Talk:Rape/Archive 21

Global view
If this encyclopedia claims to be neutral, why does it present a biased definition in the lead? Specifically the second sentence - "The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or against a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent." - is POV, because it applies only to the USA and some other countries with similar laws. WHO defines rape differently, only as a violent assault, and not as having sex with someone under the age of consent.--2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:38E8:1612:C0B5:12B2 (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not a biased piece; that's a significant definition that, like you stated, applies to the USA and "some other countries with similar laws." We won't be removing the statutory rape portion from the lead, which should be in the lead...per WP:Lead. It's odd that you titled this section "Global view," and then object to a portion of the lead helping to provide a global view. We have a Definitions section for the very fact that "rape" doesn't mean the same thing in every place. Flyer22 (talk) 07:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And we certainly won't be limiting rape simply to violence; neither does the World Health Organization (WHO). Then again, enough WP:Reliable sources out there consider most types of rape (the vast majority) to be sexual violence. Flyer22 (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And another thing: Looking at your contribution history under your current IP, I'm quite certain that you're Kohelet (who I'm familiar with from the Gang rape article); why don't you try appealing your block again, going for the WP:Standard offer, instead of evading your block? Flyer22 (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC) ‎


 * There's no point to it, the local admins are too fanatical and the chance they would unblock me is negligible. It's a very hostile environment in here. So I'm being forced to operate as a sock-IP, or whatever the admins like to call it.


 * But to address your post: the lead doesn't contain any internationally accepted definition of rape, such as the above mentioned one by the WHO. There is no portion that would explain what rape really is, there is only the locally accepted American definition. I really doubt WP:Lead contains anything that would invalidate my point.--2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:38E8:1612:C0B5:12B2 (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are talking about with regard to the lead; rape is defined by "physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or against a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent" in many parts of the world; having "below the legal age of consent" in the lead does not make the definition "the locally accepted American definition," especially since it's not only America (the U.S.) that has an age of consent law, as shown by the Age of consent article. The lead includes the most significant definitions of rape, which are a summary of the definitions noted at the very beginning of the Definitions sections and below that. For example, even marital rape is summarized by the lead, since rape is first and foremost about whether or not consent was present; in the case of age of consent, any consent the minor has given is invalid consent. And keep in mind that child sexual abuse is often termed child rape, and that many parts of the world (though there are various different terms used for statutory rape or child rape) have laws against child rape as well, because no normal person (unless a child who does not understand the matter) would suggest, for example, that it is okay for an adult to engage in sex with a 5-year-old because the 5-year-old said "yes." Flyer22 (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

False allegations
The Home Office Report was not the largest, nor most rigorous, study conducted. The NIJ report had a sample size that was 4 times larger than the Home Office Report, and covered a span of 7 series, with all laboratory procedures being conducted by the FBI. Also, if one actually read the Home Office Report, particularly pages 47 and 48, one would see that what's being claimed in this article is directly contradicted by the report. The 16-25 age bracket regarding false accusations, for example, was not 8% but instead 52%. Sort of an important distinction one might say. Besides the fact that if the study was in fact linked, readers could see for themselves how the study actually discounted false rape accusations in which the accuser admitted the false accusation and recanted. The study actually didn't count false accusers who were caught and recanted. That might, just maybe, be something readers should have access to in a section titled "False Accusations". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.51.70 (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What is your source?  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 03:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

cite 72
Number 72 ""Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking: Findings from the British Crime Survey" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-12-31." does not work.117.199.14.247 (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)content

Serial rape
I think that a section for serial rape should be added to the part of the article concerned with varieties of rape. If one already exists, I've failed to see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.195.145 (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article discuss the positives of rape?
Seems really POV to me.70.162.46.129 (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not "really POV." It's WP:Neutral when it comes to how Wikipedia defines POV. Your suggestion is WP:Fringe, because the medical and scientific community at large generally do not discuss any "positives of rape," especially with regard to humans; the closest thing to such a belief are sociobiological theories of rape, a topic that is mentioned in the "Motivation of perpetrators" section of the Rape article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's a troll. Otherwise, please bring sources. Perhaps something with rape as a darwinian adaptation? Not sure how strong the science is on that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The OP is just trolling, but there are Darwinian arguments relevant to this issue, some of which are addressed in Sexual coercion. There have also been ideological justifications (e.g. Eldridge Cleaver). Paul B (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Eldridge Cleaver was a black male trying to justify the rape of white women as political defiance. Sociobiologically black-on-white rape is probably a form of genetic hitch-hiking, in which an overall less adaptively fit race hopes to mingle its genes with those of a more adaptively fit race, in order to raise the viability of the inferior race and prolong its existence. That's the most likely reason for why, during a typical year, there are about 15000 rapes of white women by black men, but fewer than 10 rapes of black women by white men. It might be worth noting that, of the 24 women who have so far accused Bill Cosby of sexual assault or sexual harassment, 18 (or 75%) are white, four are black, and two are mixed race. 70.100.195.145 (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * IP, since you decided to butt in front of my comment to Paul Barlow below, I'll go ahead and ask you the following question instead of deleting your comment as the racist pile of content it is: What scientific evidence do you have that black people are "an overall less adaptively fit race" and are "the inferior race"? Keep in mind that your "scientific evidence" should not be WP:Fringe and should be on par with Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS). Surely, with your scientific mind, you must also be aware that, as noted in the Race (human classification) article, scientists these days generally don't believe that race biologically exists in the way that people usually think it does. Flyer22 (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Paul Barlow, I used the "especially with regard to humans" wording above because "positives of rape" are discussed with regard to non-human animals far more than they are discussed with regard to humans (though rape is also most commonly a legal term/a term most commonly restricted to humans). The Sociobiological theories of rape article points to the Sexual coercion article (which is about non-human animals), so that's why I didn't point specifically to the Sexual coercion article. The Sociobiological theories of rape article addresses all of that type of material. Flyer22 (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, That's why I said that argument relevant to the point appear in the coercion article. A specific connection to humans would, of course, have to be made in RS. Paul B (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've also read that women (yes, humans) have adaptations that can mitigate against rape - for example, when ovulating, women have greater strength, sharper peripheral vision, and better reflexes (which may allow them to escape), and women are less likely to get pregnant if the sperm is "unknown" - e.g. if it is the first time her body has seen that particular sperm.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Pregnancy from rape article also addresses that; remember the Todd Akin controversy? That controversy resulted in the creation of the Pregnancy from rape article, that was originally, significantly about Todd Akin and his rape comment controversy. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * haha... yeah... I hadn't see the pregnancy article - so according to that the literature seems divided. I think the piece I read may have been related to this study . also this one which suggests pre-eclampsia as an adaptation to rid the body of a pregnancy caused by sperm which was foreign to the woman. To me the idea of rape and adaptations to avoid rape (or pregnancy) as a darwinian struggle makes a sick sort of sense - men evolve ways to determine fertility of women, women evolve ways to avoid/protect themselves from men, or avoid the cost of pregnancy by stopping the pregnancy. This may be why the studies are so contrasted, as they're studying a battle of adaptations that occurs over evolutionary time frames, and different people may have different advantages at a given point in time. Akin was wrong in his statement, but I think the idea that women and men have biological adaptations to limit or expand procreation based on paternal investment and the mode of conception makes sense.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Obiwankenob, I'm not sure how you view the literature on the pregnancy from rape topic as divided, but, by a vast margin, it's not. This is clear from the Wikipedia articles noted above. The Pregnancy from rape article, for example, makes clear that the scientific consensus is that pregnancy is not any less likely to occur from rape than it is from consensual penile-vaginal sex. I have not found scientists and other researchers to generally be conflicted on this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you read that - the line I read is "There is debate as to whether conception rates are higher from rape or consensual sex." Then the rest of the article cites studies which show a higher rate of conception after rape, and other studies which claim a lower rate due to female adaptations. I haven't performed a literature review, but the wikipedia article doesn't seem to come down on one side or the other. My point about the darwinian adaptations was that one might expect males to evolve techniques to ensure pregnancy even in cases of rape, while female would evolve techniques to avoid rape or avoid pregnancies. What actually happens is due to the interplay between those evolutionary strategies (which are layered on top of social strategies of course), but I would be very surprised it it was truly a wash.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's in the lead of the Pregnancy from rape article (after much discussion at that talk page), and the Rape-pregnancy rates section, in my view, also makes that matter clear, despite the mention of debate among some scholars. Within every scholarly field, there is some debate among scholars, including debates about WP:Fringe ideas. It is indeed WP:Fringe to state that pregnancy is less likely to occur from rape than from consensual penile-vaginal sex, and the preponderance of literature on the topic shows that. I am not going to go over all of (or any specifics regarding) that literature here at this talk page, and that's because not only am I not in the mood for that, I don't see it as beneficial to helping the Rape article. So I encourage you to read as much about the topic as you can if you want to know more. And to be careful to distinguish scientific consensus from WP:Fringe. Flyer22 (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have read a number of the papers, and I think that lede is misleading - indeed, the articles cited by the lede point to the possibility that pregnancy may be MORE likely after rape. What most of those popular news articles were debunking was the idea that a woman's body shuts down and prevents the pregnancy from happening, or that pregnancies are very rare - we know this to not be the case.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that lead is misleading, going by the clear statement that pregnancy is not less likely to occur from rape, the sources presented there and the preponderance of literature on the topic; the History section essentially states the same thing, with two different sources. And those "popular news articles" are also addressing whether or not pregnancy is less likely to occur from rape, and there are plenty of non-"popular news articles" sources to support that material as well. I'm done on this topic now. Flyer22 (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: In case anyone reading this at whatever point in time wonders why the lead of the Pregnancy from rape article is slightly different than what Obiwankenobi and I were discussing above about pregnancy rates (that is, if he isn't reverted on it because the same can be stated in reverse and some sources are in the middle on it), it's because Obiwankenobi changed the lead, as seen here and here (something I knew that was likely to happen). Flyer22 (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

women could marry in France before 1793 w/o parental consent
I read the line where you say women had to wait until 1793 in France to be allowed to marry without their parents consent. The references you quote come from what a freshman wrote in a report at Yale, I believe and is a stupidity. When would it be in 1793? The facts are the following: after the council of Trente, the states had to accept the consent needed was the one of the wedded (of future wedded) people. It was decided people could marry, men and woman, without problems if they were older than 25. Majority was at 25 until the Revolution. People wishing to wed had to ask their parents, and could go on with their intentions if the parents disagreed. Usually, they eloped. Diverse sanctions wee taken against them, the classical one being to take away any inheritance rights (edit from Henri II, Feb. 1556).The Revolution changed the coming of age date and set it to 21. For a few years, people could marry if they were both older than 21 but the Code Napoleon 1804 decided men had to be 25 and women 21 to get married without their parents agreement. In 1907, ages were lowered to 21 for both sexes, and 18 in 1974. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.214.29 (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2015
Remove the 'end others' from the infobox picture caption: the previous 'including' already makes it clear that the list of artists is not exhaustive.

86.170.130.156 (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 14:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

DNA evidence is rare in rape cases
A huge problem with this article is that it doesn't discuss dna evidence in rape cases. Contrary to popular belief dna evidence is rarely collected in most rape cases. I think we should include this but I'm not sure which section. http://www.ncdsv.org/images/WhenNoisNotEnoughtLackEvidence.pdf Turtire (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting study on false convictions and rape
'''Rapes of white women by black men account for well under 10 percent of all rapes in the United States, but half of all rape exonerations fall in that category. 30 This stark disparity suggests that prosecutions of interracial rapes with black defendants are particularly error prone, perhaps because—as many psychological studies show—white Americans are much more likely to mistake one African-American stranger for another than to do so with members of their own race. ''' http://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1249&context=facpubs&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fq%3Dfrequency%2Band%2Bpredictors%2Bof%2Bfalse%2Bconvictions%26btnG%3D%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%252C5#search=%22frequency%20predictors%20false%20convictions%22 Should this be included in the article? The fact that even though interracial rapes represent only 6% of all rapes they produce 50% of all false convictions? Turtire (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It references to Bureau of Justice Statistics website, but links to a dead link. The reference in the article says "The statistic fluctuates from year to year because for each year it is extrapolated from a sample of 10 or fewer survey responses.)" So these aren't valid stats, its just some random results based on asking 10 or fewer people.   D r e a m Focus  17:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * the BOJ survey is used all the time on wikipedia such as in the rape statistics article. Turtire (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

rape statistics article needs attention
Only two people involved in whether or not to remove a bit from someone's opinion page in a newspaper, and the quoted opinion of someone from their non-notable book. More people please look at these two discussion and comment.  D r e a m Focus  07:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2015
I propose that the following information should be added to this page. It could be added to section 4 by making a new subsection (i.e. 4.5) This is exactly what I suggest adding. The information is supported by references to published research evidence.

4.5 Physical Injury While sexual assault, including rape, can result in physical trauma, many people who experience sexual assault will not suffer any physical injury. Rape myths suggest that the stereotypical victim of sexual violence is a bruised and battered young woman. The central issue in many cases of rape or other sexual assault is whether or not both parties consented to the sexual activity or whether or not both parties had the capacity to do so. Thus, physical force resulting in visible physical injury is not always seen. This stereotype can be damaging because people who have experienced sexual assault but have no physical trauma may be less inclined to report to the authorities or to seek health care.

Forensicmedicalexpert (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Tony Tan98  ·  talk  21:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

cannabis is a date drug?
I was recently reading up on this and it's considered the 2nd most common date rape drug. How is this possible given that it has a foul odor and anxiety producing effects. How did the article miss this http://www.orcc.net/sites/all/files/pdf/Drug-and-Alcohol-Facilitated-Sexual-Assault-FS.pdf Turtire (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Foul odour? Oh please. Anything that loosens inhibition and/or disables or impairs the ability to resist can be used to facilitate rape - alcohol bring the most widely available such drug. How is that possible since beer tastes horrible and vodka feels like drinking acid? Paul B (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Cannabis frequently causes anxiety and thc is known to cause insomnia. That being said it should be mention somewhere on this page that cannabis is a date rape drug. Turtire (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits
Starting discussion for by. I agree with that they don't belong, primarily because they offer anecdotal evidence and appear to be WP:SYNTH.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I won't restore the info.  However I feel that the deleted first sentence would be appropriate.  Thoughts?  Gandydancer (talk)

This is the Rape article, it is meant to provide worldwide coverage of a very large issue, and provide a broad overview of the issues surrounding rape which easily make up over 100 different wikipedia articles on their own. There is no room for a single case and by what reasoning should we choose 1 case over hundreds of thousands? Regarding this addition here in particular [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape&diff=prev&oldid=654550976], not only is it not significant on a global scale, it is also an acquittal. It does not belong here for notability reasons and BLP reasons. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  22:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. It is my first Rape article edit and I'm sure I have a lot to learn.  Gandydancer (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The supposed case described was determined not to be a rape by a court of law - and accordingly, it is entirely undue that the only case described in any detail in the article should be one that resulted in an aquittal, with the clear implication that this was somehow evidence of a faulty legal system. It is very possible that the British legal system doesn't in general deal with alleged rapes appropriately (though it is hardly unique in this, or even I suspect anything approximating the worst in this regard), but we can't use partisan anecdotal evidence of an aquittal to illustrate supposed faults without grossly violating WP:NPOV - and, I would have to suggest WP:BLP policy as well (the defendant may not be named, but it wouldn't be that difficult to identify the individual given the details presented). AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Victim blaming
Another example of victim blaming in the United States is boys and men that are victims of rape being forced to pay child support to the women that rape them. Legal cases cited include a 15 year old boy raped by a 34 year old woman. Further information can be found in University of Pennsylvania peer review article https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/lawreview/articles/volume152/issue6/London152U.Pa.L.Rev.1957(2004).pdf "A Critique of the Strict Liability Standard for Determining Child Support in Cases of Male Victims of Sexual Assault and Statutory Rape" by Ellen London, which cites a number of cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.138.0 (talk • contribs)


 * Yes check.svg Done Interesting. I'm not sure it needs to be in the main article, though. I've incorporated in "Victim blaming" under Laws.Frederika Eilers (talk) 05:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Weird? No mention of male-on-female rape in the lead?
This article's introduction does not mention anything about men raping women, or "male-on-female" rape as the parlance may be. This is by far the most common form of rape and the one that is most often analysed or mentioned in virtually all fields of human history, including both the scientific and artistic. Is this deliberate, or has it somehow just been overlooked? 115.166.47.100 (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * For documentation, this is the current lead the IP is talking about. IP, male-on-female rape statistics were in the lead, but that text was removed. After its removal, it was left out of the lead because it is significantly dated; see Talk:Rape/Archive 20. Do you have any text to propose as a replacement? As currently seen in the lead of the Rape by gender article, we mention the following: "Most research indicates that rape affects women disproportionately, with the majority of people convicted being men; however, since the broadening of the definition of rape in 2012 by the US government, more attention is being given to females as rapists. Since only a small percentage of acts of sexual violence are brought to the attention of the authorities, it is difficult to compile accurate statistics." Either way, I think that it goes without saying that male-on-female rape is the most prevalent form of gender-combination rape, unless one wants to take the rape of males while in prison into account. I think that the lead gets that across by mentioning what may be the least reported forms of gender-combination rape instead of mentioning the form that common sense tells us is the most common. Despite the definition of rape having excluded males as victims for the vast majority of time that rape has been a concept, and many men's rights groups claiming that men are rape victims just as much as women are, or that women are as violent as men, experts on rape and/or on violence are clear that male-on-female rape is the most prevalent form of gender-combination rape and that males are significantly more violent than females. We have some Wikipedia articles addressing the differences between aggression and criminality among males and females, such as the Sex differences in psychology and Sex differences in crime articles, though those articles currently need a lot of work done on them.


 * On a side note: I expanded the heading of this section by adding "No mention of male-on-female rape in the lead?" so that it is clearer as to what this discussion is about, and is easier to locate once archived. Flyer22 (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Rape as a punishment
So in some cultures rape is judicially sanctioned, | npr shows one case from last year and | Time for a case this year. Doesn't seem to be isolated incidents a subsection maybe warranted? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hell in a Bucket, rape as punishment has been used for a long time, which is also clear by the History section; I mean, even before you added this content there. Why did you add the content to the History section, when that section is about past matters (mostly anyway)? I also don't see a need for a subsection for a little bit of material; see what MOS:Paragraphs states about that. Flyer22 (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My thoughts were because they have been in history. I admit to naivete in the fact that it was used at all, I was quite shocked. If the addition was problematic go ahead remove it. I knew it might be contentious and wanted to ask for feedback here so if that's the result ok. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hell in a Bucket, your addition is not problematic. And by "rape as punishment," I meant a man raping his wife to punish her, or war rape, or similar. I'll look into integrating your content later if no one beats me to it first. Flyer22 (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate the help, i've never seen this in a judicial sense. I am not the strongest writer so any and all ideas will help. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Facebook is trending a news story about that in India right now. I added in information referenced from Amnesty International's website about this.   D r e a m Focus  10:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

False accusations
Under this heading was this comment: "A report by the National Institute of Justice found that DNA evidence excluded the primary suspect in 26% of rape cases and concluded that this "strongly suggests that postarrest and postconviction DNA exonerations are tied to some strong, underlying systemic problems that generate erroneous accusations and convictions."[101]"

The referenced comment is followed by this paragraph: "It must be stressed that the sexual assault referrals made to the FBI ordi- narily involve cases where (1) identity is at issue (there is no consent de- fense), (2) the non-DNA evidence linking the suspect to the crime is eye- witness identification, (3) the suspects have been arrested or indicted based on non-DNA evidence, and (4) the biological evidence (sperm) has been recovered from a place (vaginal/rectal/oral swabs or underwear) that makes DNA results on the issue of identity virtually dispositive."

I think the section is conflating "false accusation" of a particular suspect with a false allegation of rape. The cases reviewed might quite possibly all be true allegations of rape, but false identification of the perpetrator. Specifically it wouldn't apply to "date rape" or other rapes where there is a question of consent. While suspects being falsely accused is certainly an important problem, the article sub section leaves the impression that this is evidence of a remarkably high false report rate. I suggest that the two concepts should be separated in the subsection: false reports of rape and false accusations of subjects. As it stands, the citation appears to be lending credence to the idea that false allegations of rape by women is very common, while the cited report does not really say that.

Ignatios2000 (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

History: Columbus
In the subsection "history" there is this statement: "American radio host, author, and political commentator Thom Hartmann has asserted that, during the colonization of the Americas, the rape of native women was not held to be a crime under Spanish Law as the persons in question were pagan and not Christian.[118]". The linked reference does cite a primary source supporting the Columbus party engaging in rape. However, there is no mention of Spanish law permitting the rape of pagans. Perhaps this statement is true, but it should be deleted as not supported by the citation. If the statement is documented elsewhere, it could certainly be reinserted with the appropriate reference. I recommend the sentence being deleted or rewritten to reflect the more narrow point that th Columbus exposition party engaged in rape of the aboriginal population. Ignatios2000 (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That statement is actually true according to info that I heard only lately when there was a discussion about the sainthood bestowed on the Spanish priest in Carmel, CA when Pope Francis was here for a visit. I'd suggest a tag for it rather than removing the info.  Someone may be willing to try to find documentation.  Gandydancer (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

"Most legal codes on rape do not legislate against women raping men," etc.
Hey, Nblund, nice to see you at this article in addition to the Campus sexual assault and Male rape articles. I don't mind this removal of text you made, but I'm wondering why you find it untrue, given that it's not too different than the "Most rape research and reporting to is limited to male-female forms of rape. Research on male-on-male and female-on-male rape is rare." sentence in that section, and given what the sourced Definitions section states about sexual penetration and rape. As you've pointed out at the Male rape article, "made to penetrate" is not a standard rape definition. Is it the "as rape is generally defined to include the act of penetration on behalf of the rapist" part of the sentence you took issue with? Or the whole sentence? Flyer22 (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with Flyer22, Nblund was wrong to remove, without achieving consensus or discussion, the sentence stating:
 * "Most legal codes on rape do not legislate against women raping men, as rape is generally defined to include the act of penetration on behalf of the rapist."

Stating that he/she did not think it was true is not a valid reason and therefore it should be reinstated back into the text. Reliable citations that support the statement, that most legal codes do not legislate against women raping men, are not that difficult to find, such as:
 * Gannon, T. A., & Cortoni, F. (2010). Female sexual Offenders: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment. West Sussex: Wiley-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.,
 * Gavin, H. & Porter, T. (2015). Female Aggression. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.,

I would also recommend you look at the Male Rape Talk page which has a multitude of articles which most authors highlight the narrow minded view of rape by society has resulted in the lack of legislation against female on male rape and which is highly problematic in resolving the issue of rape. Additionally you might look at Javaid's (2014)article in the Internet Journal of Criminology which points to the media campaign of censoring female on male rape and his article in the International Journal of Police Science and Management which describes how the police may handle male rape and how this may impact upon statistics. In regards to the withdraw of the consent of sex, one might give a mention to the rape by deception wiki article which highlights an interesting case in Israel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:25C0:380:758E:2B13:B6D0:1E9D (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Dilemma
Some of the editing has resulted in references being moved behind content that the reference does not support. Unless the references are put behind the statements they source then the content becomes unsourced. Best Regards,
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Be specific. I moved this, this and this material. In what way did I move it so that its sources don't support the content? Regarding that third diff-link, the only reason I moved it is because you originally had that source placed there. If, because of the guidelines you worked on with Kevin Gorman regarding our interactions, you are not going to communicate with me on the article talk page, except to leave notes, then I don't see how you expect things to get appropriately resolved. That is, unless you are expecting commentary from others to resolve such matters, with one or both of us presuming what the WP:Consensus is, and then going about our merrily way afterward. Or unless you are to let me "have my way" each time. I made it clear before that refusing to engage me on the article talk page when we are at conflict over article content will not work, and I did not agree to not engage you on article talk pages. Like I stated above, I will be significantly reducing the content you added to the Definitions section of this article unless you or someone else can provide a strong argument for keeping all of that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Given that Barbara was working on the article before you flew in (get it? hurrhurhurr) to bop some problems, I think that it's reasonable for Barbara to engage with you in this thread. Since the six month period has elapsed, the guidelines are a voluntary agreement on her side, and continued adherence to them a sign of good faith on her part.  Regarding engaging with you, The version that is currently roughly worked on is " BF won't directly respond to comments made by Flyer22 unless it's necessary for the flow of the discussion/needed to improve the article, etc. If BF is participating in a discussion with Flyer and fears it's going to down hill, bF will withdraw as feasible."  Basically a souped up version of "comment on the edits, not the editor." I think Barbara's engagement with you here is reasonably necessary to improve the article.  Barbara, I would agree with Flyer that being more specific is ideal. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Kevin. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you very much Kevin. I appreciate the time you put into helping things go more smoothly.
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)