Talk:Rape in the United States

What this article needs
 D r e a m Focus  00:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Listing what rape is defined in, in different parts of the United States.
 * Crime statistics over a significant time period.
 * Conviction rate
 * Rape shield laws
 * How rape is handled by those investigating it
 * Rape counseling
 * Portrayal in the media over time(they actually made jokes about it in old movies and television shows)

article development
The official websites of the United States government are a good source of information for this article. I copied a chunk of the article from the main rape article, it able to grow from there.  D r e a m Focus  10:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

denial of health insurance, rape a preexisting condition
I found this article in the Huffington Post. It mentions different stories of rape victims denied insurance, for having a preexisting condition, which wouldn't be covered. A 38-year-old woman in Ithaca, N.Y., said she was raped last year and then penalized by insurers because in giving her medical history she mentioned an assault she suffered in college 17 years earlier. The woman, Kimberly Fallon, told a nurse about the previous attack and months later, her doctor's office sent her a bill for treatment. She said she was informed by a nurse and, later, the hospital's billing department that her health insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield, not only had declined payment for the rape exam, but also would not pay for therapy or medication for trauma because she "had been raped before." I'm thinking this is something that should be fitted in the article somehow. How the victim is treated by the legal system, the medical community, the media, and society itself. Comments?  D r e a m Focus  21:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They mention in that article how one insurance company had a policy of giving the victim a hard time, and denying them services to save money, a former employee saying that, but a representative from that company said that was seven years ago, and a lot has changed, nothing like that happening anymore. So mentioning that particular company by name might be slanderous, and cause them to sic lawyers upon us.  Other examples show problems rape victims have had though.  Not sure how to expand the section past what I put in there.  If some notable organization had published research on how often rape victims were denied medical coverage, that'd be something we could really use, to show just how common it is.   D r e a m Focus  14:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Media portrayal over time
I searched around a bit, but I'm having trouble finding things. I went through Google, then Google news, then Google books. Hard to find something mixed in with the vast number of results. Does anyone know of any books published documenting how the media has portrayed rape over time? How it went from being portrayed as a joke(Black Sheep Squadron episode where they warn the new girl about a drug the guys try to put in a girl's drink to rape her, they laughing, "oh those guys", as though it was no big deal), downplaying the severity of the crime(rape victim recovers, no emotional damage), to the serious crime that it is. I created an article about the All in the Family episode Edith's 50th Birthday (All in the Family) awhile back, it one of the first shows on television that portrayed rape.  D r e a m Focus  09:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Move page to Rape in the United States
After the AfD has finished, and if the page survives, it should be moved to Rape in the United States. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe Sexual violence in the United States in keeping with other articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) -
 * Rape isn't always violent, the victim sometimes unconscious or too intimidated to fight back. I have no objections towards renaming it Rape in the United States though.  United States is how most apparently refer to this nation, not United States of America.  I read a discussion about that at the United States page, why we have an article there, instead of at United States of America.   D r e a m Focus  20:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. Rape is an act of violence. Please do not start an article on "gentle rape", in the USA or anywhere else.  pablo hablo. 23:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We will never see a Gentle rape in the United States so asking to not have such an article is redundant. What we should have is an article that is inclusive enough a topic so all ifo can be added. Rape is only one type of sexual violence so if we retain the current title there will be a gap left for any info on sexual violence in the US. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have come across a stack of pages relating to the article and placed them in the "See also" section. Given that these articles exist I am now convinced that we should move the page to Sexual violence in the United States. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do they call it sexual violence? If its defined the same as rape, why call it something else?  Is it like calling child rape, child molestation, to sound less dramatic/horrible?  Which term is more commonly used and recognized?  I've never heard it called sexual violence before.   D r e a m Focus  03:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rape is a type of sexual violence (sexual assault) therefore rape would be a subset of an article on sexual violence. I don't think anyone should equate rape and sexual violence since not all sexual violence is rape. Page names on WP should not be inferred to be making any sort of judgement. WP is nuetral and unsensored. If it is rape it should be called rape. What I want from the article name is a topic that can hold all the closely related info - I am not using it a means of passing judgement on anything. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Google returns 46,100,000 hits for "rape" and only 2,110,000 for "sexual violence". I found a definition of "sexual violence" on a government website. The definition for rape is in this article.  I think rape is more fitting.   D r e a m Focus  03:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure if that is a valid test for a page name in this case. It would be expected that "rape" will get more hits that "sexual violence" since the former is used in the common vernacular whereas the latter is a more formal term. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Statistics
This statistic is included in the article:


 * An estimated 91% of victims of rape are female, 9% are male and 99% of offenders are male. (Bureau of Justice Statistics 1999)

However upon visiting the cite that statistic is immediately followed by:


 * 93% of women and 86% of men who were raped and/or physically assaulted since the age of 18 were assaulted by a male. (National Violence Against Women Survey, 1998)

Those 2 don't exactly match up...Sammichraptor (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

- I noticed that the article contains a claim that "a significant number of rapes reported to the police do not advance to prosecution" but the article to which this claim is linked has no such claim within it. Snarky Boy (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC) - The sexual assault statistics may have no place in this article, as the survey appears to be self-reported and rape is a subset of the broader term sexual assault. 108.39.73.94 (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Rape Kits
Under VAWA 2005, states are required to ensure that a victim receives access to a forensic examination free of charge regardless of whether the victim chooses to report a sexual assault (for any reason) to law enforcement or cooperate with the criminal justice system. All states must comply with the VAWA 2005 requirement regarding forensic examination in order to be eligible to receive STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program (STOP Program) funds. Under 42 U.S.C. § 3796gg-4, a State is not entitled to funds under the STOP Program unless the State or another governmental entity "incurs the full out-of- pocket cost of forensic medical exams . . . for victims of sexual assault." This means that, if no other governmental entity or insurance carrier pays for the exam, states are required to pay for forensic exams if they wish to receive STOP Program funds. The goal of this provision is to ensure that the victim is not required to pay for the exam. The effect of the VAWA 2005 forensic examination requirement is to allow victims time to decide whether to pursue their case. A sexual assault is a traumatic event. Some victims are unable to decide whether they want to cooperate with law enforcement in the immediate aftermath of a sexual assault. Because forensic evidence can be lost as time progresses, such victims should be encouraged to have the evidence collected as soon as possible without deciding to initiate a report. This provision ensures victims receive timely medical treatment.Sammichraptor (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the news article, or watch the CBS video, which will show otherwise. I reverted your edits.  Everything is in the CBS news article already, which I referenced.   D r e a m Focus  22:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are many news stories out there about rape victims being given bills, and having problems getting full if any compensation. I added a reference to the first news story I found when I Googled, it from this year.  Different states have different problems though, there many cases I have read about.   D r e a m Focus  22:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The CBS article is about rape kit dna testing not billing for the exams. The other story you referenced clearly states that ""It is set up legislatively so that the criminal justice system pays for whatever evidence collection occurs". Crime victims do not pay for forensic medical exams. This is the law in the United States of America. This is a paperwork and billing issue associated with our nations stupidly complex medical billing system and the paperwork having to jump through 3-4 different organizations. As to the Medical information: The huffpost blog you linked claims that STDs or other conditions have been listed as pre-existing conditions. Not rape itself. ""I think it's important to point out that health plans are not denying coverage based on the fact that someone was raped".Sammichraptor (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See the words in quotation marks in that article, "had been raped before." They made her pay for her rape exam.   D r e a m Focus  11:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Rape and the Law (and Criminal Punishment)
Criminal Punishment

I am thinking this section should be modified to address sexual assault and the law in the several states instead of just Federal punishment. Federal jurisdiction and prosecutions are so minor in comparison to the States. It would make more sense (to me) to have a general address of sexual assault law and punishment in the States vs. an extensive section addressing the relatively minor Federal role.

Legal Commmuntiy

What are we looking to include in this section?Sammichraptor (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. There are 50 states though, that a lot to shove in there.  Perhaps focus on the one with the highest conviction rate, and the one with the lowest, or the one with the most rape crimes per population each year and the one with the least, and how the laws differ in those states.   D r e a m Focus  01:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

removing some tags
Concerning my edits. The article mentions insurance companies do this, and even gives examples of some by name. For libel reasons, you can't mention them by name in this article. As for the second tag, it does mention in several places that they didn't pay for things, claiming it wasn't necessary. Just search for the word "necessary", and read what is said throughout the news story, not just the first one you hit.  D r e a m Focus  18:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed two more . They refer to loopholes in the article, not giving a list of every single one in legal jargon most wouldn't understand anyway.  Some areas have management problems.  See the above section about that.  It doesn't happen in every state, nor do we need to list which of the 50 states has or has not had problems.  Also, its not just a state issue, but also local communities, or different hospitals, or other health organizations.   D r e a m Focus  18:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting observation
This is from the article: "According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, the adjusted per-capita victimization rate of rape has declined from about 2.4 per 1000 people (age 12 and above) in 1980 to about 0.4 per 1000 people, a decline of about 85%."

This is from Internet pornography: "...pornography had been traded over the Internet since the 1980s..."

By itself, these observations would be original research. Just curious, does anyone knows if this correlation has been studied?  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 05:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Previously if you raped someone, you could get off with three months in juvenile hall, or even no jail time at all, even for adults. Longer jail times, mean less will commit the crime, and those who do won't get out of jail as often to keep committing it before being sent back again.   D r e a m Focus  08:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * When were the laws changed? And to answer my own question, yes, many people have made that observation: .  I'm thinking of adding a sentence explaining the connection, not as fact, but as something worth considering.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 09:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The source in the article used to say that rape has dropped by 85% makes this connection already. I assume you have no objections about the reliability of a source that was already in the article?  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 04:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this a reliable source? Who is this guy, and is his research notable?  Can any college student publish a paper on this site? http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013   D r e a m Focus  05:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * He's a professor there, not a student. There are other authors who have made the same conclusions as I showed earlier.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 09:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Lesbian rape
http://www.aardvarc.org/dv/gay.shtml might be of interest to those working on this article. The lack of information on lesbian abuse and rape in particular can cause one to believe it doesn't happen. So anything that helps remind people and/or point them to good sources of information on the topic might be helpful... Hobit (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think same sex sexual violence counts as rape? Hvatum (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Posters should be careful to not use the term gay as a gender neutral term. It's guys. Use of the term as gender neutral is non-standard and colloquial. Check out the terminology list for the Kent State University LGBTQ center on this. By the way, LGBT would be just GBT if the term gay were truly gender neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godofredo29 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Are racially charged rape statistics spread on nazi forums allowed on wikipedia?
"The U.S. Department of Justice compiles statistics on crime by race, but only between and among people categorized as black or white. There were 111,490 white and 36,620 black victims of rape or sexual assault reported in 2005. Out of the 111,490 cases involving white victims, 44.5% (49,613) had white offenders and 33.6% (37,461) had black offenders, while the 36,620 black victims had a figure of 100% black offenders, with a 0.0% estimation for any other race based on ten or fewer sample cases.[62] Some types of rape are excluded from official reports altogether"

This does NOT belong here, it belongs on stormfront, not on wikipedia, those statistics are completely biased and they make no sense because according to the same statistics, in the following year there was a large number of black women raped by white men and a completely different number of white women raped by black men, these statistics were posted by David Dukes on his site and they have been spread on nazi forums ever since, it's completely biased as it only mentions the statistics for 2005 and ignores all other statistics, I didn't know wikipedia was a nazi site?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.61.152.142 (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked around the http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/ website, and I don't see where the race of the victim and attacker is mentioned. We need to confirm or deny the information by finding where on the site that information is at.  It does say on their site that they changed the way information was gathered, so things changed greatly in some years.   D r e a m Focus  07:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, this user was blocked for his disruptive editting last night. I don't know what statistics he thinks are being ignored.  We don't just delete statistics because they are upsetting.  Facts by themselves can't be biased, unless of course you think reality is biased.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 17:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I updated the stats for the 2007 stats. They seem to vary a lot by year, which makes me question the usefulness of posting them. Either that, or the person who posted the 2005 stats confused the table listing victims of GANG rape (multiple rapists) of white women, where black men are the rapists in 33% of cases, vs. all rapes in general, where they represent 7.5% of the rapists of white women. But the newest ones are up there either way.Hvatum (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, before I meant I uptaded the stats to the correct table, it was still the 2005 stats. I now I have updated the stats to 2006 numbers.Hvatum (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys, that's what I was trying to do but was banned because I wasn't very familiar with wikipedia and didn't know I had to add an edit summary, anyway, I wasn't trying to remove the stats because thy were "upsetting" like AzureFury claimed, I was trying to remove them because, like Hvatum said, they vary alot by year, and because I wasn't able to find the stats on the site of the department of justice anyway, the only place I was able to find that quote was on stormfront, which is a nazi forum.

Although I wouldn't put it as strongly the stats are in a very specific sense unreliable and should either be qualified as such or removed. Regarding the figure that in 100% of the cases were the victim was black, the perpetrator was also black table 42. in the document linked in footnote 8 states that these "estimate[s] [are] based on 10 or fewer sample cases". The sample size is statistically insignificant and the whole thing should never have appeared in the document in the first place. Secondly the numbers reported there are also calculated on the basis of cases were rape or sexual assault was only threatened. Personally I'd I'd like to see the line deleted even though it is based on an official document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troglodyt123 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"Are racially charged rape statistics spread on nazi forums allowed on wikipedia?", says anonymous

If racially charged stories about slavery spread on Black Supremacist forums are allowed on Wikipedia, rape statistics must be allowed. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. You don't like the statistics, that's YOUR problem. Bluebye (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, it is my belief that the FBI did some statistic-cleansing on politically incorrect material showing white men rarely rape blacks.Bluebye (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick search showed that 27% of rapists are black while only 12.3% of whole population is. Why isn't this fact part of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.121.66.251 (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Relationship to victim stats are wrong

 * Latest update should be a good compromise, the statistics are still there, but now they are all there, so people can compare for themselves. I think it's best to put the stats there, including the racial ones, and give the most accurate ones available. Rape is a horrible thing, and to stop it people should know the reality of it. Picking one statistic, or just ignoring them, gives people an inaccurate image of rape and makes preventing it harder. Unfortunately, I lost the Detroit study, so if someone has a link to it, I will add that as well. Is this agreeable to everyone? Hvatum (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, found the Detroit (Women's Phsych Quarterly Study), it was hiding at the top. I've put it the rest of the table about offender-victim relationship.Hvatum (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That study used that has these stats is a smallish study in Detroit. It's not reflective other other statistics I've seen. For the time being I've put the National Victimization Survey as a source. Furthermore, the study the (old) Stats which I've copied below come from was not designed as a survey of rape, but of rape under certain conditions.

Steady dating partner	21.6% Casual friend	16.5% Ex-boyfriend	12.2% Acquaintance	10.8% Close friend	10.1% Casual date	10.1% Husband	7.2% Stranger	2%

If anyone has an objection, please argue it out here.Hvatum (talk) 06:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Right now, you have it that most rapes are committed by strangers. From all I have studied on the subject, that is not true. In the paragraph right before that, this source tackles that...and The Bureau of Justice Statistics displays it. Basically, I am not convinced that rape by strangers is more rampant than rape by known/well-known people, and we should not have that section saying two different things...unless we present the sources as arguing each other. Flyer22 (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The stats Hvatum changed it to are referenced to a site that says "Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases". So that isn't really scientifically valid.  Wouldn't RAINN or other organizations have more valid stats, instead of just some random results taken from 10 people?   D r e a m Focus  20:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders mentions as a source the U.S. Department of Justice. 2005 National Crime Victimization Study. They also have a link to the 2006 survey on their site, which says it comes from a survey of just 10 people.  So the department of justice can't really be trusted for stats.   D r e a m Focus  21:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So should we revert Hvatum's change for now? As I stated, it does not go with the paragraph right before it. Whatever we do, we need to get this information as accurate as we can. Flyer22 (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I know I just responded to this, but my post vanished. Servert error I guess.  Anyway, I reverted the lower part of it, since the original source comes from a survey of over 200 people, while the government report is only for 10.  I'm also searching  World Health Organization.  Perhaps adding in the name of a country, or other things, can narrow the search.   D r e a m Focus  16:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The United Nations world crime report might be a good source of information also.  D r e a m Focus  16:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good job. If I get a good chance to, I will also help look for more on it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Rape in the United States also needs to be looked at.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 21:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're mis-understanding, the stats are not based on a survey of "10 or fewer people," 10 or fewer people are in the groups highlighted with an asterisk. The same is the case for the Detroit study. It has for example four people in the entire group who say they were raped by strangers. Do you really think 2% of rapes are committed by a strangers?? That is not even close the numbers I see (except for Wikipedia, and the Detroit study). Here are some more sources quoting numbers much closer to mine,
 * http://www.nmcsap.org/statistics.html
 * http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r159.pdf (UK Stats, 8% reported by stranges, still that's four times the Detroit number)
 * http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4523.0 (Australia, 11%)
 * We need to arrive at something... I'd be fine with just using the Australia study (the downside being it isn't about the US). Either way, for the time being, we probably not rely on outliar studies like the FBI one or the Detroit one. So those stats should be changed again. Hvatum (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining, Hvatum. Yes, we need to arrive at something. Perhaps, a brief explanation of whichever stats we present before presenting them? Flyer22 (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We could say: Because of the very small number of people involved in these surveys, the results change greatly year by year. And then instead of wasting time publishing any stats, which will contradict all those the year before, or say something insanely stupid like 100% of black women raped were raped only by black men, we could just not publish any stats at all.   D r e a m Focus  20:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * http://www.womensenews.org/story/rape/010619/experts-question-accuracy-new-rape-statistics explains the situation. Also mentions how some cities refuse to report rape crimes, because they didn't want the community to look bad, so let the rapists get away with it and keep attacking more people.  A lot of victims are too poor to afford telephones, or were back when they started.  So when they went from door to door, to only phone call interviews, the results changed.   D r e a m Focus  21:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel that we should keep all the text information regarding rape statistics as is, of course. But for the chart statistics that we are debating now, maybe we should discard it altogether, as you stated. I still feel that mention of rape by strangers being by far the least common form of rape should be somewhere in that section, similar to how Hvatum did it in the Rape in the United States article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)''


 * As before, I say eliminate the charts, and anything that comes from 10 people being surveyed. Also, this is Rape in the United States, so mentioning something from Australia makes no sense at all.   D r e a m Focus  23:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how I feel about Hvatum's new chart, where Australia and the UK are included. I mean, it is in the United States section...but it is also small and is stressing the point that rape by strangers is not the most common form of rape. I'm not too against this change. I'm neutral on it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, someone removed the whole chart. I put it back in without the Australia and UK stats. It would be nice to have more US stats, I'd guess the real middle ground lies somewhere between 2% of rapes committed by strangers and 23%.Hvatum (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the following statement by DreamFocus: "We could say: Because of the very small number of people involved in these surveys, the results change greatly year by year. And then instead of wasting time publishing any stats, which will contradict all those the year before, or say something insanely stupid like 100% of black women raped were raped only by black men, we could just not publish any stats at all. Dream Focus 20:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)"

Dream Focus, how do you know it's insanely stupid? Do you know any black women raped by a white? Need I remind you of the Duke University Lacrosse Team NON-rape case?Bluebye (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not the proper way to respond to something. Use colons instead.  And you misread what I was saying.  I was commenting on how stupid those results were, since only 10 people were surveyed, and why we shouldn't use them.   D r e a m Focus  00:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Definition of Rape: Source for quote does not exist and posted definition doesn't align with other sources.
I'm removing the definition of rape that is provided at the top of page. The link given does not exist. And what is listed is NOT the legal definition of rape in any US state. If someone feels forced to have sex through "psychological coercion" it isn't legally rape. If someone says: "If you don't have sex with me I'll break up will you." or "If you loved me you'd have sex with me." They're being coercive and arguably a jerk -- but they're not anywhere near being guilty of rape. Here is the language from the California Penal Code: (which you can read online here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=261-269) "Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another."

Also, including "attempted rape" in the definition of rape makes no sense. Attempted murder and murder are two different crimes -- and so are rape and attempted rape.

But the bottom line is that the current definition is unsourced. [Or, more accurately gives a source that doesn't currently exist and I doubt ever did.]

So the following has been removed.



The United States Justice Department defines rape as[2]

"Rape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape."

Hoping To Help (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OverlordQ found the proper place on the site to link to, so the link works now. We go by the definition of the nation's justice department of course.   D r e a m Focus  08:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

showing how abusive the police were towards victims in days past

 * New York Magazine Jun 23, 1975, has an article in it which you can read through Google book search: . Shows how the police handled, or mishandled rape cases, acting hostile to the victim.  When they started letting women officers handle this, more women came forward, and they got those who showed up to report something to talk to them.  I think its important to work this into the article.  Shows how this country has changed its views on rape, and the methods of helping the victims.   D r e a m Focus  23:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

CCASA sourcing is highly questionable
To someone familiar with USDOJ statistics on rape it is obviously baseless to claim that:

"According to the RAINN about 3.3% of rapes in the US are black-on-white and 3.4% are white-on-black."(Reference 10)

"Fact: In 93% of assaults, the rapist and victim are of the same race. In 3.3% of sexual assault cases, black men did rape white women, while in 3.4% of the cases, white men raped black women."

CCASA provides NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE for it's claim. If needed I will take the time to prove it's bogus with DOJ statisticsBluebye (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

'''Update: I've contacted CCASA and they completely disown the RAINN document. It has been scrubbed from their website but is still floating around in cyberspace, much to their chagrin'''.Bluebye (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are responding to someone discussed back in 2010. Those stats are nonsense, which is why I removed them again when someone added it back in.   Also, you messed up the size of things on this page by talking big.   D r e a m Focus  00:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Updated definition of rape
I updated the definition of rape to properly indicate where the definition was sourced from and what it's applied to. Ismarc (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The definition of rape was incorrect by stating that the victim has to be the one penetrated. Rape can happen where the victim can be the one penetrating a mouth, vagina or anus without his or her consent due to being underage, being forced to do so, being drugged, being threatened to do so, etc. Patrick.N.L (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

CDCs The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey
I'd like to add some of the stats from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nisvs/ too. Admittedly they're only from 2010 but more recent than some of the other stats added. I've got it marked on my to-do list (which is sadly growing longer and not shorter). Any objections? Legios (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

UNODC data
The UNODC data are not a meaningful comparison between different countries because they do not make any attempt to address different definitions of rape used in different countries or the differing rates of underreporting and false allegations in different countries. To simply say that rape in "grossly underreported" in the United States in the context of a comparison with the rest of the world is overly simplistic and highly misleading, since underreporting of rape is believed to be problem worldwide. See also my comments on the talk page for Rape statistics. DGAgainstDV (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This is the text that DGAgainstDV is referring to, added by an IP before the removal. I have no comment on it other than that at this time. It also includes information in addition to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) text. Flyer22 (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, I will state that most sources on rape don't "make any attempt to address different definitions of rape used in different countries or the differing rates of underreporting and false allegations in different countries." Many, perhaps most, parts of the world still only define rape as a male (boy or man) vaginally penetrating a girl or woman against her will (or, more accurately, without her consent). Flyer22 (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Can either of you provide an academic source that backs up anything you are saying? Its not your job to decide what data the public sees. Period. The Huffington Post characterized the study as "grossly underreported". Please work with me to come with a better phrasing, than simply deleting 3 unquestionably good references. 178.170.111.84 (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I most certainly can provide academic sources for what I stated above about how rape is covered, which is somewhat touched on and supported by WP:Reliable sources in the lead of the Rape statistics article, but I am not disputing your addition. DGAgainstDV is. Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's an article on why these types of comparisons of rape statistics across international lines are misleading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19592372. Also, when I look at the UNODC data, I don't find that they support your claim that the reported rape rate is higher in the United States than other country.  The closest thing to reported rates that I see in the tables is "Persons brought into formal contact with the police."  There are a number of other countries that have rates per 100,000 population that are higher than the United States.  Take, for example, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, and South Korea.  The claim that 21.8% of rapes are gang rapes is also questionable.  According to official government data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, available at http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0802.pdf in Table 37, 89% of rapes involved only a single offender and 4.2% of rapes involved an unknown number of offenders.  I'm unable to examine the source that you cite for this claim because it is not available via the Internet.  Presumably, this book cites a research paper for the study that produced this statistic.  You should cite that paper directly so that other people can see where the number comes from.  I'm going to remove the paragraph again.  Please do not add it back until we've discussed and addressed these issues. DGAgainstDV (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok I added the direct study with quote. 178.170.111.84 (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You still haven't addressed the issues with the UNODC data. I have yet to see where the data show a reported rape rate higher than any other country for the United States.  And that's not even getting to the issue of whether these data provide a meaningful comparison in the first place.  Also, to say that rape is "grossly underreported" is a subjective statement.  It is likely that there is more of an underreporting problem with rape than with other violent crimes.  It is also likely that the underreporting problem in the United States today is smaller than in many other parts of the world or in the past.  The report that you cite is 200+ pages long and as such I did not have the time to read it in full, but a search through it yielded that it did not contain the phrase "grossly underreported."  It appears that the crux of the report is that the authors have identified certain issues with survey methodology that they believe may lead to underreporting and made certain recommendations for changes to address these issues.  If you wish to reference this report in this Wikipedia article, then you should make a precise and accurate statement as to exactly what the report found.  Once again, please do not add this stuff back until we've discussed it further on the talk page. DGAgainstDV (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Almost every news site characterized the study as "grossly underreported". CLICK HERE.178.170.111.84 (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I see based on the search results, the phrase "grossly underreported" originated from a headline in The Huffington Post for an article on the study. The description of the study itself is consistent with what I had said, that the authors identified changes in methodology that they believe will lead to more accurate estimates of the prevalence of rape.  I have yet to see anything to indicate that this study contains any results on what percentage of rapes go unreported.  Also, why are you using the French version of Google to search for American news articles? DGAgainstDV (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Low 6.8% gang rape number
First off the 2013 academic book published by academic publisher Routledge, "Handbook on the Study of Multiple Perpetrator Rape" does not refer to the 2008 National Crime Victimization Survey anywhere in the book. Secondly, where is this 6.8% number coming from? I don't see it. 178.170.111.84 (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what your point about that particular book is. The fact that the author chose not to mention the NCVS data does not change the fact that they are the most recent data from an official government source.  Regarding where the number comes from, follow the link in my citation and look at Table 37.  It shows that 3.0% of rapes involved two offenders, 3.8% involved three offenders, and 0.0% involved four or more offenders.  Calculate 3.0 + 3.8 + 0.0 = 6.8. DGAgainstDV (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Its an academic book on gang rape with each chapter written by different authors.  Any yet none of them mention your source??!!  Obviously your source is not reliable.  178.170.111.84 (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Judging from the information available from searching for the book on Google, it's a book published in the United Kingdom that discusses gang rape throughout the globe. I don't know how extensive its discussion of the United States is.  Regardless, the fact that the authors of one book choose not to mention it does not provide a basis for dismissing a well-known and well-respected government survey as "not reliable." DGAgainstDV (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Atleast two sections of the book talk specifically about the United States. Page 15 and Chapter 11.  Your reference is not reliable.  Moreover I have a feeling you are misinterpreting it.  178.170.111.84 (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * One page and one chapter. As I suspected, this is not exactly the focus of the book.  Once again, this one particular book is not infallible and its failure to address the NCVS data is not a basis for dismissing them.  As far as your "feeling that [I am] misinterpreting it," I'm not sure how this is the case.  I'm simply taking the statistics from the table and adding all the percentages that encompass gang rapes.  If you want to object on the grounds that I'm misinterpreting the data, you'll need to say exactly how I'm misinterpreting them rather than just having a feeling. DGAgainstDV (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I said "atleast". Most of the book is clearly about American studies on gang rape.  Your source is not reliable. And the onus is on you to provide a secondary reference that corroborates your interpretation.  178.170.111.84 (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For the third time, this one book is not the be all and end all on gang rape. If you wish to characterize a major government study as "not reliable," you'll need to specify exact why it is not reliable.  By your logic, I could just as easily say that the NVAWS numbers are unreliable by citing a book that references only the NCVS. DGAgainstDV (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is the be all end all. It is literally called the "Handbook on the Study of Multiple Perpetrator Rape". Moreover the National Research Council indicated that your source is unreliable.178.170.111.84 (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Prision rape.
Saw an article recently claiming more men than women where raped in america.

Looked it up and basically this becomes true once you include prision stats. aka an extra 216,000 rapes against men.

Here's a newspaper report with the main points in an easy to read format.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html

and here's a link to the origional authors work (with links to stats on the page).

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/oct/24/shame-our-prisons-new-evidence/?pagination=false

If anyone would feel comfortable putting this in as I do feel this is relevant, but not personally sure how to fit it onto this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.99.69 (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we pick a single, up to date US data source to provide some uniformity across sections?
I appreciate that different studies can find different breakdowns of rates by age, race, etc. But what's very challenging in this article is that the sections typically lead with a different source when discussing rates or breakdowns by type / demographics / etc. And then we have different and inconsistent sets of different views, in random order with random rebuttals. This lack of structure and uniformity is very confusing and poor editorial work. There's no way in the current article for a reader to follow a thread from the macro view of the crime, to the breakdowns by type, race, age etc.

I'm OK with having varying estimates since some studies can be narrower or broader in how they assess the crime. Some older studies can provide historical context, but it would be good to lead with the latest rates possible.

Here's a proposal.


 * 1) . Pick a new authoritative study that covers most of the bases.
 * 2) . Then order the other studies by recentness, and breadth of the definition. I would suggest that we start with a) reported rapes, b) surveys that are specific about defining rape by the criminal definition, c) surveys that take a broader view of rape and/or sexual assault.
 * 3) . If there are areas where we cite an older version of the same study, but the newer version is available, pick the newer version and update throughout.

If we think this is reasonable, I'm willing to expend some time on it.Mattnad (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead
The lead of this article needs to be rewritten; it should not begin with a statement such as, "Nearly 90,000 people reported being raped in the United States in 2008" because it is already dated and will only continue to become ever more dated. Why list facts about rape in 2008 in particular? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer stat from 2010?  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. The lead shouldn't begin by listing the number of rapes in any given particular year, because the information automatically becomes dated. The lead should begin with general information to provide context for the issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Rape in the United States is one of the most common crime." Is that fine for the lead sentence? I agree that we can remove other statistics from the lead and assess the content of the article in the 4-6 sentences.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you wanted to make that kind of statement, it would need to be more narrowly qualified. Even among violent crimes, rape (using the FBI definition which means any unwanted sexual penetration) is a small percentage.


 * The other issue is the blurring of the definition and including sexual assaults in the overall statistics. I've rolled back an editor who is conflating non-consensual penetration (per FBI definition) with any sexual assaults.  A portion of that umbrella term includes kissing and touching which is not the common or criminal definition of rape.


 * If we want to change this article to "Sexual Assault in the United States" and broaden it, that would work too.Mattnad (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This version of the lead crafted by Mattnad is not a good WP:Lead. We should not be defining rape in the WP:Lead sentence, as if this is the Rape article. Plus, there are typos in that version. Since a good portion of this article is about statistics, statistics should be in the lead, per WP:Lead, just like you see statistics in the WP:Good article Suicide and the WP:Featured article Autism. The key is to make sure that the statistics are up-to-date, and that the lead is not almost entirely composed of statistics like it used to be. Flyer22 (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it can be expanded, but the lead as it was was completely a regurgitation of stats which didn't even align with later statistics in the article. And from my experience on Wikipedia, the lead should be relatively short as an introduction.  Prevalence is only a portion of the topic.  If you see typos, correct them.  If you're going to put statistics in there, might as well include historical context, in that official sources (not those who use varying and subjective surveys to define rape as they see fit).  Those other views can be considered in later portions.  Since we're on the topic of how poorly written the lede is, the overall article is terrible, with overlapping and rambling sections.  Care to invest in improving it?Mattnad (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The lead should not be relatively short as an introduction, unless the article is relatively short; WP:Lead is clear about that. The lead should summarize the most significant aspects of the article. For example, all the sections in the article if called for. The previous lead was bad, and the current lead is also bad. But I will state that although both leads are wholly insufficient, your moving all those statistics out of the lead was a good move. I fixed the typos, but, if you spotted them, you should have fixed them. At some point, if no one beats me to it, I will remove the "Rape is a form of sexual assault involving non-consensual penetration of the vagina, mouth, or anus." sentence. If people want to know what rape is, they can click on the Rape article. And the Definitions sections of both articles are for significant detail. For the lead, all readers need to know when defining rape is that it is usually non-consensual sexual penetration, especially since the definition of rape varies and enough legal definitions these days include non-consensual sexual penetration using the fingers or an inanimate object as rape. Flyer22 (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * MOS:LEAD is clear that "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview.". It does not comment on length specifically (at least nowhere that I saw).  I do think it should begin with a definition.  Unfortunately other countries do not have the same definition of rape as the United States, and it's important to provide the US definition to provide context for every number and estimate given in the article.
 * I do agree however, that the lead should also provide an overview of the statistics. I would be in favor of the lead containing "According to United States Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, there were overall 191,670 victims of rape or sexual assault reported in 2005." from the statistics section (or surely there's a newer DoJ/FBI doc on this, they release a lot of annual crime statistics), as well as a comment on the under-reporting of rape. Possibly a short bit on campus rape as well. Lastly, perhaps a small paragraph on the criminal punishment, investigations, and treatment sections altogether. But a US-centric definition should certainly be included, and the Rape article is insufficient for that. &#8213;  Padenton  &#124;&#9742; 22:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * After the concise overview part you cited, MOS:LEAD relays, "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." In this case, define the topic does not mean define rape; well, it does, but it more specifically means to define what rape is in the United States. The Rape article is not insufficient for a U.S.-centric definition of rape, since rape is usually defined as non-consensual sexual penetration, and it has a Definitions section that addresses the U.S. definition on the FBI-level, among other definitions. Regarding what definitions may be in one U.S. state as opposed to another U.S. state, they vary slightly, and we obviously should not name all of the definitions in the lead. A simple "Definitions of rape may vary from state to state" type of wording would suffice for the lead (and the lead already does that). And MOS:LEAD certainly comments on length; this is seen in the introduction where it notes "it should ideally contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate" and in the WP:LEADLENGTH section. I pointed to the Suicide and Autism articles above as, respectively, good and excellent examples of what a lead should be. Having been through and otherwise witnessed WP:Good article nominations and WP:Featured article nominations, I know what good leads are; I decided to relay what I know on that matter here in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mind keeping the "a form of sexual assault involving non-consensual penetration of the vagina, mouth, or anus" wording if it were reworded as "Rape in the United States is a form of sexual assault usually involving sexual penetration of a person's vagina, mouth, or anus without that person's consent." Or something similar to that. The "usually" is there to address that rape definitions in the United States vary. But if rape in the United States is only defined as non-consensual sexual penetration, we should remove "usually." And "sexual penetration" is there because simply sticking a finger in someone's mouth, for example, is not defined as rape in any context that I am aware of. And then the specific detail about the rape definitions varying would, of course, come after the the WP:Lead sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I would have suggested "Rape in the United States is a form of sexual assault involving non-consensual sexual penetration of the vagina, mouth, or anus.", but the "consensual" and "sexual penetration" parts create a WP:SEAOFBLUE. Either way, "person" is clearer because it acknowledges whose consent (meaning the focus is on the victim's consent, not just anyone's consent). Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a good discussion. Yes we should have statistics for scope, and they must tie to statistics later in the article.  The main reason I removed the earlier versions is that they were a different source, different numbers, and different time period from later in the article.  There are more up to date number from the Bureau of Justice Statistic based on survey data rather than reported rapes to the authorities.  Survey, when done correctly, are a better representation of the true incidence of the crime since many victims do not go to the authorities. The BJS also uses the criminal definition of rape rather than some more expansive interpretations that include non-criminal instance.  Here's the overview and here is a pertinent study on women.  What's useful about the BJS study is that it provides a longitudinal analysis whereas the NSVS is only reported for a single year which doesn't show any trending.  For a single year (latest 2013) that includes men, we would need to go to that period.  Unfortunately for us wikipedians, the easy report merges rape with all sexual assaults.  I may have to download the data tables to extract the survey results for rape only.  Mattnad (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a much improved lead; I appreciate your help on that. Flyer22 (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I made more tweaks here and here. We still need to summarize other aspects of the article, which can be set up as the third and fourth paragraphs. That's why I combined the statistics into the second paragraph that is mainly about the statistics. I know that paragraph is hefty, but we should not have three lead paragraphs addressing the statistics. Also, this article ideally should not exceed a four-paragraph lead; WP:Lead is clear that exceeding four paragraphs for the lead is not ideal. Flyer22 (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Questionable or very dated statistics
Hi all, as I've started to look into some of the numbers and their sources, a couple of things pop up:


 * This image indicating a decline in "rapes" over time may actually refer to "rapes or sexual assaults" based on my reading other reports from the BJS. However the editor who created that graph did not link to, or state the actual document from where they got the numbers. I'll see if I can find a better chart and link to it's source.
 * Under the demographics section, the lifetime prevalence statistics are sometime very old (1995) or come from somewhat more recent sources that used varying mythologies and definitions. I think we can keeper the newer stats, but should qualify them based on what and how they measured rates, and what they are measuring. A common problem across most sources is that they merge rape with sexual assault but the article text doesn't explain that.  Or they are measuring "completed rape and attempted rape" (as is done with the 1995 stat of about 18%).  If that's the case, that should be explained since most reader are likely to assume "completed rape" which is very different.
 * We should take care to explain the difference between "Incidence" and "prevalence" and what periods they are measuring (i.e., lifetime, or in a given year).
 * In the rate of victimization section, the under-reporting rates are very much at odds with the BJS/NCVS analysis on which they are often based. We need to check into those sources to make sure they were captured accurately.Mattnad (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Rape in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130423180517/http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-r-0376.html to http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-r-0376.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to add subsection on rape in Indian country
I am a student at the University of Chicago Law School taking a course on feminist economics. I am interested in expanding the scope of this article to include a subsection on rape in Indian country. In order to provide greater perspective on rape in the United States, I propose the following changes: I am very interested in receiving feedback on my proposed changes. I have added a list of potential references to my user page and welcome any suggestions for additional sources. Medleya (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * add statistics on rape in Indian Country
 * describe the tribal justice system and the obstacles faced by those prosecuting rape in Indian country
 * describe recent measures to confront the high rates of rape in Indian country, including changes made to the Violence against Women Act during reauthorization
 * You mean Native Americans?VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am referring to the rape of Native American women in Indian Country. The term "Indian Country" is a legal jurisdictional term defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1151 as “(a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.” The jurisdictional issue is critical for understanding and combating the higher rates of rape of Native American women. Medleya (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course you can add a section. See WP:BOLD.VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement! I've opted to update the "Rape kit" article for now, but I plan to be bold! Medleya (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

POV?
"Both the NCVS and UCR are believed to significantly under-count the number of rapes and sexual assaults that occur. [13]" Believed by whom? Wouldn't it be better to say who it is that believes that the NCVS may be under-counting rapes and sexual assault? (The answer, of course, is given by the citation.) It is odd here not to mention here that the methodology of the CDC study has also been criticized (links are trivial to find).

It is also odd that the findings of NCVS are preceded by "According to the National Crime Victimization Survey...", whereas it is stated baldly that "A 2010 study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control found that around 1 in 5 women...". It is the difference in the wordings that is worth noting here. In the end, either both studies "found" facts (apparently incompatible with each other) or both simply state figures (giving which percentage of respondents answered "yes" to different sorts of questions).

On another note - it would be best to have directly comparable figures coming from NCVS, UCR and CDC. I do not know whether they can be accurately drawn from data available in the studies. What we have in the article allows the reader to come up with crude estimates (multiply 0.04 or 0.24 by female life expectancy, and multiply by approximately 2) but nothing more than that. Should we at least have rates of victimization stated further up than they are now, in the "Statistics" section, so that readers can make the comparison easily? Feketekave (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Rape in United States.
Moved from User talk:Katya72918:"That statical figures quoted is cherry picked.If you are going to include,include the whole thing,otherwise it's misleading and racist. Post a response. Katya72918 (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)"

I agree that it is cherry-picked. There's no reason we should have stats from a subsample of the NCVS and not other sources. Moreover, the NCVS measures perceived race (which is why Hispanic is not included).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Then mention it explicitely. Whites,Blacks are also perceived races.Study just asked the victims ,white ,black or others.They didn't give them a hispanic option to tick.Katya72918 (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why mention it at all when it's just a subset of the overall NCVS? And the fact it's the perceived race isn't really all that helpful to the reader.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

A rape-prone society
Hi XeCyranium, you just removed a material supported by this book – "Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood, and Privilege on Campus", Peggy Reeves Sanday (p.9) – : "We know that rape is common in the united states, which is in all likelihood one of the most rape-prone societies in the world." How would you rephrase this so that it's not 'vague'? M h hossein  talk 05:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Well my concern is mostly that with attribution it's something of a weak claim, just "somebody said this is probably the case" instead of a definite "this is the case". Given it's by an expert I guess it'd be fine to be included with attribution if you think it's good I just object to the noncommittal language of it only being "likely" when it seems like a question with a definite statistical answer. But I definitely don't know if it belongs in the lead before being mentioned in the body. XeCyranium (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You could also maybe directly quote "in all likelihood" since that's a much stronger statement than just "probably". XeCyranium (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * XeCyranium: Thanks for the explanations. I just re-added the text to the page, please check if it's correct. -- M h hossein   talk 07:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The History of Sexuality
— Assignment last updated by LizzieB2327 (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about template
At Template_talk:Rape_in_the_United_States there is a discussion about a template used in this article. Third-perspective input is welcome. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)