Talk:Rape/Archive 3


 * Back to main Talk page

*Trigger Warning* for sexual assault survivors
This page contains graphic content. Images as well as text may be triggering to users suffering from rape trauma syndrome.--Survivor 06:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism in the Rape section
Just wanted to speak as a rape survivor. I have been keeping an eye on this page for several months now. I have noticed that what i guess is vandalism lends this page a very anti-survivor bias. Many of the things I have read which are presented to be nuetral and let stand for months are actually what most rape crisis centers would consider rape myths. I am very glad to have found this talk forum. Thank you to the moderators for allowing discussion on the issues.

- a survivor Just adding after taking a look at the archives that many of my points have been twisting very slightly to make no sense at all. This was done by changing the sentence structure or one or two words here and there. I believe one of your vandals uses subtle manipulation to undermine other people's posts.
 * Well, you should be able to look in the edit history and show us examples of this subtle manipulation, then. You do realize that if they were making a good-faith attempt to improve the article, it isn't WP:vandalism even if it isn't what you wanted the article to say, right?  -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do realize that. You in fact disagreed with what the person I am thinking of wrote. Perhaps I am using the wrong term. It's not that important if that is the case.


 * I'm sorry. It's just that working on this article really oversensitizes one if one is both a survivor of sexual assault and of false accusations of sexual assault.  People on both sides accuse you of trying to censor "the truth" because you're actually trying to let both sides be told instead of only theirs.  It gets very painful. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand. That's why I don't come here that often! I'm sorry this is painful to you. I did not mean to make comments that would offend users or moderators. Are you a moderator? I mean- do you watch over this article? I don't really understand all the POV terminology as I've never been to the talk forum before. I did not notice it existed. I'm sure it would be horrible to be accused of something you did not do. As a lesbian I've noticed gay males and homosexuals in general are automatically suspected of deviant activities of which they are only as likely as heterosexuals to commit (statistically). I hope this is not too stressful for you- I have read some of the archives and appreciate your insistance on factual references. I did some research on reference books on assault and that is why some parts of this page seem so strange to me. Take it easy- don't let it stress you. People on the internet do strange things.

take care, survivor

Survivor, can I suggest that you register for an account, or at least visit The Welcome Page and acquaint yourself with some wiki-customs? It would mean that we could interact with you deliberately and in good faith. This isn't about being in a club or hierarchy, its just about learning a few basic skills in editing and formatting techniques to be better understood. An An 05:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Anna,

I am not terribly involved in Wiki (nor do i plan to be a regular- I have other forums I spend too much time on already). I found this page when someone in my MLS program posted an article about Wiki to our listserv. I am interested in reference resources on sexual assault so immediately navigated to this page. I have checked it about once a month since then. I should be logged in as I write this. I am not really interested in getting emails about this topic (as you can imagine that would be very stressful) so the address I have registered with is only to retreive passwords and will not be checked regularly. Not to bring up past issues- but I have concerns over kids/students navigating to this article as a reliable resource. It is not noticably stated that anyone can edit it. Not that I oppose wiki in any way. I just have concerns that the false information I see here will be taken without question as gospel. Most of the people i have mentioned this to express surprise and concern because they have used wiki before as a reference resource. Thanks to the people who work to make sure the information is factual. Do you supose there should be a notation at the top of this forum that all entries are edited by the general public?

take care, survivor Survivor

I have given it some thought and decided that the reason most of these entries are so disputed is that they bear little resemblance to a published encyclopedia article. - edited - I think if we restrict information on this topic to the false reporting section (which should be clearly marked as editable by the way) and simply give information on the names and effects of date rape drugs it would be much more effective. (Rohypnol is generally known by that name and not by it's more obscure one)

My apologies- I meant to simply make the point that the drug section should only state the names and descriptions of date rape drugs. False reporting belongs in the false reporting section. If someone hadn't deleted my comments to that effect my point would already have been made.

just an idea, survivor Survivor ( i am logged in)

suggestion:

put this disclaimer somewhere on the page:

"Wikipedia cannot guarantee, in any way whatsoever, the validity of the information found here."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer

--Survivor 06:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mary Koss and the "One in four" statistic
One of the most widely quoted statistics on rape is that "One in four women have been raped", originating with a survey conducted by psychologist Mary Koss in 1985. The survey found that 27.5% of college women were victims of a rape or attempted rape in their lifetime. While also noting this statistic includes attempted rapes as well as actual rapes, it is also important to recognise that 73% of the rape victims did not categorise their experience as rape. (That distinction was made by Koss herself, based on the definition of rape used by most North American legal statutes.) In a study conducted on women in college by the National Institute of Justice, 48.8% of rape victims did not consider themselves "raped." The NIJ posited that these women may have avoided the use of the word "rape" due to embarrassment, reluctance to be blamed for the incident, not understanding the legal definition of rape, or because they did not want to think of an acquaintance as a rapist. Koss' study found that women who had been raped by someone they knew were less likely to label their experience as a rape than those who were raped by strangers, but found the experiences of both types of victims in terms of psychological trauma and relationship/sexual problems to be the same. Koss also found that a majority of the women surveyed for her study tried to stop the rape from happening. 84% tried to talk their attackers out of raping them, and 70% physically struggled against their attackers. These facts are often overlooked or minimalized by those who wish to shed doubt on the 1-in-4 statistic. References:

Koss, Mary. "Hidden rape: sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of students in higher education." In Burgess, A.W. (ed.) Rape and Sexual Assault II. Garland, New York, 1988

Koss, Mary P. and Sarah L. Cook. "Facing the facts: Date and acquaintance rape are significant problems for women". In Current Controversies on Family Violence. Edited by Richard J. Gelles and Donileen R Loseke. Sage, California, 1993.

Muehlenhard, Charlene L., Susie C. Sympson, Joi L. Phelps, and Barrie J. Highby. Are rape statistics exaggerated? A response to criticism of contemporary rape research. The Journal of Sex Research 31(2), 1994, pp 144

National Insitute of Justice. The Sexual Victimization of College Women. December 2000. Available online at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/182369.htm

Orman, Katie. The Date Rape Research Controversy. AARDVARC. Available online at: http://members.aardvark.net.au/~korman/rape/controversy

Warshaw, Robin. I never called it rape: the Ms report on recognizing, fighting and surviving date and acquaintance rape. HarperPerennial, New York, 1994.


 * The above is extremely POV. Mary Koss was a quack of the first degree, and the misuse of her fradulent statistics is a grave crime of propoganda. We went over her methods in my psychology class, and they are unacceptable to almost anyone who is informed of them. She counted as rape:


 * having consensual sex under the influence of alcohol or other drugs
 * having consensual sex and later regretting it
 * and


 * having consensual sex after having been talked into it or persuaded (i.e. in a completely non-agressive manner)
 * Her "facts" are about as useful as the "10%" figure on homosexuality (based entirely on if active duty sailors had ever had a homoerotic experience). These sorts of bogus studies deserve discussion, but not the disgraceful interpretation I found in the article. 18:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, Sam_Spade... And why should anybody believe you, when you don't bother to cite anything to back up your claims?--John 11:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I've looked at the National Insitute of Justice report, which states that rape is defined as "forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force." If the threat of force is 'psychological coercion' I have no problem with that, but if it means any form of persuasion, or even giving someone alcohol, we need to be very suspicious. The report does not make its criteria for psycholgical coercion clear. Any study which counts as 'rape' experiences that the women themselves do not consider to be rapes should surely be treated with scepticism. Paul B 14:33, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is the question involving 'date rape.' Even mary koss herself has conceded years later that her question regarding voluntary intoxication was  misleading and did not actually meet the legal definition of intoxication rape.  Not just that, but questions do not necessarily include a threat of physical force as the only criteria.  And as has been stated, the vast majority of women surveyed don't consider themselves to have been raped, so that's a bit questionable.  -Nathan J. Yoder 14:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have you read lies, damn lies and statistics? I don't see how you can attack this statistic without invalidating all statistics. I have discussed these statistics on a forum in the past to see what we could make of them. Many people felt that since rape victims are persecuted so frequently that very few report- stats don't say much. On the other hand we should at least try, eh? I have taken a class on research and the use of statistics and it was enlightening to find that if you don't like your results- you just use a different program til you get ones you do. That goes for rape victim advocates as well as those who prefer not to support victims. We agreed that -with all the statistics floating around -quoting that 'between one in three and one in five women will be sexually assaulted within her lifetime.' was about as fair as we could get in an imperfect world.

at any rate- I will supply the urls of all the rape statistics I am aware of :

Rape and Sexual Assault Statistics

Statistics from RAINN

http://www.rainn.org/statistics.html

Guide to Statistics from AARDVARK

http://www.aardvarc.org/statistics.shtml

Sexual Violence statistics from National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm

Statistical Abstract of the United States from the US Census Bureau- click on section 5 (Law Enforcement)

http://www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical-abstract-04.html

Statistics from the FBI - uniform crime reporting

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03cius.htm

Statistics on intimate crime from the Bureau of Justice

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#relate

Find statistics on rape at the Bureau of Justice web site- Reporting to Police and Medical Attention

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rsarp00.htm

National Criminal Justice Reference Service statistics on rape and sexual assault

http://virlib.ncjrs.org/Statistics.asp#R

Find statistics on various types of crime in the US

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/stsoc.html#crime

Statistics on crime internationally

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/stsoc.html#intlcrime

Statistics on domestic violence

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/stsoc.html#wabuse

Statute of limitations by state from RAINN

http://www.rainn.org/statutesoflimitationcrim.html

How many people were raped each year in the US?

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Sexual victimization of college women

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm

Search crime statistics by University

http://www.securityoncampus.org/crimestats/index.html

Further Statistics

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/stats.html

survivor (I am not in the system yet though I am logged in as Survivor)

Every single one of those pages is a secondary or tertiary source and thus lack validity. -Nathan J. Yoder 14:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't find them useful. I have found more since posting them. Perhaps someone else may find them useful at some point. take care, survivor

National Archive of Criminal Justice Data

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/

The National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD) preserves and distributes computerized crime and justice data from Federal agencies, state agencies, and investigator initiated research projects to users for secondary statistical analysis. Search terms: victimization, National Crime Victimization Survey. This site has some very interesting information and articles.

This site includes the following:

Adjusting the National Crime Victimization Survey's Estimates of Rape and Domestic Violence for 'Gag' Factors,

1986-1990. Coker, Ann L., and Elizabeth A. Stasny.

http://webapp.icpsr.umich.edu/cocoon/NACJD-STUDY/06558.xml

The researchers considered whether the type of interview (personal or telephone) and the presence of another person (particularly a spouse) influenced or "gagged" the reporting of rape and domestic violence in the NCVS. It is hypothesized that the inclusion of such yes/no questions would more easily allow victims to report rape or domestic violence incidents in telephone interviews, even with spouses present in the home during the interview.

also includes:Cost of Mental Health Care for Victims of Crime in the United States, Criminal Justice Response to Victim Harm in the United States, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1992-2003 (search for latest version)

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html

This database allows you to find the number of injuries or deaths per year by cause or intent. It also allows you to limit the criteria in a variety of ways for each search. Forgive me if I misinterpret (I am not a statistician) : In 2003 sexual assault was the third leading cause of non fatal injury for women overall (but especially ages 15-24) according the the center for disease control. Sexual Assault 67,085 women were non fatally injured in 2003 in the US.

sadly it was the leading cause of nonfatal injury for girls aged 1- 4. Sexual Assault 7,808 in the US in 2003. from: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/nonfatal/...003/violfem.htm

--Survivor 06:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just thought this might be interesting to some... the CDC appears to have edited it's page (at least I just revisited it).

The National College Women Sexual Victimization Study estimated that between 1 in 4 and 1 in 5 college women experienced completed or attempted rape during their college years (Fisher, Cullen, and Turner 2000). The National College Women Sexual Victimization Study from the CDC Fisher BS, Cullen FT, Turner MG. The sexual victimization of college women. Washington (DC): Department of Justice (US), National Institute of Justice; 2000. Publication No. NCJ 182369. Available from URL: www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdfor  www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/svcw.txt

--Survivor 06:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Anger-Excitation Rapist
"The anger-excitation rapist exhibits behavior characteristic of antisocial personality disorder, and is therefore often perceived as charming and intelligent."

This little bit here doesn't make much sense to me; could someone be so kind as to explain why exhibiting behavior characteristic of antisocial personality disorder would make you appear to be charming and intelligent? LavosBacons 04:34, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the characteristics of APD include glibness and superficial charm. Self-confidence can be a very attractive aspect to someone until you realize that the self-confidence is an outgrowth of egomania, and likewise someone who has no qualms about lying to you can seem very charming indeed until you see through the lies. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * All right, then. Going simply by the name, antisocial personality disorder simply doesn't sound like something people would be likely to find particularly charming. Thanks. LavosBacons 23:01, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Illustration possibility
I am enclosing a 160 year old image, art depicting a rape scene. I would like to include it in the article. Objections? Affirmations? Haiduc 05:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)



Humm. Not a good idea, I think. It can easily be interpreted as pornography. Probably because that's just what it is. The Japs still produce quite a lot of similar stuff. Paul B 12:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. All articles should have images, and this is the most tasteful image I can imagine on the subject. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well if you are looking for a 'tasteful' image of rape, then try one of the many Sabine Women pics, Poussin maybe. Or go for Rubens' Rape of the daughters of Leucippus. Of course they all depict rape in the archaic sense of 'forced abduction'. But they are certainly more tasteful. I don't know why all articles should have illustrations. But even if they should, I can see no reason why it should be an actual explicit depiction of a rape in progress.Paul B 18:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The pornography argument is not germane, by that token all erotic art would be equated with pornography and that is not a defensible position. The remaining question is whether to use an euphemistic definition of "rape" or an explicit one. The rape of the Sabines is better described (as depicted) as an abduction of the Sabines. Kidnapping may be followed by a rape, or not. So I see that type of picture as belonging in other articles, here it would be misleading. As for why articles should have pictures, my own take on that is that artistic and photographic froms of communication have special power. If we are to free information here, visual representations should not be excluded. Haiduc 19:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * This article is not supposed to be about 'erotic' experiences of any kind, so the point about erotic art is not a 'defensible position'. But anyway, you provide no argument that callng one thing pornography automatically labels everything 'erotic' as pornographic. By that logic you could never use the word about any image at all. And there could never be any meaningful distinction between erotic and pornographic. The use of the word 'rape' to refer to violating abduction is not a euphemism (it would be an odd kind of 'euphemism'). It's the original meaning of the word, as you should know if you've read the article. Paul B 01:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * If I had offered a photograph would you have said that this article is not about photography?! I do not find this image erotic (though some might; an unpublished paper by Julia Lesage suggests that "Many women have rape fantasies as part of their mental process of pleasurably representing sexuality to themselves," and psychoanalysis is replete with such things.) But we should separate thought from action, otherwise what would our Oedipal complexes make of us?. Do you see this as a glorification of rape and a catering to the perverse? I don't, I see it as the opposite, I see a woman being wounded by men with obsessive and animalic expressions. I see it as an indictment of rape. And I think that this very debate that we are having here is a valuable process that should be part of the experience of reading the article. To answer your point about making a distinction between pornography and art, that can degenerate very quickly into a pissing match. A whole line of critics and curators have seen this as art, but even judges on the Supreme Court disagree. MOre to the point, this article is about a disturbing subject, and this work matches it well. The images of the Sabines are euphemistic in that they do not communicate the enormity of the crime, they romanticize the act. Is that what we want here, in 2005? Haiduc 04:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Your arguments are becoming more and more confused. Photography is a medium. It's what the image depicts and how it depicts it that's at issue. I don't believe there are such things as 'Oedipal complexes', but that's another issue. Do I see it as a glorifying of rape? I don't really know what the artist's intentions were. I don't see how you can say so confidently in your caption that it was designed to condemn rape. Japan has a long tradition of graphic rape imagery that continues in its graphic art today and in sex cartoon-films. I don't think most of it is designed to condemn. I made no point about distinguishing between porno and art. I made a point about distinguishing between the erotic and porno. It think it can be described as porno and as art, but not as erotic. The Sabines images are not euphemistic because they do not depict rape in the modern sense of the term. My main worry is that having a graphic visual depiction of rape will seem to be either titillating or deliberately provocative and grotesque by some readers. I don't think we should encourage such responses. Paul B 10:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Paul, I am willing to continue this discussion depite its increasingly strident tone. My arguments confused?! Do you think ad hominem attacks are appropriate in this forum?
 * Present day artistic and legal thinking separates pornography and art as being mutually exclusive. Since you agree that this is not an erotic image (for most people, including myself) and since there seems to be a general consensus in the art world (and to some extent here, viz. Sam Spade and Corvun) that this is art, then what we are discussing is an art object. Policy here seems to be that art is OK when related to the topic.
 * Euphemistic or not, the Sabine women shoud be included as an example of "rape as abduction", which does not address "rape as vaginal penetration".
 * As for the caption, the issue revolves around what is or is not a "sympathetic character" in a work of art.
 * As for titillation or revulsion on the part of the readers, what you are suggesting is that we should be nannies to the readers and dumb down the article for fear of offending. I am aware of that type of thinking, it has gained currency lately here and there. I am not a fan of writing for the lowest common denominator, but rather believe that information should be free, especially free to work its effect on pushing the limits of the mind.
 * There are types of denial that are comfortable, and that are indulged in by the media. You will rarely or never see dismembered bodies in war reportage, which distorts the viewer's understanding of war, it sanitizes it and thus makes it more acceptable. Why are we sanitizing rape? And reverting the image and calling it a "troll" is censorship and deception. Haiduc 15:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I did not remove the image or call you a troll. Two other contributors did. Check it out. An ad hominem attack is an attack on a person. Attacking arguments as confused is not ad hominem. That's a rather...er...confused use of the term! BTW. I am merely responding to your own dogmatic tone in response to my first post on the topic. I don't think 'present day artistic thinking' separates porn from art in the way you describe (and I have written books about art theory, as it happens). In the UK the obscenity laws concern images that 'deprave and corrupt'. I don't know about other jurisdictions. That is not a definition of porno, but rather of the grounds for making images illegal. Years ago, I discussed the definition of porn with the feminist writer Susan Kappeler, who wrote the Pornnography of Representation. I don't think there's any real aggreement about whether something can be porno and art. I'd say the two concepts are not exclusive. The graphic imagery you illustrate is typical of prints of this kind, such as Hokusai's famous rape-fantasy image The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dream_of_the_fishermans_wife_hokusai.jpg), complete with exaggeration of the size of the sexual organs and concentration on the act of penetration. They are, of course, art. But they were also the most visually realistic images in Japanese culture of the day, so are likely to have had the same appeal in their day as realistic photographic images of sex today - i.e. porn. I don't see the two things as contradictory. I suggested nothing about nannying, and why you would think this has anything to do with writing to the 'lowest common denominator', I don't know. By your logic we should have a shot of someone being murdered on a page about "snuff movies". Having such images tends I think to sensationalise the subject. Paul B 15:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Abstaining for a moment on the question of whether we should have an image, and whether it should be this one, I will simply note that I oppose the use of a picture that shows "rape" in its archaic sense, since that is not the focus of the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Nor do I want to persist against what may be a generalized feeling that this is not appropriate, but it is unfortunate that the debate has been so imprecise, and that the decision to not use the image seems to be based on intangibles rather than reasoned conclusions. As far as this last comment about the focus of the article, forgive me but I am really nonplussed. I even went back to look at the article thinking I had missed something. "Rape is a crime wherein the victim is forced into sexual activity against his or her will." Are we splitting hairs, that this is an old picture and not a new picture?! Haiduc 19:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the image should be used. I personally find it disturbing, disgusting, and lacking any form of taste whatsoever.  As a professional artist myself and a victim of attempted rape, I think it captures the violent nature of such violation perfectly.  Even in the encyclopedic spirit of emotional indifference and objectivity, the emotional effects of such a horrific act as rape cannot be denied and should not be censored.  I'd go so far as to say that it can only be a person's personal revulsion to the naked terror of the act that this or any other graphic image might depict that would lead one to wish its exclusion from the article; that our personal revulsion should not determine whether or not the image be included, and that its "rawness" perfectly depicts the act in all its (objectively knowable) resultant horror.  --Corvun 19:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that you should consider taking back that last part. It's not a very good or civil thing to do, to put words into people's mouths, and in saying "If someone doesn't want this picture in the article, this is the only reason they could possibly have" you're not only putting words in people's mouths, in many cases you're doing it before they've even joined the discussion.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, forgot the tags. --Corvun 01:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope it will not be considered as "jumping the gun" if I post the image in the article at this point. I wanted to take into consideration the opposing viewpoints, and therefore I wrote up a caption pointing out what may not be obvious to all visitors. Haiduc 04:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid it's very "not obvious". When you proposed using this image, you didn't say you were going to make the claim in the caption that "the artist's intent is not to exalt but to condemn an act here depicted with brutal honesty".  Unless you have some statement from the artist explaining his intentions, there is no reason to leap to such a conclusion.  It is not, frankly, as if all of the many millions of men and women who are aroused by rape fantasies would look at that image and shudder in revulsion and say "My God!  That's so brutal; the artist clearly could not have intended the image to stimulate people like me!"


 * Earlier I abstained on whether we should use an image; I think this has clarified my stance. I don't think we should use an image which depicts rape.  Whether the intent is to make people feel arousal, or to make people feel revulsion, neither intent is in line with the aims of Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is here to give people information, not to instill emotional responses.  And yes, I'm aware that that statement will probably elicit at least one self-righteous cry of "That's on all other issues that Wikipedia is supposed to maintain neutrality!  This is the issue that's so clearly important that Wikipedia must break its rules and be openly partisan!  In fact, this issue is so clearly important that not only must we break the rules that we adhere to for any other subject, anyone who advocates adhering to the rules is clearly themselves morally bankrupt!"  That's the sort of logic one heard in the 1950s about Communism:  fair trial?  presumed innocent until proven guilty?  Constitutional rights?  Out the window!  This is too important for that! -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * No one wants to use the image to stir-up anyone's emotions or to instill any sort of emotional response. The fact is that the emotional response to rape is a subject of objective academic study; a piece of artwork that seeks to capture these emotional responses is therefore, in my opinion, a reasonable addition to the article.  Acknowledging that rape is an emotionally charged issue which has had an impact on the world of art breaks no Wikipedia rules of neutrality or anything else.  How does including an artist's representation of the act of rape "break the rules"?  In what way is it the same as taking a position?  It's neither of those.  The particular piece of artwork is an excellent representation of the emotional responses to rape; emotional responses which are objectively knowable and the subject of scientific study.  From what I've read here, I'm left only to re-assert my opinion, more firm in it than ever:  it can only be a person's personal revulsion to the naked terror of the act that this or any other graphic image might depict that would lead one to wish its exclusion from the article; ... our personal revulsion should not determine whether or not the image be included, ... its "rawness" perfectly depicts the act in all its (objectively knowable) resultant horror.


 * It is neither our responsibility nor our liberty here on Wikipedia to take a position on whether rape is "good" or "bad", but it is likewise not our job to pretend that no one on the planet Earth has any emotional reaction to it at all. Read the article.  As I've said, the emotional impact is academic.  The image reflects this impact and is relevant to the subject.  And if you're so certain that someone with a rape fetish can be aroused by it, then that's an argument more for this image's neutrality and usefulness to the article than any I've heard in relation to it.  Our only job here is to be accurate and truthful in all matters, not to judge what is in "good taste" or what might be "offensive".  Accuracy and truthfulness in an issue such as this require blatancy -- not cowering and evasion.  Cowering and evasion aren't NPOVs.


 * An image isn't needed for the rape article. Rape is not a concept that needs to be explained visually and, regardless of whether or not a person with a rape fetish will be aroused or not, could be inflamatory to those doing research on rape as well as survivors who are looking up the topic.  I am not implying that the image is pornographic, just that it doesn't add anything to the article and since it stands a chance of upsetting or harming those reading the article, there is no reason to include it.

"Trolling" accusation
This accusation of "trolling" was in poor taste, particularly given that the user making it had not, and has not participated in the talk page regarding this image. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:35, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * My apologies. As you know, I'm on the liberal side of the censorship debate. However, this does not mean that I believe that people should have carte blanche to post any image they like here. I do not believe that this image adds any information to this article; it is, instead, like adding shock images to the shock site article. The proposer of this image has argued that the most important function of the image is to shock, even if they justify this with a "moral" argument. However, the function of an encyclopedia is not to shock (for whatever reason, good or bad), it is to inform. Compare and contrast with the clitoris and penis images, or even the autofellatio images, where the intent of the images is to inform, not to shock. We have a rule: Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and I believe adding this image is doing just that. I would also point out that, given the place and time of origin of that image, its original intent was presumably as an erotic drawing, not a moral warning. I doubt whether we should be in the business of providing titillating images for people who are excited by the idea of rape. I also echo Paul B's point about snuff movies: just because we are very liberal in our attitude to images does not mean there should not be any limits. -- The Anome 16:34, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Just to test the logic of the image's proponents, by reductio ad absurdam, do they advocate that if someone can find a more horrifying image, its depiction in this article will be more moral in its aversive effect? Do they really argue this, or will they stop short of making this argument? (I would say that they deliberately chose the current image because its age, style of drawing and cultural distance somehow made it "tasteful" enough to have some chance of being retained on the page). After some thought, I think "trolling" might just be the right word for this activity. Just to let everyone know, I've posted the image on images for deletion. -- The Anome 16:52, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't agree w you, and would actually like to see all 3 images discussed aded to the article, but I do appreciate you becomming involved in the talk page here. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * This is an article on rape. Just because rape is shocking doesn't justify it's censorship.  I strongly disagree with it and find it similiar to book burning.  Plus some would say the image is informing while others would say the entire article including text is shocking.  Everything depends on how the viewer defines it.  One person's art is anothers pornography. Apollomelos 17:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The Anome: My original intent was not as you saw it. It was to illustrate and communicate.
 * Antaeus Feldspar: I accept your critique, it was an error for me to reach for political corectness. But your critique applies to the caption, not to the image. I disagree with the position that articles on touchy subjects should not be illustrated. It is just a question of how.
 * Paul Barlow: My apologies for my dogmatism, especially vis a vis someone with more seniority in the field. In refuting the label of pornography I was applying the Miller test. Outside of that of course it becomes a matter of opinion. My accusation of "nannying" came from your comment that: My main worry is that having a graphic visual depiction of rape will seem to be either titillating or deliberately provocative and grotesque by some readers. I don't think we should encourage such responses. I think you take on too much responsibility for a reader's response. Everyone will respond differently, and we are under no obligation to protect some from their sexual arousal and others from their reaction of revulsion. This is a revolting topic to most, titillating to some. Had I tried to insert the image into an article about the history of eyeglasses your concerns would make more sense to me.
 * I have removed the image from the article in the hope we can arrive at some approximation of consensus here first. Haiduc 19:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Just a note to let all know that I am not going to pursue this matter further. While I (and apparently most of the participants here) think the image would enrich the article, I do not intend to post it in the face of unresolved strong objections. Haiduc 00:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have a thought. Perhaps this image, which most of the contributors here feel is appropriate to the article, would be a lot more appropriate in a more specialized location than right at the top of the page. I'm certain there must be a better place to put an artistic depiction of a rape scene. I was thinking under a "depictions of rape in media" section, which as yet does not exist, but would surely benefit the article. Thoughts? --Corvun 00:40, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * I would (of course) support that alternative. Haiduc 23:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rape in marriage, legal peronae
The article currently states the following on rape in marriage:


 * Forced sex by a husband against his wife was not considered rape, or even a crime, throughout most of history, since as part of the marriage both partners were deemed to have given implicit informed consent in advance to a lifelong sexual relationship.

I'd like to note that until recently (in common law countries) a married woman was the same legal person as her husband. She was unable to consent (or withold consent). She was unable, legally and economically, to prosecute rape. Any objections? Comments?An An 05:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If it's true, why not note it? --Corvun 10:06, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

The "Statutory rape" section
Summary of my recent changes:

(Quotes are from the previous version)

"Some individuals, such as minors and the incapacitated, are considered unable to give consent, and therefore to have sex with them is always rape. "

I took out the part about the incapacitated, since that is dealt with elsewhere in the rape article and was not directly relevent to this section, which dealt with violations of age of consent laws. I also added a subject (governments) to the sentence - so as to change it from passive to active voice and make clear just who was doing the considering. I switched the word "minors" to "people under a certain age" to avoid ambiguity. The word "minor" can have a number of different meanings, for example in the state of Kansas a person can legally have sex at age 16, is generally considered to be fully an adult by age 18, but can still be charged as a "minor in possession of alcohol" up until age 21.

"Because the state has an interest in protecting minors, it declares that children under a certain age are not able to give informed consent."

This seemed to be asserting a POV, so I changed to to make clear that it was the state, not Wikipedia, who was making that assertion.

"Laws vary widely in their definitions of statutory rape; some states make exceptions when the perpetrator is also young or of a similar age..."

"Perpetrator," IMO, is a very loaded word and most certainly not NPOV. I feel it was particuarlly inappropriate in this case, when the state doesn't even say that the person has done anything wrong. (Is a 19 year old who has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend a perpetrator?)

--Blackcats 23:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, and he can go to jail, as happened a number of years ago in wisconsin while I was there. Trivializes real rape if you ask me, but the US has an off relationship w sex. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 00:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Many liberal states have provisions for such cases. If one person is above the age of consent and another below, most states would not consider it a crime unless they were a certain number of months or years apart.  For example, a 21 year old can usually (as I understand it) have sex with anyone 17 or over, whereas for a 22 year old, anyone under 18 is off-limits.  If both parties are under 18, there usually has to be 36 months difference between them before the oldest can be charged with a crime.  In other words, it's usually legal for a nearly 17 year old to have sex with a 14 and a half year old, but a 17 and a half year old could not legally have sex with someone who just turned 14.  Then again, it seems like these laws change every couple of months.  In my own state we used to go by the 36 month rule, then the age of consent dropped to 16 instead of 18 and a 3 month rule was adopted concerning those under 16.  I have no idea what the law is now. --Corvun 03:32, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * The distinction drawn between child molestation and statutory rape does not make sense to me. Here is a quote about Massachusetts law:

In this Commonwealth, statutory rape is outlawed by Massachusetts General Law Chapter 265: Section 23 (Rape and Abuse of a Child):

Whoever unlawfully has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, and abuses a child under sixteen years of age shall, for the first offense, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years, or, except as otherwise provided, for any term in jail or house of correction, and for the second or subsequent offense by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years, but not less than five years. Haiduc 03:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the general idea is that after a certain age (usually in the pre-teen or early teen years) you may very well know what sex is, and you'll certainly want to have sex, but you don't yet have the psychological maturity to make careful choices concerning sex. A 14 year old girl is sexually mature in the biological sense and capable of bearing children with little to no personal health risk.  She is capable of wanting sex.  Yet, at the same time, the average 14 year old girl is incapable of making rational choices as to who she has sex with.  She can be easily taken advantage of, and usually only thinks she's making her own choices, when in fact someone older and smarter than her is manipulating and leading her.  She can succumb to a predator's sweet talk and her own biological urges without being able to give her "true consent".  (Although this is a more complicated matter; it's concievable that an exceptionally intelligent and mature 14 year old might actually be capable of making such choices for herself without being taken advantage of, whereas there are probably a number of very naive and emotionally immature women who will never reach a point that they are able to truly make their own decisions regarding sex, and will spend their entire lives being led and manipulated by one cad after another.)


 * Those that have not yet biologically reached sexual maturity, on the other hand, aren't even capable of really wanting sex without manipulation. They aren't thought to really understand what sex is.


 * So I can see why there would be a distinction. "Molestation" being the term for taking advantage of someone incapable of wanting sex, and "statutory rape" being the term for someone who may want sex, but isn't mature enough to decide with whom. --Corvun 05:11, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Age of consent is a complex and arbitrary matter. God (or nature, or whatever) gave us clear physical distinctions between those who can breed, and those who cannot, age-wise. Anything else is purely cultural in nature. Also children of every age have sexual inclinations, as any psychology or human sexuality student can tell you. See child sexuality. The article needs to be completely without judgement on these matters, as anything else smacks of ethnocentrism. One thing that is clear to me is that every culture has rules regarding sex which, when viewed by some other specific outside culture, appear obscene. The clear distinctions regarding rape are:


 * 1) Injury
 * 2) Consent

And cases where either is open to interpretation are distinctly less clear cut than those where they are not. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:12, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree somewhat that the age of consent is arbitrary. Once someone has reached sexual maturity, it is only a cultural matter whether or not that person is capable of giving consent.  As I stated earlier, some are undoubtedly emotionally/psychologically mature enough to make rational choices regarding sex almost as soon as they are sexually mature, while others may never reach this point.  It really has very little to do with age after sexual maturity, and more to do with the individual.  While I do think it is possible to be sexually mature (biologically) yet psychologically unable to give consent, I also think it's pretty silly to think there's a magical age at which someone lacking the emotional/psychological maturity to make his/her own choices and not be led around like a piece on some kind of sexual game board, will somehow mystically turn into someone capable of actually consenting to a sexual act with a specific person.


 * I didn't mean to imply that children don't have sexual urges or inclinations. Humans must have strong sexual instincts, like all animals, and it makes sense to see some manifestations of those instincts even in early childhood.  I personally would think, though, that there's a big difference between simply knowing that a certain movement or stimulus feels good, as in very young children, and making serious attempts to contribute to the gene pool, as in young teens and up.  Not to say there's a clear line.  Like all forms of human growth, the change takes place over a period of time.


 * But, all of this is moot anyway, since it seems we're making a pretty similar argument. --Corvun 11:50, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * I was not questioning the logic (sounds perfectly reasonable that you should treat relations with a twelve year old differently from relations with a two year old) but actual law, which is what we are reporting here. If I read Massachusetts law correctly, they make no distinction. In their eyes too young is too young and distinctions be damned. So it seems to me that at the very least we should discuss two different categories of law, jurisdictions where a distinctions IS made between molestation and statutory rape, and those where everything is lumped together. I really have no idea where the preponderance of law falls, but my take on US law is that there is less rather than more distinction. Haiduc 11:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Overreporting and false reporting
Figures vary wildly on the issue of false reporting. Serious estimates of the prevalence of false reporting range from as low as 2% and as high as 60%, and figures as high and as low as 0% and 100% are actually commonly stated.

In 1994, Dr. Eugene J. Kanin of Purdue University investigated the incidences in one small metropolitan community of false rape allegations made to the police between 1978 and 1987. In this study, cases were declared false based on the recantations of the complainants. In addition, a complainant who recanted their allegation was informed that they would be charged with filing a false complaint, punishable by fines and by jail time; even when advised of this, no complainant retracted their recantation. The report indicated that these complaints were considered "suspect" at the time of the complaint or within a day or two after charging, and that none of the detectives involved believed that an incident of false recantation has occurred. Under these conditions, the number of false rape allegations in the studied period was 41% of the 109 total complaints filed.

Dr. Kanin's research took place in a small community of 70,000 where the overall crime rate was low enough that each of the 109 cases in question could be thoroughly investigated, including a serious offer to polygraph both the complainant and the accused. The complainants who made false allegations were reported to have done so (by their own statements during recantation) for three major reasons: providing an alibi, a means of gaining revenge, and/or a platform for seeking attention/sympathy.

Some public voices still assert that false reports are rare. In 1999, after a series of four high profile attacks against women at University of Massachusetts, the last of which was recanted by the accuser, the director of Everywoman's Center at University of Massachusetts Amherst, Carol Wallace, told The Boston Globe: "One of the myths, about sexual assault in particular, is that women do make false reports.  It is rare and this incident in no way minimizes the validity of the other reports."

Victim blaming
"Victim blaming" is holding the victim of a crime to be in whole or in part responsible for what has happened to them. For example a motorist who leaves his/her car unlocked with the keys in the ignition may be held partly responsible if the car is stolen. A person who uses verbal abuse may be held partly responsible if they become a victim of a physical assault. In the context of rape, this concept refers to attitudes that behaviour such as flirting or wearing sexually provocative clothing may encourage rape: that they are analagous to leaving ones car with the keys in the ignition or provoking an assault by "winding up" the assailant. In extreme cases victims are accused of "asking for it" by not behaving demurely.

In most Western countries the legal defence of provocation is not accepted in mitigation of rape. Many commentators emphasise that victim blaming in rape cases justifies the restriction of women's freedoms and encourages the under reporting of the crime. However, Camile Paglia and some sociobiologists  have argued that victim blaming should not be entirely dismissed. This is a very controversial view. In some countries victim blaming is believed to be more widely accepted; women who have been raped are deemed to have behaved improperly.

It has been proposed that one cause of victim blaming is the so-called "Just World Hypothesis". This hypothesis states that people who are inclined to believe the world is a just place cannot accept a situation in which a person is hurt badly and cannot be made well by any means. In order for the world to still be a just place the victim must have done something to deserve their fate.

Victim blame is believed by some to be responsible for many of the accusations regarding false reporting of sexual assault. It has been suggested that victim blaming is one explaination for the low reporting rate for sexual assault.

The above text is being dumped out of Rape/temp1, so that that page can be cleared and deleted. There may be some information that other editors would be interested in adding to the article. -Willmcw 00:52, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Fighting the deliteralization of "rape"
Pakaran, any chance you could give some details on this item you added: "and this [distaste for referencing sexual rape just for effect] is becoming more so since rape victims and their allies are fighting usages which they feel weaken the word."? To clarify: I don't think it's incorrect information but I think the article would benefit from specifics on just which rape victims and allies are taking action against this phenomenon, and what kind of action they're taking. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have some concerns about other aspects of the Usage section as well. This sentence (now the lead sentence):


 * In internet culture the term is sometimes used as a dysphemistic reference to having one's online writings voted/moderated downwards by a large number of people.

has always struck a bad chord with me because I've never seen it used this way. Ever. Not even on Slashdot. I don't doubt that someone out there uses it this way, but is it a specific and significant enough usage to merit singling out here?

I also see problems with Magicalspirits' recent change to this section. Does it express a particular POV well? Yes. Does it do so in an NPOV manner? It doesn't; it asserts that the use of "rape" as a dysphemism "creates a decoupling within our language of the horror associated with this term", which is certainly a reasonable belief but isn't one held by everyone. Likewise, changing "is usually considered" to "is considered" asserts that everyone considers it demeaning or disempowering of rape victims -- untrue unless you try to assert that all the people who do use "rape" as a dysphemism are intentionally demeaning and disempowering rape victims, an extraordinary claim with no supporting evidence. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I found these two usages in real publications. I did not invent them:- - "The wood had been raped of its peace". (From a book, of disturbance caused by a foxhunt in a forest) - "The rape of England". (A newspaper article headline with a pun referring to the rapeseed plant self-seeding on waste ground and motorway verges.) Anthony Appleyard 22:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Changes to usage section by magicalspirits
Greetings, I didn&#8217;t realize when I made the edits to this page the ediquite involved. After a year of using wikipedia I&#8217;ve never before edited an article, nor have I looked at the conversation page. That being said, the usage section of this particular page struck something that caused me to break out the editor and spend an hour finding what I felt were the right words.

Perhaps we can work together to create a broder definition that fits the need better?


 * In internet culture the term is sometimes used as a dysphemistic reference to having one's online writings voted/moderated downwards by a large number of people.


 * has always struck a bad chord with me because I've never seen it used this way. Ever.  Not even on Slashdot.  I don't doubt that someone out there uses it this way, but is it a specific and significant enough usage to merit singling out here?:

To tell you the truth, neither have I, and I nearly smoked the passage when I was editing it, but someone put it there for some reason, and I didn&#8217;t want to silence their voice. I would give it a +1 to drop it if others feel similarly.


 * I also see problems with Magicalspirits' recent change to this section. Does it express a particular POV well?  Yes.  Does it do so in an NPOV manner?  It doesn't; it asserts that the use of "rape" as a dysphemism "creates a decoupling within our language of the horror associated with this term", which is certainly a reasonable belief but isn't one held by everyone. :

While that may be the case, is there an NPOV way to describe this concept in such a way that victims and survivors of rape will not feel demeaned? In this particular case it felt natural to err on the side empowerment of those who have been harmed by rape. I'm open to discussion on this topic.


 *  Likewise, changing "is usually considered" to "is considered" asserts that everyone considers it demeaning or disempowering of rape victims -- untrue unless you try to assert that all the people who do use "rape" as a dysphemism are intentionally demeaning and disempowering rape victims, an extraordinary claim with no supporting evidence. :

You bring up a good point. Often times the people using the term rape in as a dysphemism are not cognizant of the harm that they may be doing with the word in a similar way to how those that use the current popular phrase "That is so gay" are often entirely unaware of the sexual slur they are using. I'm trying to track down a similar article I read that articulated gracefully a similar situation about how people using that term do not know or intend to use it to demean or disempower.

I'm certainly open to ideas on how to rephrase this section in an empowering and NPOV way. -- Magicalspirits

Added SectNPOV to "Drugging"
This IP User edit war / vandalism / disruptive behaviour is boring and needs to stop. Please direct comments, cites and attempts at consensus to the talk page. An An 05:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I just reverted POV vandalism by another IP User. The Suday Mail article cited by an earlier editor  was of course only really directly relevant to the Perth, Australia area, and could not by itself be reasonably extrapolated to mean much of anything about the rest of the world.  I do think though that the section should proably be expanded so as to adress some of the compexities of the drugging issue, such as drugging with concentrated alcohol and severe alcohol intoxication sometimes being mistaken for drugging.  I'd say more research is in order...  --Blackcats 22:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Comparing the article to its summary in the "Drugging" section, there's an additional problem; the summary claims that these were 44 "'drug rape' cases", whereas the article just says that they were 44 women who believed that they had had their drinks spiked. The two of course are not the same.  The summary also omits the important factor that there were apparently media reports of a drink-spiking "epidemic" in the area.


 * Nevertheless, our old friend the drive-by anon, who refuses all talk page discussion, keeps trying to remove any reference to this incident and replace it with unsupported assertions that there is an international "drink-spiking epidemic". This is inappropriate on at least two counts, one of course being that no evidence has been submitted that an "epidemic" is occurring; the other is that even if the summary is exaggerated, it's making some very good points.  It's easy to mistake the effects of too much alcohol for drink-spiking, especially if someone's been telling you there's a drink-spiker around every corner.  And if forensic tests such as the ones that ruled out drink-spiking in these 44 cases aren't being done in all cases, then there is good reason to suspect that the incidence of drink-spiking might be getting overestimated. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You see what I mean... -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Reported IP vandals. I think this behaviour goes beyond NPOV dispute, newbie testing, and stubborness referred to in WP:-( 220.244.224.204 03:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) -  Sorry, that's me (session logged out) An An 03:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted it once again (forgot to login before hand), and I agree with both of you that this is indeed vandalism. If anyone sees anything resembling these two sentences there: "Drugging victims is unethical and illegal. Many countries are currently working hard to put a stop to the date rape drug epidemic." Then they need to be reverted ASAP. There's no evidence that I've seen that there's a global date rape drug "epidemic." That word is very subjective at any rate. If someone wants to write an article about date rape drugging, then they could mention in that article that some groups in some places feel that there is an "epidemic" there (and cite sources). Also the "unethical" is very inapropriate. Of course I, like most people, do consider drugging to be very unethical, but it's not Wikipedia's place to say what is or isn't ethical. Blackcats 04:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it's now been protected. (Pity it's protected on the version with that unsupported reference to an "epidemic"...)  Let's see if we can take the various statements under dispute individually and see whether we can come to consensus on whether they should go in, stay out, or be modified.  I've listed some below with my own take on them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

particularly those who are also necrophiliacs,
 * My take: this is somebody's guesswork, laden perhaps with a desire to demonize.  Does it make an intuitive sort of sense to think that if someone was a necrophiliac inclined to rape the living as well, they might prefer to do so by drugging their victims?  Sure.  Is the number of necrophiliacs in the world, let alone the fraction of necrophiliacs inclined to rape the living, a population that has really been scientifically studied enough to make a statement such as this one?  I doubt it.  And what the statement actually says is not that most necrophiliac rapists are drug rapists -- but that most drug rapists are necrophiliacs.  Without any cited research, this should be taken out. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree - I've never seen any connection whatsoever between those who use date rape drugs and necrophilia. If anything, such a connection is potentially dangerous in that necrophilia is a recognized mental disorder in DSM-IV, and such a connection could potentially lead to a defense of not guilty by reason of mental defect.Tufflaw 03:19, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

It is imperative that any investigation into the suspected use of date rape drugs involve the taking of blood from the victim and an immediate test of the blood, as the length of time between the taking of the blood and the testing for these drugs results in a degradation of the drug in the blood, even after it has been drawn.
 * My take: This is almost there; but there are two things missing:  first of all, what is it imperative for?  Second of all, if the answer is "to insure that the degradation of the drugs in the bloodstream don't generate a false negative" I think I'd like to see some sort of medical support for that statement, indicating just what sort of timeframes we're talking about.
 * I suspect, since our old friend the drive-by anon has been around, that this might be lead-up to another attempt to deny the existence of false positives: 'Those 44 women whose forensic tests showed absolutely no signs of drink-spiking really were drugged; they just waited too long.'  'Those 45 women who told the police they had invented their earlier reports of rape must have been lying when they retracted their reports, not when they made them.'  If we can get actual concrete fact on how fast the evidence of drugging disappears from the system, we can put it in.  If we can then what are we doing putting in conclusions, or worse yet imperatives, drawn from facts not in evidence? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I added that bit, drawing on my own personal experience as an assistant district attorney in a recent rape case I was handling - blood was drawn from the victim almost immediately after the rape however it was not tested for date rape drugs because there was no suspect. A DNA match located the rapist several years later however by then it was too late to test the blood.  I was informed by the toxologist in the medical examiner's office that these drugs degrade very quickly and therefore the blood needs to be tested immediately.Tufflaw 03:19, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Tufflaw, could you maybe get in touch with that toxicologist (or with another, of course) and ask for any established standards there are about how soon the sampling needs to be done to get reliable results, and how fast the reliability drops after the optimal period? It'd be useful information to have in the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The "dissenting text": ''Date rape drugs cause victims to lose consciousness and memory, which rapists use to their advantage to attack their victims while their victims are defenseless and incapacitated. Drugging victims is unethical and illegal. Many countries are currently working hard to put a stop to the date rape drug epidemic.''

The problem with the "dissenting text" is that it is unsubtantiated and expressed with weasel-words. There are three concepts being argued (paraphrased):
 * 1) rapists use spiking to gain or fudge consent - this is the reason a rapist may render ... victims unconscious. The lack of consent is what makes any sexual act in this context a rape.
 * 2) drug-rape is unethical and illegal and many countries are working to stop date rape - these are weasel-words; this point should be retained with reference to specific ethics, specific laws and specific countries. For example, is it ethical or legal to drug-rape in the USA? If no, then the point is validated.
 * 3) there is a rape drug epidemic - for this claim to stand as it is, it would need to be supported by evidence. This point could be expanded by reference to scare-mongering surrounding drug-rape, and could link well into the Perth study. For example: "(source 1) says that drug-rape has grown to epidemic proportions, however (source 2) states that mounting awareness of drug-rape may be due to its convenience as an internet myth ... in the Perth study of 44 cases it was found that ..."

This section needs to incorporate both the accepted and dissenting POVs to become more neutral. An An 12:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, here's the problem. It's removing any reference to the Perth incident that's violating that standard.  Saying "These 44 women who thought that they had been drugged were actually feeling the effects of too much alcohol" does not try to deny that real drug rapes occur.  However, removing any reference to the fact that in at least 44 cases in one city alone, alcohol intoxication was mistaken for drink-spiking, seems to be an attempt to deny that any suspected cases of drink-spiking could be false positives.  The fact that real rapes occur is the accepted POV.  But since the "dissenting" POV, that real rapes occur and that sometimes there are mistaken accusations and false accusations, has some evidence to support it, we can't claim we have a fair and balanced article while that evidence is being suppressed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

hi. I see your point but think that the false accusations information belongs in the false accusations section. Not in the drug facilitated rape section. Putting it in the drug section is irrelevant and I can't imagine why we wouldn't want helpful information for potential victims on GHB and rohypnol instead of information insinuating that the victim may be a liar. Not that false accusations do not occur- it's just tasteless to put it under every single section that of course he/she may be lying.


 * First of all, there is a large difference between "mistaken" and "lying". Second of all, if there is something people all over the world do to themselves on a regular basis (i.e., drinking too much alcohol) which can easily be mistaken for the effects of date-rape drugs, then it is not "irrelevant" to the subtopic of drug rape by a long shot. Third of all, if you have helpful information on GHB or rohypnol or any other date rape drugs, then by all means, put it in there, but don't pretend that in order to be "helpful" we should be censoring the true information that not every accusation which is made is honestly made, and that even accusations which the accuser believes to be 100% true can still be mistaken. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

just wanted to add that this reasoning was used in the archive for moving information out of the victim blame section on false reporting: "My reasons for changing were that this section seemed to be mostly about 'false reporting' rather than 'victim blaming'. That issue is addressed elsewhere."

Hello all,

I am not the person who has been editing the drug rape section- but I can see their perspective as this section used to hold the text: ""The results suggest that a fair proportion of drink spiking is just an urban myth ... It seems that a proportion of young women are getting incredibly intoxicated and using drink spiking as an excuse to explain behaviour they are not happy with." [3]" which to my mind seems like a blatant rape myth in and of itself. I have never myself edited this section, however, as a victim of GHB rape I find the above quote alarming and am releived someone has seen fit to remove it. a survivor herself.

here are some resources for drug rape information: I have reorganized them to make the easier to search

http://66.216.123.69/RTC/Rape+Drugs/Rape+Drugs+Overview/Rape+

Drugs+Overview.htm

What are &#8220;rape drugs?&#8221; from the Santa Monica Rape Treatment Center.

Certain drugs, such as Rohypnol, GHB, and Ketamine, are sometimes called &#8220;Rape Drugs&#8221; because they can be used as a weapon in sexual assault crimes. When the drugs are hidden in a drink, they may be completely undetectable. Yet, they are powerful and dangerous. They can seriously harm or even kill you.

For more information call the Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center at 1-800-END-RAPE (1-800-363-7273).

Government Resources

GHB described on the DEA website.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/daterapep.html

Victims may not be aware that they ingested a drug at all. GHB and its analogues are invisible when dissolved in water, and are odorless. They are somewhat salty tasting, but are indiscernible when dissolved in beverages such as sodas, liquor, or beer.

Rohypnol and GHB

http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofax/RohypnolGHB.html

Rohypnol can incapacitate victims and prevent them from resisting sexual assault. It can produce "anterograde amnesia," which means individuals may not remember events they experienced while under the effects of the drug. Also, Rohypnol may be lethal when mixed with alcohol and/or other depressants.

White House Drug Policy- date rape drugs

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/club/index.html

Rohypnol, GHB, and ketamine are all central nervous system depressants. Lower doses of Rohypnol can cause muscle relaxation and can produce general sedative and hypnotic effects. In higher doses, Rohypnol causes a loss of muscle control, loss of consciousness, and partial amnesia. When combined with alcohol, the toxic effects of Rohypnol can be aggravated.17 The sedative effects of Rohypnol begin to appear approximately 15&#8211;20 minutes after the drug is ingested. The effects typically last from 4&#8211;6 hours after administration of the drug, but some cases have been reported in which the effects were experienced 12 or more hours after administration.18

GHB has been shown to produce drowsiness, nausea, unconsciousness, seizures, severe respiratory depression, and coma. Additionally, GHB has increasingly become involved in poisonings, overdoses, date rapes, and fatalities.19

Non-profit Resources

How Victims Inability to Recall What Happened Affects the System's Response

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/jr000243c.pdf

A pdf article on date rape drugs and how the experience affects the victim.

The drugging should be recognized as a separate and distinct act of victimization in addition to any other acts of abuse and degradation to which the victim was subjected. How Being Unable to Forget Compares With Being Unable to Remember. In the aftermath of rape, most victims suffer acute stress disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms.

Acquaintance Rape of College Students

http://www.popcenter.org/Problems/problem-acquaintance.htm

Rape is the most common violent crime on American college campuses today. This guide describes the problem of acquaintance rape of college students, addressing its scope, causes and contributing factors; methods for analyzing it on a particular campus; tested responses; and measures for assessing response effectiveness.

Project GHB

http://www.projectghb.org/

Project GHB is a source of vital communication as more & more information about GHB comes to light.

Fact Sheet on date rape and club drugs

http://www.drugstory.org/drug_info/otherdrugs.asp#fact

This site is intended as a research source for journalists. It contains a list of links to other resources about date rape drugs as well as current news stories.

Private Sector Resources

Current Events- articles about date rape drugs from the zero

http://www.vachss.com/help_text/date_rape_drugs.html

The Zero has established a "one-stop shop" for purely factual information, so that those actually interested in the truth can find it.

I'm not trying to offend anyone but- I am just curious why this discussion was deleted?

Never mind. It doesn't matter. All I said was Please put false reporting information only in the false reporting section.

Why on Earth was this version, from the ip-vandals the one that was locked in:

"Date rape drugs cause victims to lose consciousness and memory, which rapists use to their advantage to attack their victims while their victims are defenseless and incapacitated. Drugging victims is unethical and illegal. Many countries are currently working hard to put a stop to the date rape drug epidemic."

???? --Blackcats 04:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have given it some thought and decided that the reason most of these entries are so disputed is that they bear little resemblance to a published encyclopedia article. There seems to be some war between rape survivors and those who beleive rape survivors are prone towards untruths. I think if we restrict information on this topic to the false reporting section (which should be clearly marked as editable by the way) and simply give information on the names and effects of date rape drugs it would be much more effective. (Rohypnol is generally known by that name and not by it's more obscure one)

just an idea, survivor --Survivor ( i am logged in)


 * Survivor, I have to point out a mistake you're making. You're characterizing the sides of the "war" as "rape survivors" (and their allies, presumably) and "those who believe rape survivors are prone to untruths."  The second description is self-contradictory:  if they've been telling untruths about ever having been raped, they aren't rape survivors.  So a more accurate description of the second group would be "those who believe that not all of those who claim to be rape survivors actually are."  And it's quite possible for someone to be in both groups -- just as it's possible for someone to both have a disabling disease themselves, and to realize that others out there with factitious disorders may be falsely claiming to have the same disease.  Just as it's possible to both be a Holocaust survivor and to recognize that frauds like Binjamin Wilkomirski and "Laura Grabowski" (actually Lauren Stratford) have falsely pretended to have experienced the same suffering.  In a perfect world, no one would ever tell such lies; no one would ever try to get sympathy or attention or advantage by pretending to have experienced such a horrible trauma.  In our own imperfect world, where such lies are known to occur, we shouldn't create artificial distinctions between "those who support rape survivors" and "those who stay aware that lies are told and mistakes are made about rape, just as of everything else in this world." -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with what Antaeus said, and have a few more things I'd like to point out here. One is that the rape issue has unfortunately become very much politicized.  This has happened, I believe, because some feminists have tried to use the issue in a number of different ways to try and bring more attention and support to their causes. For example, many argue that rape is a result of patriarchy, which they feel is still very much intrenched in the U. S.  This arguement makes little sense though, because much more patriarchal countries like Greece and Japan have much lower rates of sexual assault than the more egalitarian U.S.  So it would make more sense that the higher rates of rape in the U.S. stem from its more violent culture, higher poverty, akward ongoing transition from sexual repression to liberation, etc.


 * Some radical feminists, such as Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnon, and their protege Robert Jensen, have argued that most heterosexual sex in our culture is rape. As Jensen puts it, "rape is normal." I would think that most people who are honestly concerned with the victims of real rapes would be quite angered by this sort of analysis, but yet it continues to have a lot of support in certain quarters. MacKinnon has said that she would consider it to be rape "anytime the woman feels violated."  So then if a woman decides to have sex with a man and he's not attentive to her needs and then leaves abruptly afterwars then MacKinnon would conisider this rape.  I think many would consider what he did rude, but should it really be compared with the horrible crime of rape??


 * And then there's the whole issue of due process in general and "date rape" in particular. Feminist rape activists generally argue that a woman would never lie about being raped, but the actual evidence says otherwise, and false rape accusations  have had dire consequences.  For example, a large percentage of the lynchings in the United States were the result of false rape allegations.  The feminist activists often say that we should be no more doubtful of someone who reports being the victim of rape than someone who reports being the victim of an assault.  But people consent to have sex, even rough sex, on a regular basis, whereas few people (aside from boxers) ever consent to be punched in the face.  Many of these activists tend to see due process as a hurdle to making sure that all rapists are punished, and they would see having some innocent men being incarcerated (if standards of evidence for conviction are lowered) as a price they'd be willing to pay.  This issue becomes particuarly contentious when it comes to allegations of date rape, where there are typically no witnesses as to what happened, and it comes down to a matter of he said vs. she said as to whether or not there was consent.  And of course the feminist activists would like to see the woman's word by itself as basis enough for conviction.  Often these cases come as a result of drunken one-night-stands, where both parties black out and neither remember exactly what happened.  In these sort of cases there's usually so little evidence that for all we know the woman may have raped the man.


 * Feminist rape activists have also made a mess of rape statistics in the U.S. To effectively deal with the rape problem, the authorties, medical and psychological professionals, etc. need the most accurate and unbiased statistics availible.  But the activists, through doing some of their own "research," and putting pressure on other researchers, made it such that many statistics are biased and not invalid.  For example the 1 in 4 stat.  The feminist activists want to draw attention to a rape crisis, so they want to be able to use as big and shocking of a statistic as possible, to show just how many women are being victimized and just how many men are victimizing women.  But the reality of rape is horrific enough without it being sensationalized for political ends.


 * Now I know that "Survivor" (and perhaps others here) will likely dismiss much of what I said as "rape myths" In the "vanalism" section of this talk page, "Survivor"  had this to say:  "Many of the things I have read which are presented to be nuetral and let stand for months are actually what most rape crisis centers would consider rape myths."  But the people who run those shelters are often the very sort of feminist rape activists that I've discussed.  And they certainly aren't neutral in their point of view.  Whenever I speak out on this issue, some of those feminist activists ineveritably accuse me of being insensitive to rape victims.  But I think the real insensitivity is by those who politicize the issue, reduce the seriousness of rape by unduely broadening its definition, and reduce the seriousness of someone being a "rapist" by applying that designation to large numbers of men who are completely innocent of any sort of rape.


 * For the purpose of this article, it's important that we maintain a balence between information cited by people of the various POVs on this issue. And it's also vital that Wikipedia does not assert any point of view or judgement, even one we may all agree with, such as "rape by drugging is unethical."  Wikipedia's job is to present information, not make any sort of ethical judgement.

--Blackcats 17:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi there- I thought it was a funny coincidence that you mentioned andrea dworkin as she has just passed away. A remarkable person.  here is the article:


 * April 16, 2005

NYT OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR Who Was Afraid of Andrea Dworkin? By CATHARINE A. MacKINNON

ANDREA DWORKIN, an inspiration to so many women, died last week at the age of 58. Over the course of her incandescent literary and political career, she also became a symbol of views she did not hold. For her lucid work opposing men's violence against women, she lived the stigma of being identified with women, especially sexually abused women.

Instead of being lionized and admired for her genius, instead of being able to earn a decent living as a writer, Andrea Dworkin was misrepresented and demonized. In the words of John Berger, she was "perhaps the most misrepresented writer in the Western world."

The range of her literary contribution alone - 13 books spanning fiction, literary criticism, journalism, speeches (no one could move a room like she could), essays, history, political analysis - is exceptional. But there was no Nobel Prize nomination. Her voice was fresh, her ideas original and powerful, her perceptions and moral principles fearless, her eloquence oracular, direct and riveting.

"Men have asked over the centuries a question that, in their hands, ironically becomes abstract: 'What is reality?' " she wrote in an essay titled "A Battered Wife Survives." "They have written complicated volumes on this question. The woman who was a battered wife and has escaped knows the answer: reality is when something is happening to you and you know it and can say it and when you say it other people understand what you mean and believe you. That is reality, and the battered wife, imprisoned alone in a nightmare that is happening to her, has lost it and cannot find it anywhere." Her profound abilities only made publishing a constant struggle. She would not be silenced, but her speech was not free. [B] Lies about her views on sexuality (that she believed intercourse was rape) and her political alliances (that she was in bed with the right) were published and republished without attempts at verification, corrective letters almost always refused. Where the physical appearance of male writers is regarded as irrelevant or cherished as a charming eccentricity, Andrea's was reviled and mocked and turned into pornography. When she sued for libel, courts trivialized the pornographic lies as fantasy and dignified them as satire.[/B]

Andrea Dworkin exposed the ugliest realities of women's lives and said what they mean. For trusting the knowledge of her own experiences of battering, rape and prostitution, for listening to harmed women, for standing up for women with humor - "now the problem with telling you what it means for me, bertha schneider, to be in an existential position is that I dont have Sartres credibility," she wrote in a short story - lyricism and brilliance, she was shunned. Critics and reporters often talked about her ideas without reading them. She was tortured by editors, some of whom she considered censors ("police work for liberals").

Only power did not underestimate Andrea Dworkin. Threatened by this Jewish girl from Camden, N.J., the minions of the status quo moved to destroy her credibility and bury her work alive.

Andrea Dworkin saw through male power as a political system - "while the system of gender polarity is real, it is not true," she said - and exposed the sexual core of male supremacy, the heart of the male darkness. She stood with, and therefore for, sexually abused women. So she was treated as they are treated, denigrated as they are denigrated. She was the intellectual shock troops, the artistic heavy artillery of the women's movement in our time. She took its heaviest hits.

And she wanted to change the face of this earth. Our idea of empowering harmed women to sue pornographers for civil rights violations they could prove were done to them would stop the pornography industry in its tracks.

"Pornographers use our bodies as their language," she said. "Anything they say, they have to use us to say. They do not have that right. They must not have that right." She concluded: "They do benefit from it; and we do have to stop them." Such work is risky to do at all. It costs a woman's life to do it well.

Because of her subject, because of the substance of her ideas, and most of all because of her effectiveness at expressing them, Andrea Dworkin faced especially naked misogyny: "woman hating," which is the title of her first book. How she was treated is how women are treated who tell the truth about male power without compromise or apology. It is why few do.

This warrior for women was gentle, sweet, loving, raging and deeply vulnerable. "Being stigmatized by sex," she wrote, "is being marked by its meaning in a human life of loneliness and imperfection, where some pain is indelible." She was well named Andrea. It means "courage."

Catharine A. MacKinnon, a law professorat the University of Michigan, is the author of "Women's Lives, Men's Laws." She was an editor, with Andrea Dworkin, of "In Harm's Way."

[http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIIE.html Take Back the Day - I Want a Twenty-Four-Hour Truce During Which There Is No Rape . This is a beautiful speech someone sent me when i was remembering my GHB induced rape]

At any rate- you are right about the groupings. I'm very sorry if I triggered you by forcing two sets of groups on the situation. Life is full of shades of gray. However- My main point stands.

THIS is not the false reporting section.

If you had let my origonal comments stand (someone deleted them ) you would have had a better understanding of my point. In the past pro- survivor comments have been moved from other sections to the false reporting section. What logic can you use to get around this?

This group of people is clearly not neutral. If I am biased it is because a large portion of society persecuted me for five years by calling me a liar (I was not) and a whore (I was a virgin). It does something to a person. I read some of these comments and just sigh. How can you call comments like: "But the people who run those shelters are often the very sort of feminist rape activists that I've discussed." neutral? the sort of people? You are the majority here and I realize that what you edit will stand. I disagree with your logic as well as politics. What kind of ethics is it to delete portions of a debate?

Regardless- my question is simply this: why don't we just list the primary date rape drugs and their effects? That would seem the most neutral thing to do.

survivor.


 * Survivor, if someone deleted your comments from this talk page, it should be possible for you to look in the edit history and show us which edit it was that did that. I have not seen  any such edit; the closest I've been aware of is when you placed an extremely long post directly between one person's question and another person's reply to that question, and your words were not deleted, as you have twice now accused, but merely moved.  If you are unable to show any place in the edit history where your words are deleted, I hope you will respond in the only appropriate fashion, with a retraction of your accusation and its concomitant insult of our ethics.


 * As for your clearly firmly-held conviction that we should discuss false reporting only in one section of the article, I cannot agree. Would it be fair to isolate all discussion of the trauma caused by rape into one section called "Trauma" and then categorically refuse to mention it in any other section, no matter what the relevance?  Clearly not.  Neither is it just to say "Because there's a section on false reporting in general, no mention of false reporting should be allowed elsewhere in the article." -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard of such a thing as an international epidemic. I belive the vandal probably means a pandemic. Damicatz 18:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Epidemic of Rape and Child Sexual Abuse in the United States. By Diana E. H. Russell and Rebecca M. Bolen. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2000. Davis Library. HV6561 .R86 2000

The authors here focus on the incidence and prevalence of rape. There is an analysis of Russell's original study in the 1970's, as well as examination of more recent government data. Methodologies as well as results are discussed. Includes tables and graphs of data, an index and references. --Survivor 06:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quotes
I have added this quote twice:

The researcher Metzger wrote of sexual assault:

"Rape is loss. Like death, it is best treated with a period of mourning and grief. We should develop social ceremonies for rape, rituals, that, like funerals and wakes, would allow the mourners to recover the spirits that the rapist, like death, steals. The social community is the appropriate center for the restoration of spirit, but the rape victim is usually shamed into silence or self-imposed isolation," (Metzger, D. (1976). It is always the woman who is raped. American Journal of Psychiatry, 133 (4), 405-408.)

It has been deleted twice. Is there a problem with it that can be resolved? Of course the article title could be better- but perhaps it is taken out of context as 1976 was after the women's lib movement.

thanks.


 * I don't think it's a bad quote, but I think there is the question of why we're quoting it; is it making a point that isn't otherwise made in the article? That's a serious question on my part; I wasn't the one who removed the quote and I don't know why the person who did, did so, but I did notice that it was the third quote we had in that section and I did wonder if we were choosing the quotes that we did because they clarified particular points, or because they stressed particular points.  Those two may seem like they're the same thing, but one is making sure that the reader understands the situation so as to draw their own conclusions, and the other is trying to make sure that the reader draws the conclusion we want.  One is NPOV, and the other is not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. It's not that I am adamant the quote be left in. I was just curious why most things i type are deleted and thought i would ask. I do think it is making a point that much of the page misses:

Rape victims/survivors need support. Our society fails to provide that in many cases. I find the quote to be poignant and moving and represent the perspective most of society overlooks: that of the victim. That is why i feel the quote is worthy. Thank you for responding. _ a survivor

I would like to add this quote as well when the article is unlocked. Does anyone have an issue with that? --Survivor 07:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

History of the concept
While the contenders in this dispute may not be ready to focus on it, i would expect consensus that it is a serious deficiency to make the cross-cultural assertions of the opening 'graph w/o acknowledging that most of the history of rape theory is the theory of rape as a property crime against the husband and/or father. Our antipathy to that theory should not keep us from documenting that sordid past, and in fact it is naive to attempt to combat it while ignoring it.

As it reads now, the first 'graph in effect denies that past and, i think, its probable continuing dominance in the psychology and perhaps even the written law of many cultures.

(BTW, The Red Queen by Matt Ridley does not deal with rape in law or on rape as a prosecutable offense, but is valuable about the implicit psychology of rapists and of others' attitudes on rape; it may point to works more pertinent as sources or deserving mention.) --Jerzy (t) 14:58, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

If anyone has access to groliers online encyclopedia from a university please look up the history listed there. It is excellent. - a survivor

here it is:

Groliers Online Encyclopedia

http://www.ncwiseowl.org/

To access Groliers Online Encyclopedia free of charge- just click on Encyclopedia and then text only version (pop up window) and type in search term rape. It is the top return. This entry is one of the best overviews for the topic of rape that I have found. It covers recent aspects (date rape) as well as the history of rape in our society. It includes the concept that women are a legal possession of their spouse or father, information on date rape drugs such as rohypnol and ghb and the Bosnia rape trials.

This is also a good example of what an actual encyclopedia article on rape looks like.

When this is unlocked I plan to add some of the information regarding the content of Groliers entry on rape. It lists fome very important historical aspects for rape survivors. I hope no one has any objections. I will be as nuetral as possible. Possibly just a short quote from Groliers encyclopedia. --Survivor 06:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protection
The article has been protected for eleven days now. It's protected on a version including dissented text that so far no one has stepped up to support, about there being a "date rape drug epidemic". What, exactly, do we have to do to get it unprotected? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Try WP:RfPP, or asking the protecting admin. Sam Spade 17:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * See User_talk:Kingturtle.


 * Sam Spade 17:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The NOTICE atop this article is quite clear about what needs to be done to get it uncorporated - "This page is protected from editing until disputes have been resolved on the discussion page." A great deal has been discussed in this talk page since the 12 Apr 2005 protection notice, but what exactly has been resolved? Kingturtle 18:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Number of times that 24.222.246.133 has edited Rape to remove information s/he doesn't like about the effects of alcohol being mistaken for drink-spiking and/or insert the unsourced and POV text "Drugging victims is unethical and illegal. Many countries are currently working hard to put a stop to the date rape drug epidemic.": Twelve.


 * Number of times that 24.222.246.133 has come to the talk page to try and "resolve" the issue: Zero.


 * Well, this is certainly good news for everyone who wants to use Wikipedia as a soapbox: all you have to do is keep making the same edits over and over again until the page gets protected on your version; then make sure you never show up on the talk page, so that the issues can never be "resolved" and the page will remain on your version forever.  Thanks, Kingturtle!  You're "quite clear" about what needs to be done to get this article unprotected, all right:  all the editors who are actually willing to show up and discuss things have to be driven off in disgust, and that's well underway, thanks to your responsible use of admin powers to aid and abet POV-pushing anons. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A) any admin, not just me, can unprotect the article whenever they like. B) can you tell me what has been resolved? Kingturtle 19:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. You can't simply say "This page is being protected because there are issues that I feel you aren't handling appropriately; now you guess at what it takes to make me happy."  Clearly we've answered all of 24.222.246.133's objections, since s/he hasn't shown up once to participate in the discussion!


 * Did you protect the page because of the edit war or did you protect the page because, like 24.222.246.133, you want to see information surpressed and replaced with POV value judgements without being able to make a good case on the talk page on why this should be so? Your blatant misrepresentation of this situation at Protected page certainly makes the latter seem quite likely. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I realize the article is unprotected but thought this title applicable in the absence of the original poster:

The Epidemic of Rape and Child Sexual Abuse in the United States. By Diana E. H. Russell and Rebecca M. Bolen. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2000. Davis Library. HV6561 .R86 2000

The authors here focus on the incidence and prevalence of rape. There is an analysis of Russell's original study in the 1970's, as well as examination of more recent government data. Methodologies as well as results are discussed. Includes tables and graphs of data, an index and references. --Survivor 06:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More information on the Perth 2003 incident
Well, crap. Just after I revised the description of the Perth 2003 incident to correct what I thought was a mistaken inference that it was a "study", I notice that tucked away in the "External Links" section was this link, which confirms that it was indeed a study, based on all victims who had requested police involvement during that period, not merely 44 of them whose systems turned out to be clean. The study was supposed to continue for another 12 or 18 months, which at a quick calculation means it probably ended around January of this year; I wonder if the results are available? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Counter-arguments to sociobiological theories of rape

 * Counter-argument: Lewis Thomas in his "Lives of a Cell: notes of a biology watcher" notes a strong argument of how rape is not only not an evolutionary benefit to the rapist but that it is strongly maladaptive and therefore selected against.

And ... what is that "strong argument"? I'm pretty sure we should be presenting the argument itself rather than just asserting to the reader that it's strong.


 * Furthermore, in his just published book (Adapting Minds: MIT Press) David Buller tackles the whole of evolutionary psychology noting that theories in this field are often provably based on faulty research and heavily biased data.

Has he been able to show that the theories of evolutionary psychology about rape are based on faulty research or heavily biased data? If he has, we owe readers the details. If he has not, it's deceptive to be talking about other theories he's managed to make a case against, in order to suggest he has one against this theory as well.


 * He further goes on to show

"argue" rather than "show", I'm fairly sure we should be using.


 * that what is interesting about rape is that if indeed it is "programmed into the male brain" then why is it that most men don't rape?

Actually a fairly weak argument. Evolution is all about statistical effectiveness; if a gene produces adaptive characteristics in a statistically significant percentage of the population, it is likely to be selected for. Stating "well, there are individuals in whom those characteristics don't manifest" does not disprove the theory. Likewise, if a particular genetic complement produces a tendency towards certain behavior, there may be plenty of individuals in whom that tendency never actually produces that behavior. It does not dispel the possibility that the tendency, in those in whom it has manifested, has had a statistically significant effect.


 * For Buller rape as biological imperative doesn't add up.

Redundant, surely, if we're presenting his actual arguments for why rape as biological imperative doesn't add up. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I must agree with this assessment. A lot of claims are simply made with no backing.  Not to mention, no credible scientist would use such an obvious straw man argument.  Evolutionary biologists by no means suggest that most animals rape, they simply suggest that there is a biological basis for it.  To the best of my knowledge, evolutionary biologists have not come to any consensus of the extent of rape (statistically speaking) with animals.  So to suggest that the evolutionary biologists are wrong because most men don't rape is a very disingenuous straw man argument.  An honest scientist on the opposing side of the argument wouldn't suggest that the theory is invalid based on claims that weren't actually made (that most animals rape).  "It's wrong because there are exceptions" is a just plain ridiculous, unscientific argument.  -Nathan J. Yoder 01:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Why is this stuff even in the article? It's one step up from original research, and WP articles aren't forums for debate. If we have to give argument and counter-argument in an article, I think it's a good indication that we should wait for more real-world consensus to be available. I also see that "sociobiological theories of rape" (pretentious as it sounds, and largely baseless) is already its own article. I think this whole section should be removed from what is rapidly becoming a back-and-forth, some-think-this-some-think-that mess. It's terribly amateur. Jeeves 06:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Um, if by "one step up from original research" you mean "nothing like original research", then yeah. The point of original research is to discourage those who would see Wikipedia as a place to publicize theories that they can't get past peer review anyplace else.  That's obviously not the case here; these theories have clearly received plenty of attention and debate without Wikipedia.  For us to pass judgement and say "We will not cover any of this controversy because they have failed to reach consensus (and besides it's pretentious and largely baseless anyways)" is hardly justified. -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think you missed my point. What I was trying to say is that it's not really good for articles to treat every minority viewpoint, and it's especially not good to treat minority viewpoints which are new to the point where one has to quote authors in the present tense. By "one step up from original research" I obviously don't mean "nothing like original research", otherwise I would have said that. What I mean is that a first person did original research, and then a second person reports on it in the article. To forestall the argument that every article eventually sources "original research", note that the facts in less-controversial articles are agreed-upon by massive numbers of people. We shouldn't be pulling in every new idea that comes up; they should be validated by the academic community first. Jeeves 17:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't miss your point, I disputed it. Your arguments unfortunately don't coincide with the facts; you clearly have strong feelings on this matter but just as clearly don't have a strong grounding in the facts.  You claim these must be new theories because they're being described in the present tense, but did you notice that one of the sources was Lives of a Cell, first published over three decades ago?  These are not new theories, nor obscure theories; the scientific community has yet to reach consensus on whether to accept these theories but it would be ridiculous for Wikipedia to decide that we will never cover scientific theorizing until consensus is unquestioned.  The phrase "one step up from original research" is meaningless if the step in question is everything that makes original research objectionable to begin with. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with assumptions like "We shouldn't be pulling in every new idea that comes up; they should be validated by the academic community first". Citable ideas should be mentioned, however briefly. The reader deserves to know what cutting edge theories there are on the subject just as they deserve to know obscure details from the past, even those which have been disproven. The key is in devoting the proper amount of space, and in maintaining a neutral narrative. Most of this content being complained about should be meerely alluded to here, and discussed in detail @ Sociobiological theories of rape. Sam Spade 18:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This was actually my original objection. The "argument...counter argument: ..." stuff isn't encyclopedic in nature, it's debate. Debate can and should go on the talk pages, but not in the article itself. Since the topic has its own article anyway, I don't think we need to give more than a cursory mention of it here. Jeeves 05:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure, we agree on method, if not on purpose. I say the point; counterpoint, reference vrs. cite stuff has a place, but in this case the discussion should be had on Sociobiological theories of rape, w a brief overview of various related concepts and theories in the subsection here. Sam Spade 06:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Fellating a man without his permission ...
The following was added to the section on male rape by an IP user. It needs to be substantiated in the ways listed below for it to stay.

Mens' Rights lobbyists are pushing for tougher "male rape" laws, and have gained some success--for example, fellating a man without his permission is grounds for Rape in the Second Degree. An An 05:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Which Mens' Rights lobbyists?
 * where have they gained success - US courts, US legislature?
 * rape in the second degree in which legal system? The US?
 * I didn't write this section and cannot speak for "rape in the second degree" but I do know that there are many lobby groups fighting prison rape and (to a lesser extent) to promote awareness of male-rape in general. A google search for 'lobby "prison rape"' turns up a number of results.  I may compile a list of them but probably won't (so if anyone would like to feel free) as it isn't a subject of great interest to me.  -An IP user

Prison rape perceived as "just punishment"
While I do think the additions describing the tendency for prison rape to be seen as the "just reward" of a prisoner were phrased in very POV form, I think there's some undeniable truth to them that really deserves to be addressed. If you tried telling a 'joke' on the radio about any other form of rape, you would most likely be out of a job by the end of the day as outraged listeners flooded the lines. However, if a male celebrity goes to prison, jokes about him having to "bend over to get the soap" are inevitable -- and if the crime for which he was put in prison was a sexual one, people who would never think of condoning any other form of rape are suddenly cheering on the notion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Images
Can you people stop deleting the picture of rape (missionary postition) that I am adding to this page? It is an appropriate addition, even thought some of my other edits may have been vandalism. 70.60.43.74 00:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but thats not a very convincing argument. Not only does that image not depict rape, but an image that actually did was not too long ago removed, as being offensive. Also, accusing an arbiter clearly acting in good faith of vandalism is probably not a good stance to be taking as an anon. Sam Spade 00:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It is clearly not a picture of rape, (except perhaps in the opinion of Andrea Dworkin), and even if it were, what point would we be trying to illustrate? func (talk) 01:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * FYI this is the image in question. (Comment added after page archival) - Draeco 07:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Metaphorical" use of the term
The following passge of text seems to me to be highly problematic:


 * Victims and survivors of rape, and their allies, may find this type of usage pejorative and deeply offensive, since it normalizes the term "rape" to cover mundane events.


 * Examples include:-
 * In internet culture, using the word "raped" to refer to having one's online writings voted/moderated downwards by a large number of people.
 * "they raped his name in the media".
 * "I got anally raped by that class".
 * "The wood had been raped of its peace". (From a book, of disturbance caused by a foxhunt in a forest)
 * "The rape of England". (A newspaper article headline with a pun referring to the rapeseed plant self-seeding on waste ground and motorway verges).

There are two reasons why it seems to me that this should be revised. The first is that it's simply wrong to say that some of these usages are "metaphorical" or "extended". People who say so are presumably simply ignorant of the fact that the word rape (like "violate") has never had an exclusively sexual meaning. The last two examples are not metaphorical at all. If the text said that some commentators think the word should in future be exclusively reserved for the sexual meaning then the argument would make sense. Whether it's possible or desirable to delimit English usage in that way is another matter.

The second reason is less clear cut and more debatable. We all know that hyperbolic language is commonplace. If someone says they "died" on stage it doesn't actually mean that. People who say they are starving are not actually starving. If you are sick of hearing something you are usually not actually "sick". There are many many other examples. Is there a good reason to pick out the hyperbolic use of the word "rape" as any more problematic than these other usages? I've never heard anyone actually claim that saying "it was torture" about something embarrassing is insulting and demeaning to actual victims of torture. I can imagine the possibility, but it's not a common viewpoint. Equally one could argue that the use of such hyperbole actually emphasises the original meaning of the word, precisely because it implies "it was as if I felt as bad as...the worst extreme of X".

Anyway, I've altered the text to be less absolutist in tone. Paul B 15:00, 17 June, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Sam Spade 15:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are far fewer torture victims hanging around than rape victims, no matter how you count. Dying obviously isn't going to offend any victims, and people generally aren't traumatized by being sick. I'm not aware of many specific individuals I know of who were raped, presumably since victims tend to keep it to themselves, but I can definitely see how rape victims might be upset by "I got totally raped in basketball today". Bringing back bad memories and all.

On a side note, I think it's fair to say that the word rape in slang usage to mean "to beat badly, humiliate, etc." descends directly from the common modern usage of the word to mean "to force sexual intercourse with", with little or no relation to quasi-archaic usages that your average teenage slang speaker would be unfamiliar with. Therefore, I don't think it's unreasonable to call that particular usage metaphorical, even if it fits another literal definition of the word as well. &mdash;Simetrical (talk) 6 July 2005 07:15 (UTC)


 * I'd have to agree with you on at least that latter point. Is that the original meaning of the word?  Yes.  Is that what people are intending to reference?  Highly, highly improbable.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 7 July 2005 01:30 (UTC)


 * It depends what people you are referring to. The article uses four examples. Try replacing the word 'rape' with 'violate' in all the examples:


 * "they violated his name in the media".
 * "I got anally violated by that class".
 * "The wood had been violated of its peace".
 * "The violation of England"


 * In the last two examples any sexual connotation disappears. The first is ambiguous. Only in the second example does the phrase "anally violated" clearly have a sexual meaning. The last two examples are from highly literate sources, not slang, and are clearly drawing on long-established literary usage, so I don't think they are either metaphorical or "extended". The point of my alterations was to emphasise that some cases that might seem to to some people to be metaphor are not in fact. Of course in other cases they are. As for the notion that death and sickness are not likely to offend, are you sure? "Dying obviously isn't going to offend any victims"? There are, I believe, more people who have been bereaved than have been raped. People aren't traumatised by being sick? Sicknesses, including many that are used metaphorically, can be very very distressing, cancer for example. Cancer is often used metaphorically ("drugs are a cancer eating away at the body of society" etc).


 * I have known intimately two women who have been victims of rape. Neither was offended by the metaphorical use of the word. But both had very "upfront" personalities. What offends, I think, is as much a matter of personality and attitude as of experience. Paul B 09:05, 7 June 2005 (UTC)

Bereavement and sickness, however, are more culturally open, perhaps one might say more culturally acceptable than being raped. In the former case, the grief is usually shared with many others equally; in the second, while the invalid might bear the burden disproportionately, there will at least be many others to sympathize and comfort. Neither, furthermore, causes any kind of shame or feeling of violation in normal cases&mdash;death and illness are accepted and expected parts of life. Finally, terms such as sick and kill are so commonplace that they will generally have no emotional impact on pretty much anyone.

I don't know for certain that a significant percentage of rape victims will be upset by the casual use of the term. I can see possible reasons, however, for why rape victims might be when survivors of death and illness would not. &mdash;Simetrical (talk) 7 July 2005 10:54 (UTC)

link spam
What's going on here? The anon's don't appear to be open proxies. --W(t) 23:58, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

spam link
@ the admin who protected the page - you forgot to remove the spam link! --Ixfd64 00:09, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

edit: now it's removed

Gang Rape and mob rape
though mob rape falls under gang rape, it should nonethless be mentioned. It is more common when mobs arise that rape women of other communitioes or relgions etc. For eg. in the gujarat riots in india many were gang raped by a mob of upto hundreds. few were convicted due to the unruliness and large scale incidents of such things. mob rape is a subcategory of gang rape.--Idleguy 10:11, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)