physically but photographs of them will be readily available. Lists of rape victims will be of special interest to them. We may not agree with those fears, we may think that the dangers are outweighed by the possible benefits; nevertheless they would not be totally irrational and are examples of the sorts of objections victims might have. Just because a woman has spoken publicly about a rape many years previously and it therefore appears in RS does not mean that she wants attention drawn to it today. As for the possible impact on women reading the article who may have been raped, perhaps very recently, we know that fear of publicity can be a powerful deterrent to making a complaint, which is why some legal jurisdictions protect their identity. They may gain help by reading about other rape victims but they might also be put off by a reminder that their identity could end up all over the internet. Notable people are especially vulnerable in this regard.
 * I do not, therefore, rule out the possibility of naming some rape victims in this article, but it needs to be labelled and selected in a way that would reassure victims and only contain those whom it is certain would be happy to be included. Anything that smacks of list of notable rape victims is fraught with problems. --AJHingston (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require that people be "happy" about it being mentioned here, since rape is an inherently unhappy matter to speak of. The relevant criterion should be WP:V, WP:IRS, WP:BLPNAME, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, etc. I think the threshold should be whether the subject has publicly chosen to speak about it. If they have, and RSs support this, then I think it should be acceptable.

And while such information can exist in their articles, there is no reason why this should be a requirement for inclusion in this one, or in a new one focusing on notables who have experienced it.

Of course there will be a desire to flesh out lists. There is a desire to flesh out all articles on Wikipedia, so this would be no different. But we cannot hold as criteria the fact that some may have less than savory motives concerning such articles. As long as those motives do not determine the article's content, then that's just a slippery slope argument, and a moot one, IMO. Nor can fear of publicity be a relevant criteria, since again, these would be people who chose to publicize it. Even if this were relevant, I am made to understand that greater awareness encourages more survivors to speak out. Nightscream (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you and I hold very different positions. In the circumstances, I have to oppose the proposition, and in view of the current rfc on categorisation, and the discussion on naming of rape victims in the BLP page it would probably be better to refrain from any action here until it has been fully aired in the wider community. --AJHingston (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you oppose mention rapes in the articles of BLP subjects themselves, even when solidly sourced, as say, Madonna's rape is in her article? Nightscream (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not think it sufficient that the subject has been raped. As has been explained to you this is often a matter of extreme sensitivity, and may be legally protected. The various policies including WP:VICTIM and WP:UNDUE are there to discourage inclusion rather than the reverse. Generally speaking we do not include details of people's sexual activity whether voluntary or not, especially single encounters. That is not saying that this should never be included in a biography, but there needs to be an overwhelming case for inclusion, not just that some people find it interesting. I hold to the view that the subject's views in the matter are a very important touchstone here. --AJHingston (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On refection, if you want to continue discussion of the inclusion of rape in BLPs it would be best to open it as a new topic at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons as it is a matter of BLP policy. --AJHingston (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge all other Rape related Articles to this article
While the work by everyone on this article has been fantastic, I believe all other wiki articles of rape should be merged into this one. Specifically so that people can get all they need to know on rape rather than searching through the many articles that exist which may result in the loss of information by people and cause misconceptions and bias of what rape is and who commits it. Some of the other articles that exist on wiki consist of: rape culture, corrective rape, rape by gender, rape fantasy, war rape, marital rape, types of rape, date rape, prison rape, pregnancy from rape, laws regarding rape, history of rape, false accusation of rape, rape investigation ect ect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.35.92 (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See Article size and Summary style. It would be impossible to adequately cover a topic as large as this in a single article, so we need multiple articles to deal with different facets of it.  -- Jayron  32  01:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's basically what I was going to state. And not only do we have a Types section in the article to help navigate readers to related articles, there are also the templates, such as Template:Rape at the bottom of the article. Plus, Category:Rape. 80.241.211.33 (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Any article too small to exist on its own has been merged already. The existing articles are there because this article would be far too long to have them all together.   D r e a m Focus  12:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Rape of Lucretia
The "rape" of Lucretia is almost certainly a myth, i.e., it is an example of mythology rather than history. It comes from Livy, and Livy tells many myths, and probably makes some of them up, as part of his "history." The Rape of the Sabine Women is another of Livy's myths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.224.120 (talk) 07:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)