Talk:Rape of males/Archive 2

Sources for health issues
, you posted at WikiProject Medicine that you had concerns about the quality of sources used in this article. Can you point to something which you would like reviewed? Thanks.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  19:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response to this, Bluerasberry. I was just about to post to this talk page about the Malesurvivor.org source; I'm certain that the Malesurvivor.org source does not count as a WP:Reliable source for some, if not all, of the material it is used for in the Male rape article, especially with regard to material in the Effects section. And there are other sources in the Effects section that appear to be WP:Primary sources or sources from journals that are barely WP:MEDRS-compliant or are not at all WP:MEDRS-compliant. Flyer22 (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Some sourcing, other than the Malesurvivor.org source, in the Myths and facts section with regard to health issues also looks like it needs to be reviewed. Flyer22 (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The myths are apparently taken from a conference in 1991 - the book can be found in Switzerland: . Any swiss editors want to grab the book and get the original sourcing? That said, I think malesurvivor is certainly itself a reliable source for "myths", they've been around a long time, and the Rape article has at least two references to RAINN so I don't think victims advocacy organizations should considered suspect. That said, for the "effects" section we should focus on high quality sources instead, but for myths I think it's fine.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Malesurvivor.org source is not on the same level as RAINN, and is focused exclusively on males...which, by the tone of their site, indicates more of an advocacy matter than RAINN. I've long ago noticed that the Malesurvivor.org source is used in the Rape article, but I didn't bother to remove it since it is touching on a male rape matter covered by better sources. As for RAINN being an advocate website, as you know, I responded to you on that matter elsewhere. As for using Malesurvivor.org source for myths, like I stated, some of those "myths" concern health issues. Furthermore, the myth material is wrong about some things. For example, Malesurvivor.org states in its myths portion: "Myth #2 - Most sexual abuse of boys is perpetrated by homosexual males. Pedophiles who molest boys are not expressing a homosexual orientation any more than pedophiles who molest girls are practicing heterosexual behaviors. While many child molesters have gender and/or age preferences, of those who seek out boys, the vast majority are not homosexual. They are pedophiles." From what I know about pedophilia, and I know a lot on that topic, which is why I am involved in editing the Pedophilia article, the "[t]hey are pedophiles" text is not necessarily true; this is because not only is the term pedophilia more accurately applied to prepubescent children or those who look prepubescent, meaning adult sexual attraction to a 15-year-old clearly pubescent boy is not pedophilia (but is rather hebephilia or ephebophilia, if the sexual attraction is primary or exclusive to that age group), but it may very well be that most people who engage in child sexual abuse of prepubescents are not pedophiles; the Pedophilia article addresses that, and the Child sexual abuse article addresses the different types of child sexual abuse offenders in its Typology section. I'm okay with the Malesurvivor.org source being used for some of the myths material, but not all of it. WP:Secondary sources are usually preferred on Wikipedia anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * +1 to the highly questionable statement about pedophilia and homosexuality. A male adult who seeks out only male children could be defined as both a pedophile and a homosexual. Generally, it seems unreasonable to have this article separate when it is not distinguishable from the main article. Lesion  09:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Lesion, if you mean distinguishable from the Rape article, I think the justification for having a Male rape article, as touched on at Talk:Rape by gender, is that the topic of rape usually focuses on the rape of females and a lot of definitions of rape still define it as penile-vaginal penetration only or as only rape against females. As a comparison, I noted the Bodybuilding article at Talk:Rape by gender; see how the Bodybuilding article mostly focuses on men? That's because bodybuilding is usually male-dominated. So a spin-off article was created to address female bodybuilding in particular. Flyer22 (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, regarding what Malesurvivor.org states about pedophilia and homosexuality, it seems to be about addressing the myth that all gay men are pedophiles or are more likely to sexually abuse a boy than a heterosexual male is. They have a point on that matter; research has consistently shown that some child sexual abusers have sexually molested a child of a sex/gender they are not sexually attracted to or are not especially sexually attracted to. So, in some cases, a heterosexual man sexually molested a boy, and the examples go from there. Looking to the Typology section of the Child sexual abuse article that I pointed to helps shed some light on that matter, and so does the Prevalence and child molestation section of the Pedophilia article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Essay tag
WhatamIdoing, with regard to this, why did you (or still do?) consider the essay tag inappropriate? The Myths and facts section definitely looks like an essay to me. Flyer22 (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Have you read the documentation for essay-like? That tag is for pages that share the author's personal feelings on a subject.  It probably warrants the tone tag, but not one that says the page offers the author's personal reflections or personal opinions on the subject.  See the end of this page (at AFD; it probably won't last long), where the editor talks about her own family, as an example of what essay-like is intended for.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As someone who often advises people to read the template for the tags they add, such as Template:POV and Template:According to whom, I meant to read Template:Essay-like before or very soon after I started this discussion, but I got sidetracked. I now see what you mean. However, I think that I looked at the template before today, and, when I looked it before, it was drastically different than what it is now. I don't think that the essay template should be restricted in such a way, but I'm not going to contest it unless someone else brings up that matter....and there at the template talk page. Where it currently states "Use it when the article does not necessarily represent a blatant opinion or opinion piece, but is still overly judgmental in tone." can still be applied to general essay matters, such as the Myths and facts section of this article, in my view. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * More relevant is this clarification, made a few months before my first edits, and the policy at WP:NOT, which this template is meant to address. The current text there says, "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinion of experts). Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of an individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. (Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.)"  It doesn't say—and AFAIK, hasn't ever said—anything like "please don't make this sound like a paper written for your schoolwork."
 * More importantly, the page appears to be filled with sentences and paragraphs copied straight off the cited sources. I've only checked a couple, but so far every thing I've checked is a copyvio.  It would be helpful if you could check a few yourself.  It's possible that removing all the copyvios will reduce this to almost nothing.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * First thing first, i like to remove that tag, but i admit that I am constrained by language. But, can you tell me something that i can do, despite of my lacking? Honestly, I read and re-read it again and again, but hardly to find something that is unusual (at least for me). But i put Malesurvivors source back to the section, should I remove it? I didn't know that those source had been debated here when i put it back. Okkisafire (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Revert: Male[s] are physically strong
I was specifically referring to the change of 'Males are physically wrong' section to 'Males are not vulnerable.' It appears that you don't have a citation to backup the change in title. The edit summary also heavily implies original research. Tutelary (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The ping didn't work. But, anyway, Tutelary, judging by the sources and wording used in that section, I'm not sure what you mean by "heavily implies original research" with regard to the changes I made, which is why I reverted you. Also, keep in mind that WP:Original research does not mean "unsourced"; it means "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Flyer22 (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * My pardon, I always late to read the talk page. I was surprised when i saw that this article already had a talk page, and the conversation was already long. Flyer22, I like to ask you about the "myth and facts" section, did i still do it wrong? Because i use some other secondary sources others than Survivors, and re-edit some sentences when i found it not too relevant for encyclopedia. But if you find it still irrelevant, please fix it for the sake of science. I think i'm gonna focus on Prevalence and International Law sections only and left the rest to the professionals. But still, please keep monitor my editing. It's my first time i write a HOT topic that i didn't even expect this article would draw so many attentions like this. It makes me feel nervous and afraid. Okkisafire (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * After this article is rather stable, i plan to translate it into Indonesian Wikipedia. Okkisafire (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And, Tutelary, what I stated in this edit summary is not only common knowledge, but supported by various WP:Reliable sources. Male strength, teenage boys and men often being able to easily overpower a teenage girl or a woman, is one of the primary reasons that rape of females is so prevalent. This male strength factor and rape is a matter that exists for the non-human animal kingdom as well of course. The first source in the aforementioned section even talks about the male strength aspect being one of the reasons that men don't hit the woman back when being physically attacked by a woman; it states: "To many, the idea of a grown man being frightened or vulnerable is a taboo, the idea of a man - usually physically the stronger - of being battered, ludicrous." It did not make sense to me to have the "Male are physically strong" title (notice that it was also missing the letter s at the end of the word male) and assert that it is a myth that males are physically strong, which is not even what the sources used in that section state (not in general, I mean). Sure, some males are physically weaker than females, especially in the case of prepubescent boys (and the second source addresses the little boy factor). But with regard to males well into puberty and those who are post-pubescent? On average, which again goes for the rest of the animal kingdom as well (excluding some species), males are physically stronger than females. And this is because they have far more androgen exposure, which often promotes muscle mass. The sources and text used for the section in question are far more focused on vulnerability, which being physically weaker can be an aspect of, and so I changed the title to accurately reflect the content and topic.


 * Okkisafire, see what has been stated in the previous two discussion sections for what I or others feel that you have done wrong with regard to this article. The health sources, for example, need to comply with the WP:MEDRS standard of sourcing.


 * On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with "Male[s] are physically strong" so that it is clearer as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I already read those previous two, I feel I'm so amateur compares to all of you -_- . But I am very grateful to you, Mrs. Flyer. As I said, English is not my mother language, it's kinda difficult for me to express my sentences on English sense. Well, I can't disagree to your revisions, that's my flaw indeed. Okkisafire (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * We all get better as we learn, usually anyway. And, LOL, hold it on the "Mrs."; I'm not married. Calling me "Flyer" will do fine, though I don't mind if you use "Miss" or "Ms." with regard to my username. At least you got my sex/gender correct. Flyer22 (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry for that Ms. Flyer x_x lol, I read that you have four siblings, and I mistakenly thought that it was "children". That's shameful :D Okkisafire (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

OOT: about homosexual thing
Despite of the facts, it still hard for me to imagine how or why heterosexual male (or males, i don't know how it should) rapes another male? For me, it may only means one thing: that male perpetrator is a bisexual. Hereafter, that will conclude that male perpetrator may only be a homosexual or bisexual. Can somebody explain it to me? To make thing straight, I'm not a homophobic. Thank you. Okkisafire (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Okkisafire, there is likely too much I'd have to delve into to get you to understand that matter, and this talk page is not the place for that, per WP:Talk. Talk page discussions should generally be about improving whatever Wikipedia article in question. But I'll indulge you a bit on this. In the section above, I pointed people to the Typology section of the Child sexual abuse article and to the Prevalence and child molestation section of the Pedophilia article. Also look to this piece you added to the Male rape article that states: "According to Henry Leak, chairman of the Survivors organisation, male rape is not confined to the homosexual community and, like female rape, it has more to do with power than sexuality." Like Henry Leak states, rape is not always about sexual attraction. The same can be stated of child sexual abuse, which is a form of rape to many people (though it's usually not treated as rape by law in the same way that, for example, a man raping a woman is).


 * Sexual identity, as the Sexual identity article notes, can be a complicated matter, and does not always match up with sexual behavior or sexual orientation. Furthermore, sexual pleasure is not always based on sexual attraction; sexual pleasure can be separate from sexual attraction. This is why a man who is not sexually attracted to a certain woman might still have sex with her, because it's the sexual pleasure he seeks. It's why a man who is not sexually attracted to females might be able to achieve a bit of sexual pleasure by having sex with a woman while sexually fantasizing about a man or focusing on the sexual pleasure that his genitals are receiving. And like I stated in this section on my talk page: In the absence of a woman, it is common for a heterosexual man to take up a romantic and/or sexual relationship with a man while in prison, especially if sentenced to prison for several years, many years or for the rest of one's life. It is common for a heterosexual woman to take up a romantic and/or sexual relationship with a woman while in prison, especially if sentenced to prison for several years, many years or for the rest of one's life. Doing so is called situational sexual behavior (and sometimes by other terms, such as the more common term situational homosexuality), but the Wikipedia article on that subject is currently awful.


 * In all of the "engaged in sexual activity outside of their sexual preference or sexual orientation" examples above, either sexual pleasure was separated from true sexual attraction or the people define their sexual orientation differently than others would. What it means to be bisexual, for example, is not always defined consistently among researchers or the general public. For instance, some people (researchers included) state that a person has to be equally sexually attracted to both sexes to be bisexual; and along those same lines, some people (some researchers included) state that bisexuality is either equal (or close to equal) sexual attraction to both sexes or does not exist because no one is 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual and that sexual orientation is therefore based on which sex/gender one sexually prefers. To the point at hand, though, similar to how sexual pleasure can be separated from sexual attraction in those other cases, it is possible for a person who is not truly sexually attracted to children to get sexual pleasure by sexually molesting a child. The adult may use the child as a sexual substitute, in some cases fantasizing that the child is an adult. And in some child sexual abuse cases, sexual pleasure is not at all the focus or the case. Power may be the focus or the case, or the aspects addressed in the Typology section of the Child sexual abuse article and/or those addressed in the Prevalence and child molestation section of the Pedophilia article. Flyer22 (talk) 07:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I see, your explanation is very welcome. Now I can understand how the heteros can rape a same sex victims. Especially the Pseudo-homosexuality and Harem effect on situational sexual behavior article. I think i'm gonna find you if i get another question :D . I'm gonna show your talk page to my friend, the founder of Into The Lights youth organization, hopefully it will give him some helpful information. Thank you again Okkisafire (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, like noted above, that article is very poor. When I get a good chance, I'm going to significantly cleanup and expand that article; those two section headings will no longer be there, though I will keep a tiny bit of material that's in them. Flyer22 (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Category
I believe the 'Violence against men' tag is justified due to the other page, 'Rape' having it. Albeit I know the other stuff exists argument argument, rape is a violent act, including when it is done against men. I'm more than willing to discuss it with you if you wish. Tutelary (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC) , -- Pinging just in case.
 * Thanks. I think what we have here is a simple exception to basic WP:SUBCAT rules, that I've seen many times in the past. Basically, you will sometimes bubble the "head" article of a subcategory up to the parent as well. We did this with Rape, placing it in (and others), even though  is a subcategory thereof. Since we now have a head article specifically looking at the gendered aspects of Rape of men, it makes sense to bubble that to the parent of VAM, while leaving everything else in the subcategory .--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are both misunderstanding the issue here. Rape is a violent act which is why it is in the Violence against men and Violence against men parent categories per WP:SUBCAT. However, we do not categorise every article in the child category Rape into the "Violence against" parent categories, and the user Obiwankenobi himself removed "Violence against women" from a large number of rape articles because of this --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct, I'm not arguing to move other articles up, just this one, as it is in a sense a "head" article for the topic of rape of men, which is covered in more detail in dozens of articles in the subcategory. In other words, it's here for the same reason Rape is in VAW.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * From my understanding of categories, they are there to be able to view the certain general variety topics. The article title "Male Rape" implies both rape and violence against men, which is my sole reason for wishing to include it. Rape is a violent crime, and therefore meets the criteria for the category. That is my sole premise, here. Tutelary (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So, by that logic, none of these articles were Violence against women?       --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As mentioned before, we're talking about a head category - e.g. the lead article for a category. This is a special case, since we have a non-gendered category, and a non-gendered head article, but with two gendered parents - therefor bubbling up the gendered "head" article (Male rape) to the male parent makes sense from a navigational point of view. All of those other articles you link are subsidiary, and thus should not be bubbled up.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That is beside the point. All of those were also articles that covered Violence against women, just as Male rape is also subsidiary to Rape. I think it should be a unified approach. Either all of them should be in their appropriate “Violence against…” categories as well as "Rape" or none of them --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm not sure "all or nothing" works here. We've made an exception for Rape, which I think makes sense, and I'm arguing we should make an exception for Male rape. Again, if Rape of women existed, we would bubble that up to VAW.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You removed the Violence against women category from every single article on the topic of rape but the main Rape article despite many of them being valid for it otherwise. I removed this as it followed the pattern of your original removals. Am I able to put Violence against women back if WP:SUBCAT no longer applies? I would prefer that to having them all removed --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Drowning, you're applying an all-or-nothing approach here, which isn't helpful. has over 1417 articles and 125 subcategories classified underneath it, so "putting violence against women" back is meaningless unless you're going to move them all up. I'm suggesting we follow WP:SUBCAT, but that due to the unique structure of this tree - e.g. a gendered parent with a neutral child - there is cause for making an exception to the rule, and bubbling a few key articles - such as Rape and Male rape, up to relevant parents. This doesn't happen very frequently, but we have other examples - such as Category:Countries_in_Europe, which has sub-categories for all of the countries, but we nonetheless keep the head article in the parent category. Again due to the fact that we have two gendered parents, and a gendered head-article on rape, it seems it should bubble up to the parent as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm applying such an approach because you removed dozens of articles in one sweep despite many being valid. Of course, we should not re-add them all, but your argument for their removal was that they followed WP:SUBCAT. Now we have an instance where you want to go against your initial actions and are making the decision without signifying what other exceptions would be permissible. I think your argument is confused. You reverted attempts by me to re-add Violence against women to some of the rape articles using the very argument that I am making and I accepted it because I thought it was policy based. It seems more likely now that it is because they are not about men --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No... again please read what I wrote - indeed if Rape of women existed I would argue stridently for it's inclusion as an exception in VAW. So please don't see this is because they aren't about men, that's ridiculous. Also note that SUBCAT says "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category" - note the "rarely" - thus we can bubble a few relevant articles up to the gendered parents. In this case, I think the case for Male rape is quite strong. If you have other articles in subcats of VAW that you think have a strong case to bubble up please present it accordingly (but, not here). I don't think we should do wholesale bubbling up however.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry about that assertion, this isn’t a topic in which I am emotionally uninvolved and your double standards here are troubling. Your exact words were "we could simply keep the head article Category:Rape in Category:Violence against men and Category:Violence against women and then keep all other articles that deal with rape, rape cases, rape law, rape analysis etc in Category:Rape (and relevant subcats) and not dual categorize them all" and "leave the articles to discuss gendered issues of rape, don't use the category system to try to prove some point" . I'm still unconvinced that your argument here does not fundamentally contradict your initial argument and is not the result of your stewardship of the aforementioned subcategory --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I just don't see a double standard. I still stand by what I said in that discussion; at the time an article on "Male rape" did not exist, if it did, I would have excepted it from being diffused for the exact reasons I'm pointing out now. Male rape plays the role of a "head" article like Rape, but is specific to one gender, so we bubble it up for the same reason. If you have another example of a women-specific head article in a neutral subcategory of that should be bubbled up please bring it here and I am very likely to agree.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the articles Campus rape, Date Rape, and Rape Culture would all qualify, as well as some others I'm sure. Although the articles don’t specifically say “women” in the title, it doesn’t mean they aren’t about female issues. To argue otherwise shows a significant lack of comprehension concerning the topics you are applying categories to and your edits are far too bold considering the sensitivity of the topic and your lack of understanding of it --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting those articles don't have anything to do with women - I'm arguing that they aren't "head" articles in the way Rape] and [[Male rape are.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm almost certain that Campus rape, Date Rape, Rape Culture and Male rape are all subsidiary of the Rape article in the exact same way. Again, I don't disapprove of the categorisation entirely, just the bizarre double standard --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Must disagree. Campus rape is something that happens on campus, date rape is something that happens during a date, Rape culture is clearly "subsidiary" to Rape as you call it - whereas Male rape is about the topic of rape committed against 50% of the human race, no matter where or how it happens. It's a much more general article. Again, what I'm arguing for here is an exception to WP:SUBCAT for a few articles. You're saying it's all or nothing, and yet you also accept the exception for Rape.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you read the articles? Campus rape happens on campus. It is also widely considered a form of violence against women. Date rape happens on a date. It is also widely considered a form of violence against women. Rape culture is just as subsidiary to Rape (and I am quoting you with my use of that word) as Male rape is and again, is a term widely associated with violence against women. Try to comprehend to the wider topic and see that things aren't always clearly labeled "this is about men" and "this is about women" in the titles and accept that things are often more complicated than that. The categorisation of the article rape was mostly a misunderstanding at the time. I thought, because it was the main article for the category, it should be categorised in a similar manner. I'm much more accustomed to how the website works now. I'd really rather it was not all or nothing, I'd prefer to be able to add articles with discretion back to the "Violence against women" category, I just know you will revert each and every change I make for the exact same reasons I have given in this discussion --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm quite sure that the vast majority of articles under are mostly about violence against women - which is why they are all in the subcategory accordingly. I'm talking about head articles as an exception to the WP:SUBCAT general approach. Male rape as a head article should not be compared to campus rape - "Male" is not a specific type of rape, it is an overview of all rape as perpetuated against a single gender, a gender which happens to have a  devoted to it. If  was also a subcategory of  and we had an article on Rape of African-Americans then I'd argue just the same to bubble that article up to the ethnic parent. I have elaborated a clear criteria why an exception should be made, and you are arguing that "Any rape article that is somehow related to women should be bubbled up"  - it's not the same thing at all. let me give another example - suppose we had an article called Rape in the United States - now should this article be in  or ? I'd argue it should be in both. But if we have articles about Date rape in the United States and Statistics of Campus rape in the United States and Laws pertaining to rape in the United States, all of those should remain in the subcategory.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, they are not as divisive as that. The article even states "Male rape is a form of rape in which a male is the victim". So yes, it is a specific type of rape, the type of rape that occurs regarding men, much like campus rape is a specific type of rape, the type of rape that occurs regarding men, and both are subsidiary to the main Rape article in the same way (for instance, neither goes into detail to describe what rape is, they both describe a certain type of rape, and are not head articles in this manner) If the majority of articles under the Category:Rape do concern Violence against women, then I don't understand why you have such a problem with categorising them as such. You've already shown that you aren't so strict about WP:SUBCAT in this case and there is no harm in having one more category on each. It would aid in navigation and show that these are often gendered issues. Again, I think may be because they concern women. They are exactly the same, and it is arbitrary to have such an issue with articles that, as you say, are "mostly about violence against women", can not be categorised as such because they don't say it specifically in their titles. This should be done on a case by case basis, but they still shouldn't be written off. There is no need to be as uncompromising as you are advocating for this. Concerning your other point - possibly not, but in that case, Male rape in the United States should also not be in. It is not a head article in the same way that Rape in the United States would be, as Rape in the United States would also signify Male rape in the United States. Rape against either gender is rape, while Male rape is an expansion of a specific type of such --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is a somewhat unique situation, for me the navigational expediency gained by keeping Male rape, since the article itself is topically-gendered, in the gendered parent of, outweighs other considerations, so if needed I will invoke IAR. OTOH, there are so many articles about other forms of rape, the bulk of which are relevant to both men and women, that it serves little purpose to go on and begin a case-by-case upward bubble of some subset of the ~1400-odd articles in . I'm proposing a single article, based on it's status as a topical overview of rape against a single gender, and would not bubble any others up except this one, whereas you are proposing to debate this on a per-article-basis, to determine whether X is really MORE about VAW or MORE about VAM or MORE relevant to this or MORE relevant to that; anyway that discussion already happened, and consensus was clearly against you. If you want to ask more people from the categorization board to join this discussion please do so.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd been primarily silent except for the revert and my original flawed reasoning, but now that I see both sides, I do think Obi is right that this article is the figurehead for the category and should be the exception. Tutelary (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well yes, I suppose the consensus was against me, but I thought, considering you are now editing against that consensus, things may have changed. I know your opinion regarding rape not affecting women as much as men from the prison rape discussion we had before. I'm not personally going to ask other people to join the discussion, I think from other previous debates you most likely wouldn't drop this unless an RfC brings consensus against it and that whole process is long and tiresome. If anybody is interested, here is the debate in question where the user argues against the very decision he has made --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoah there... that is a terrible misrepresentation of my views. I don't think we need an RFC, we can ask anyone else interested to share their views here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: I think that Drowninginlimbo (the "23:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)" commentary) is referring to this discussion that Drowninginlimbo, Obiwankenobi and I engaged in. Flyer22 (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Details missing for stats
" The CDC found that 1.267 million men reported being "made to penetrate" another person in the preceding 12 months, similar to the 1.270 million women who reported being raped in the same time period." What are the stats of male victims who were penetrated? Are there any? Also, what is the age range of the males and females in these stats? 117.216.26.233 (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)findnotice

Copyright
I'm trying to remove as much as non-free copyrighted sources. I hope it won't violate the laws anymore. Okkisafire (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I must admit that my copyright-idea was totally wrong. I though that I must did the canging as little as I could, to regard my sources, but THAT was my big mistake, unfortunately. I just rewrite this article, please check it if I still left something that is not proper. For the grammatical errors, I'll check it later. Thank you :) Okkisafire (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: For anyone wanting to know what Okkisafire means, see this section where WhatamIdoing explained. Not much has changed about the article in a year, and it still has poor medical sources; not WP:MEDRS-compliant at all. Flyer22 (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Lately I understand about the "medical sources" means. Can I use journals as references? But not this month. I still have so many things to do. Okkisafire (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead needs to meet MOS standards
As it stands, the lead breaks MOS in several major ways:


 * MOS:INTRO - In that is does not "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article".
 * MOS:INTRO - In that it gives WP:UNDUE emphasis to male rape in the UK, yet section in "Prevalence" covers 6 countries from which other examples could have been given. To quote MOS, "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject" – male rape in the UK is no more important that in any other country in the world, therefore it should not be used as a singular example because this does not represent a worldwide view, particularly as anything related to anal sex differs per culture, religion and by law.
 * The examples break the MOS:INTRO guideline which states: "Do not hint at startling facts without describing them." The UK percentages are quoted without sufficient background to explain their relevancy this early in the article, there is no context because the lead is very short and uninformative.
 * MOS:INTRO - "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article" – the stated UK <3% and <5% figures are not mentioned in Male rape, which would be a more appropriate place to account for these percentages, than in the lead in this disconnected manner.

The lead needs rewriting be someone who has contributed to this article and knows the sources well, it should be much longer based on the article's current length, it should be balanced and not given to undue examples from cherry-picked county data, per WP:NPOV. It needs to give a concise overview of the topic, rather than focusing on too many examples, to avoid clutter. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to do something about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

English grammar and sentence structure.
It appears that much of the work on the page was done by someone whose first language is not English. ex. "Proofed" vs. "Proven".

Too many of the mistakes to count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.79.242.135 (talk • contribs) 13:05, July 6, 2014 (UTC)


 * I quite agree. As I so often say on talk pages, how I wish non-native users of English would have their posts checked by native speakers before posting them! 89.212.50.177 (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree. There is no guideline saying that non-native speakers cannot contribute, or that grammatical and spelling errors are contrary to policy. If you see errors of spelling, grammar, or syntax, then fix them.
 * Non-native speakers who are sufficiently competent that their meaning is clear are welcome to contribute directly, without having their material vetted in advance. The main thing is that someone's edits should improve the article, by adding material that is relevant to the article topic, verifiable, adheres to neutral point of view, is balanced, and has footnotes from reliable sources.
 * Admittedly, if someone's English is so poor that you cannot work out what they are trying to say, then they probably shouldn't be contributing on English Wikipedia, or at least, not directly to the article page. (An alternative, for someone who wishes to contribute to en-wiki but has very poor English, would be to do an edit request here on the talk page, and work out the wording with native speakers in advance.)
 * But in a case where you know what they meant ("proven" instead of "proofed"), then if their edit was an improvement which followed the guideline, just fix the English mistakes, and hey&mdash; send them a "thanks" for their edit; good editors here to improve the encyclopedia should be welcomed, no matter their language of origin. Mathglot (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Article needs to incorporate the realistic changes in the lady-on-male rape situation, introduced by the widespread availability of V blue pill.
The article should consider that, ever since the discovery and commercialization of Vialagra and similar sexual dysfunction drugs, it is now possible to introduce non-voluntary penile erection in males, something which was not possible previously. Methods of involuntary, non-erectyle ejaculation (via electric anal probe insertion or prostate hand massage) have long existed, but the hardness of member rod could not be achieved in a disinterested, disgusted male.

This change upset the landscape, as a determined, cruel woman or a group of women can now forcibly rape a man in the strictest sense. That is, lying in wait, knocking a man unconscious from behind and tying him to a bed spread-eagle, they could inject him IV with dissolved sildenaphil, whereupon his member will soon stiffen involuntarily, allowing the woman to impale herself vaginally and ride, achieving emission of semen via friction or by the use of an anal electric shock probe in the unfortunate male.

The only question is, if such cases count as forcible rape or attempted murder, considering the life-threatening dangers associated with improper use of "blue pill" material. 82.131.246.71 (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Women don't typically rape men by "lying in wait" and knocking them unconscious. And as for men doing such... Well, stranger rape is rare. With rape cases, it's not usually the case that a man is hiding in the bushes waiting for a woman to pass by so that he can attack her. But either way, the psychology of male and female rapists is quite different, just like the psychology of male and female serial killers is quite different. The case of a human female raping a human male is usually a drugging matter, a matter of sexually violating the man while he is asleep, statutory rape or child sexual abuse. Flyer22 (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, penile erection in men IS involuntary; a man can, and will, get an erection through non-sexual means, and is more than capable of getting an erection through stimulation he did not consent to.


 * "This change upset the landscape, as a determined, cruel woman or a group of women can now forcibly rape a man in the strictest sense."


 * They have been doing so in, for an example, South Africa, for quite some time now, and it has nothing to do with the availability of Viagra, or other medical advances; penile stimulation is more than enough to get an erection from healthy males.46.239.250.137 (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Incidence of female on male rape
I am about to make an edit to the ″female-on-male rape″ section which I think is fairly straightforward, but I want to explain my reasoning in some detail based on the vexed nature of the subject.

As I found it, the first paragraph of the subsection read: ″A study done by the CDC found that 1 in 20 men (5.3%) [11] reported that they had been forced to penetrate someone else, usually a woman, had been the victim of an attempt to force penetration, or had been made to receive oral sex.[2]″ Having read the references ( and ) I saw that the figure given was for ″sexual violence other than rape″ (my emphasis), and that the phrase ″usually a woman″ referred to a  subset of the cited figure of 5.3%.

The aforementioned references are a fact-sheet and a news story based on a study by the CDC. The full report on the study - - is not hard to find, and does contain some information on the sex of the perpetrators (p. 24). I will momentarily be making an edit to reflect this. Rafaelgr (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I hope someone else can phrase it better than I did. Rafaelgr (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Rafaelgr, regarding the change you made, the content comes off as not belonging in that section since it is more about male-on-male rape. Flyer22 (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's true. I will have another go at the phrasing. Rafaelgr (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Rafaelgr, that wording is not much better if one takes statutory rape into account. And that section is also about statutory rape. So using "less common" wording would be more accurate than "extremely rare" wording. But, really, you should keep the WP:Editorializing guideline in mind. Flyer22 (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * What would you suggest? Rafaelgr (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Padenton: As I explained above, the reference you reverted to is not a newer study, it is a fact sheet summarizing the same study I referred to, which it may be worth your time reading if you are interested in the subject. I am sure it is possible to improve on my contribution, but I don't think reverting does so. Rafaelgr (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, could I ask what's wrong with this reference? It's been removed several times: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122802 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.11.48 (talk • contribs)


 * I removed it twice; by that, I mean where you added it to the Male rape article and to the Prison rape in the United States article. How does the source qualify as a WP:Reliable source or as a good source? Furthermore, you overgeneralize with your additions. This is one reason I addressed the article at WP:Med. But they care very little about this article. And it's likely that I will soon take this article of my WP:Watchlist; then you won't have to worry about me. Flyer22 (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I made several changes to the beginning of the section to correct the misinformation previously presented. I removed the portion claiming that female-on-male rape is rare. The stats following the claim show the rate is somewhere between 40% to 60% of all male victims. It seemed inaccurate to leave that unchallenged. I replaced it with the current position from experts that female-on-male is under-reported and provided a link to a source for that information.

I also thought it prudent to add that the statistics vary. The stats listed in this section do not match, and while that may be readily visible by reading the section, for the sake of clarity I thought it should be mentioned.

I also added in statistics from the CDC regarding other types of sexual violence committed by women. The previous version mentioned these in passing, but never listed the exact rates and left the false impression that the CDC found that women essentially never commit rape or sexual. Again, this is for the sake of clarity and accuracy. I did not add the criticism the CDC study received for its exclusion of "being made to penetrate" from the definition of rape. There simply is not anywhere in that section to place that information, although I do think it is an important piece of information. Tsbarracks (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Tsbarracks, as you have surely already seen, especially since you are not a WP:Newbie despite the newness of your account, these matters are being discussed in the and  sections below. I will let others handle this edit you made. And since you identify as an advocate on your user page, you should especially be aware of what is stated in the "Verification on U.S. male assault numbers" discussion. If you are here to make it seem like there are as many female rapists as there are male rapists, you should rethink editing Wikipedia. Various experts are clear that even with female-on-male rape being under-reported (and, by the way, they are clear that rape in general is under-reported), it is unlikely that there exists as many female rapists as there are male rapists. Flyer22 (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Flyer22, I read the section you mentioned. Neither the CDC, UCR, or NCVS definitions are the legal definition of rape. Each study used its own definition, which is typical of studies and surveys. The actual definition varies on the state or the country, as noted in the International Law. Given that no other page on sexual violence limits the discussion of the topic based on the legal definition, I fail to see this page should be the exception.


 * The previous version misrepresented the findings of the CDC study by obscuring the rates of female-perpetrated sexual violence men reported. Given that the rest of the section refers to "sexual victimization," "sexual abuse," and "sexual encounters," I see no reason not to mention the other findings. None of the other sections on this page, or any other sexual violence page, limits what statistics can be included based on what definition is used by a given study.


 * The sections should be written from a neutral point of view, so if person takes issue with acknowledging information because it does not coincide with their personal views, such a person should rethink editing Wikipedia. Various experts are clear that due to under-reporting we cannot be certain of the frequency of female-on-male sexual violence. As a result, it is inaccurate to make any concrete claims about the frequency or rarity of any victims or rapists. It also undermines the intent of this section, which is to inform people about all the findings. Tsbarracks (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Tsbarracks, stating that "Various experts are clear that due to under-reporting we cannot be certain of the frequency of female-on-male sexual violence." is not the point; the point is that most of them are clear that it is unlikely that there exists as many female rapists/sexual offenders as there are male rapists/sexual offenders. I reiterate they acknowledge that rape in general is under-reported. That means male-on-female rape as well. And given that all of these rapes are under-reported, and yet the vast majority of rapists are found to be men (or teenage boys), it is a fallacy to state that there are likely as many female rapists as there are male rapists because male rape is under-reported. Such an argument is similar to asserting that there are likely as many female child sexual abusers or female serial killers as there are male child sexual abusers and male serial killers, when experts are clear that under-reporting of female child sexual abusers and less identification of female serial killers cannot adequately explain why there are so many more male child sexual abusers and male serial killers. Similar goes for paraphilias, which are predominantly found in men. Time and time again, sexually aggressive behaviors and sexual deviant behaviors have been predominantly found in males; this cannot be explained away by stating "Females are better at not getting caught" or "Female deviancy is under-reported." Male aggression with regard to sexual coercion is also far more prevalent than female aggression with regard to sexual coercion in the animal kingdom as a whole. A lot of scientists believe that these differences are largely due to biology, something in the brain and/or hormones separating the way males think and behave from the way females think and behave, for both humans and non-human animals. Yes, male rape seems to be significantly more under-reported than female rape, but again it is a fallacy to assume this means that female rapists must be as prevalent as male rapists. All I am asking for this article is that editors keep the WP:Undue weight, WP:Editorializing, WP:Synthesis and WP:Advocacy out of the article, and that they stick to good sources (especially WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for health material).


 * On a side note: Since this talk page is on my WP:Watchlist, there is no need to WP:Ping me to this talk page. If you'd rather I not WP:Ping you here, I will cease doing that. In fact, I will cease WP:Pinging you in this thread unless I think it's needed. Flyer22 (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, the frequency of female-on-male is the point. That is why this section exists. If one wants to make a note that some do not consider female-on-male sexual violence rape, then I think that would be a fair addition. However, it is inaccurate to claim for certain who commits more sexual violence when you do not have data supporting that conclusion. The correct statement based on the available data would be that reports of female perpetrators are rare.


 * Regarding your other statements, most of the information I read regarding this issue acknowledges that due to a lack of reporting and research it is difficult to understand how frequently women commit such violence. There is, however, current data showing that despite assumptions about "female's sexually aggressive behaviors and sexual deviant behaviors," we are finding more males and females reporting female abusers, often at similar or the same rates as male abusers.


 * My complaint is that no other sexual violence section has been edited to argue that the act described is rare due to "the conventional definition." This does not appear on the "marital rape" page, despite that in some countries is not considered a crime. So why is that distinction made here? Why are we arguing about the legal definition of this topic when we know the definition varies from place to place? What purpose does that serve, if not to politicize the issue?


 * This precisely why I edited the section. I agree that editors should keep the WP:Undue weight, WP:Editorializing, WP:Synthesis and WP:Advocacy out of the article, and that they should stick to good sources (especially WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for health material), not play politics or resort to statistics. The purpose is to accurately inform people of the current research on this topic, not obscure it because of a personal bias. Tsbarracks (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As I've said elsewhere on this page: being "made to penetrate" is not generally considered "rape". Multiple respected sources, such as the NISVS, and the DOJ's National Crime Victimization Surveys and Uniform Crime Reports, do not count this as "rape". There is a vocal minority that disagree with this definition, and those voices have a place in this article, but this minority view does not need to be presented as a widely held perspective.
 * I don't think its a matter of law per se, its simply a matter of the widely held definitions used by respected and reliable sources. The purpose is to present an accurate picture of the existing research that conforms to Wikipedia's policies on Due Weight. Nblund (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Tsbarracks, I stand by all of what I stated above. And I don't feel like providing sources for any of it, since people who are truly interested in finding such sources can research the material themselves. There is no good evidence to support the notion that female sexually aggressive behaviors and female sexual deviant behaviors are often found to be at similar or the same rates as male sexually aggressive behaviors and male sexual deviant behaviors. A few studies, especially WP:Primary studies, suggesting so do not trump the majority of studies. Furthermore, sexual deviancy is commonly termed paraphilia these days; and as I've noted above, paraphilias are predominantly found in males (teenage boys and men). The vast majority of scientists who study sex differences in humans do not believe that it is a coincidence that the vast majority of people who are rapists, child sexual abusers, pedophiles and serial killers are male. And stating so is not a matter of being biased, feminist (I'm not a feminist, by the way), sexist or simply a matter of personal belief; it is a matter based on numerous studies.


 * As for the text you added, as you know, Nblund challenged it. Then you challenged that, as seen here and here. And then Nblund challenged it again. I'll leave that matter to you and him to debate. Flyer22 (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * NblundThe NISVS survey has been heavily criticized by a number of highly respected sources, including support organizations like Male Survivor, 1in6, and RAINN. The notion that being made to penetrate is not rape is universally accepted or the dominant view is misleading. However, if you consider that to be an issue, then I think it would be best to state in the section that some people do not consider female-on-male sexual violence "rape" rather than claim the act is "rare." That would be accurate based on the statistics and honest based on current professional standards of survivor treatment.


 * I do not think this is a matter of something being a widely held definition. As you stated, the purpose is to present an accurate picture of the existing research that conforms to Wikipedia's policies on Due Weight. I think obscuring data regarding this issue and marginalizing the current position of most experts because it differs from definitions used in a handful of studies would violate those policies.


 * Flyer22, your personal opinion about the available data is irrelevant. The issue is whether the existing data, particularly data being used by respected support services nationally and internationally, is presented in a honest, unbiased manner. Several of the edits made to this page, especially the reference to "conventional" definitions, the "rarity" of the act, removing the word "rape" from the section heading, appear to be WP:Editorializing. These edits present an inaccurate view of the current positions on this topic. As I mentioned before, if someone wants to note that some people do not consider female-on-male sexual violence to be rape, I think that would be a welcome addition. I do not think, however, obscuring statistics or playing politics informs anyone about this topic. Tsbarracks (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The definition is not universally accepted, but it represents the view presented in the overwhelming majority of studies on this topic. I haven't said we should obscure the minority viewpoint, but we also shouldn't present it as something that is widely accepted. The best way to do this is by presenting that minority viewpoint in a separate subsection and citing reliable sources.
 * As a point of fact: the statement "some people do not consider female-on-male sexual violence 'rape'", is not really accurate. The issue is that most reliable sources do not consider being "made to penetrate" to be rape. Female-on-male sexual violence is considered rape if the perpetrator penetrates the victim. I removed the term rape from the section heading because it seemed like it would give you and other editors more room to discuss other kinds of sexual violence.
 * I don't really know what criticisms of the CDC you're referencing, perhaps you could provide citations here and we could discuss them further. As it stands, I don't know of any major study that counts being "made to penetrate" as rape. All of the major national-level studies I'm aware of either don't use a definition that would count this as rape, or else they don't examine men at all. I don't think there's much evidence that the view that being made to penetrate is rape is supported by most experts. Nblund (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Tsbarracks, my arguments about the available data are not irrelevant when I'm arguing against someone else's assertion about the available data. They are not irrelevant when considering the WP:Due weight policy. My arguments are also based on facts, not mere personal opinions. But I've stated my points on these matters; no need to reiterate. Flyer22 (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Nblund, one problem with the argument over whether the definition is “universally accepted” is that no one applies to other forms of sexual violence. For example, many countries do not consider marital rape or date rape a crime, yet neither page states it is not rape. Likewise, some of the pages concerning other forms of sexual violence make note of the minority viewpoint, typically the feminist viewpoint, in context, not in a separate section. I see no reason to apply a different standard to this page.


 * As you acknowledged, most studies either define rape in a narrow manner or exclude male victims altogether. Given that those studies are not designed to capture male victimization or female perpetration, I fail to see how they are more reliable than studies specifically targeting those topics.


 * Regarding the current view of said perpetration, many experts do appear to consider the act rape. Exceptions tend to be feminist researchers, such as Mary Koss.


 * As for the section titles, it is contradictory to title the page “Male rape” and then remove any references to “rape” in the section title.


 * As for the criticisms of the CDC’s survey, others linked to that criticism, but it was removed it. Here are some prominent criticisms of the survey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsbarracks (talk • contribs) 19:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The definition of marital rape used on the marital rape page is widely accepted by researchers, advocates and international bodies. The question of whether it is criminal in all countries is really a different issue from whether the definition used is widely accepted.
 * What studies are you referencing that you feel are being overlooked? You linked to a bibliography of research about female sex offenders, but many of these appear to have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Do any of these authors argue that being "made to penetrate" constitutes rape? Do any of these studies refute the notion that female-on-male rape is rare? You also linked to editorials by Christina Hoff Sommers and Cathy Young. These are fine for a "criticism" section, but they are clearly statements of opinions by authors who are not experts on this topic -- it would be inappropriate to present the view of Cathy Young, a journalist with no research background, as a refutation of a study by the Centers for Disease Control. You said that respected organizations like RAINN had been critical of the CDC definition. Do you have a link to those references? Nblund (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The 2nd paragraph final sentence of this section incorrectly summarized a USDOJ study about male sexual activity with female staff:

“A 2008-09 study on prison rape in adult facilities found that 69% of male inmates in prison and 64% of those in jails reported sexual activity with female staff.”

This was corrected to read as follows in a separate paragraph:

Regarding female-on-male sexual misconduct, the US Dept. of Justice reports in it’s opening statement (page 5):

“An estimated 4.4% of prison inmates and 3.1% of jail inmates reported experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization by another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.”

Regarding female-on-male sexual misconduct (page 25) it states:

“Among the 39,121 male prison inmates who had been victims of staff sexual misconduct, 69% reported sexual activity with female staff; an additional 16% reported sexual activity with both female and male staff (table 18).”

and:

“Nearly two-thirds of the male jailinmates who had been victimized saidthe staff perpetrator was female (64%).”

As it stood the statement grossly overstated female-on-male sexual misconduct (the studies term) in prisons and jails. Jsusky (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)jsusky

Article needs some expansion
I think the article is very good but I think it could expand on the male experiences of Female-on-Male-rape such as if a man makes a statement that he has been sexually assaulted by a female, then, he is unlikely to be believed by the various authorities that are suppose to protect him. Added to this is since our media outlets are biased and will air and print a story of females attacked by males more often than males attacked by females (because it is the social norm and will attract more attention to their product (I.e. their newspaper, or T.V. programme)), then the politicians and the authorities that should provide support to him may not realize the necessity of appropriate law or the individual is most likely going to be ridiculed and mocked by his family and friends. For example, in a case in Co Offaly in Ireland in 2008, two young boys were raped by their mother but due to an absence of appropriate law in Ireland she could only be found guilty of incest and not rape (see here). This was because in the three laws that deal with sexual assault in Ireland (Irish Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981 (see here), the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990 (see here), and the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences Act) 2006) (see here) only man is perceived capable to possess a Mens Rea (guilty mind) in the Actus Reus (guilty act) of rape, while woman cannot. While Ireland has made attempts where the latter two Irish laws do have gender neutral terms, however, the former law (1981) still prevails in the area of rape. Please find a list of references that may help. Ps I would do it myself but i don't want step on anyone's toe, plus my inexperience on writing for wiki articles.

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19085317. Anderson, I., & Quinn, A. (2009). Gender Differences in Medical Students’ Attitudes Towards Male and Female Rape Victims. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 14 (1), 105-110.]

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

Berner, W., Briken, P., & Hill, A. (2009). Female Sexual Offenders. In F. M. Saleh, A. J. Grudzinskas, J. M. Bradford, & D. J. Brodsky, [https://books.google.ie/books?id=uihg9Z6C2xoC&pg=PR4&lpg=PR4&dq=Sex+Offenders:+Identification,+Risk+Assessment,+Treatment,+and+Legal+Issues.+Oxford:+Oxford+University+Press.&source=bl&ots=9vgjazRBGj&sig=afhu_nBTgK5vYraLTTUz8ZMKqZI&hl=es&sa=X&ei=wMSLVZSBGcav7AaH44XAAw&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Sex%20Offenders%3A%20Identification%2C%20Risk%20Assessment%2C%20Treatment%2C%20and%20Legal%20Issues.%20Oxford%3A%20Oxford%20University%20Press.&f=false Sex Offenders: Identification, Risk Assessment, Treatment, and Legal Issues (pp. 276-285). Oxford: Oxford Unversity Press.]

[http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14680777.2011.623170 Bonnes, S. (2013). Gender and Racial Stereotyping in Rape Coverage. Feminist Media Studies, 1-20.]

Cortoni, F. (2010). The Assessment of Female Sexual Offenders. In T. A. Gannon, & F. Cortoni (Eds.), [https://books.google.ie/books?id=Qmi1ianYysAC&pg=PT4&lpg=PT4&dq=Gannon+Female+Sexual+Offenders:+Theory,+Assessment,+and+Treatment.+West+Sussex:+West-Blackwell.&source=bl&ots=obybC5BVZM&sig=DIMvlOFoHzlO_kURmdTiAO_as_w&hl=es&sa=X&ei=HcmLVaHrNoyR7Aaayo3wBg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Gannon%20Female%20Sexual%20Offenders%3A%20Theory%2C%20Assessment%2C%20and%20Treatment.%20West%20Sussex%3A%20West-Blackwell.&f=false Female Sexual Offenders: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment (pp. 87-99). West Sussex: West-Blackwell.]

Cortoni, F., & Gannon, T. A. (2011). Female sexual Offenders. In D. P. Boer, R. Eher, L. A. Craig, M. H. Miner, & F. Pfäfflin, [https://books.google.ie/books?id=kvJJz2KzVUUC&pg=PT13&lpg=PT13&dq=International+Perspectives+on+the+Assessment+and+Treatment+of+Sexual+Offenders.+Oxford:+Wiley-Blackwell.&source=bl&ots=WYpWVARLrZ&sig=37fI_OEV6sqLYZccNjGrDfn5vgs&hl=es&sa=X&ei=sMmLVebvL6Tf7Aa83IOoAg&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=International%20Perspectives%20on%20the%20Assessment%20and%20Treatment%20of%20Sexual%20Offenders.%20Oxford%3A%20Wiley-Blackwell.&f=false International Perspectives on the Assessment and Treatment of Sexual Offenders (pp. 35-54). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.]

[http://www.survivorsmanchester.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Davies-M-Rogers-P-2006.pdf Davies, M., & Rogers, P. (2006). Perceptions of Male Victims in Depicted Sexual Assaults: A Review of the Literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 367–377.]

del Busto, E., & Harlow, M. C. (2011). American Sexual Offender Castration Treatment and Legislation. In [https://books.google.ie/books?id=kvJJz2KzVUUC&pg=PT13&lpg=PT13&dq=International+Perspectives+on+the+Assessment+and+Treatment+of+Sexual+Offenders.+Oxford:+Wiley-Blackwell.&source=bl&ots=WYpWVARLrZ&sig=37fI_OEV6sqLYZccNjGrDfn5vgs&hl=es&sa=X&ei=sMmLVebvL6Tf7Aa83IOoAg&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=International%20Perspectives%20on%20the%20Assessment%20and%20Treatment%20of%20Sexual%20Offenders.%20Oxford%3A%20Wiley-Blackwell.&f=false D. Boer, R. Eher, L. A. Craig, M. H. Miner, & F. Pfäfflin, International Perspectives on the Assessment and Treatment of Sexual Offenders (pp. 543-571). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell].

[http://www.jstor.org/stable/3813326?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Denov, M. S. (2003). The Myth of Innocence: Sexual Scripts and the Recognition of Child Sexual Abuse by Female Perpetrators. The Journal of Sex Research, 40 (3), 303-314.]

[http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/23/1/58.short Doroszewicz, K., & Forbes, G. B. (2008). Experiences With Dating Aggression and Sexual Coercion Among Polish College Students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23 (1), 58-73.]

[https://books.google.ie/books?hl=es&lr=&id=E1yEigS_O6oC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=Female+Crime,+Criminals,+and+Cellmates:+An+Exploration+of+Female+Criminality+and+Delinquency&ots=ITdqpnBOtd&sig=rIeoZYjHuch-LM_XMsg5oC9Edcw#v=onepage&q=Female%20Crime%2C%20Criminals%2C%20and%20Cellmates%3A%20An%20Exploration%20of%20Female%20Criminality%20and%20Delinquency&f=false Flowers, R. B. (1995). Female Crime, Criminals, and Cellmates: An Exploration of Female Criminality and Delinquency. McFarland & Company.]

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

[http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2008/03/18/0886260508314304.short Freeman, N. J., & Sandler, J. C. (2008). Female and Male Sex: A Comparison of Recidivism Patterns and Risk Factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23 (10), 1394-1413.]

[http://empower-daphne.psy.unipd.it/userfiles/file/pdf/Sandlers%20A_%20-%202007.pdf Freeman, N. J., & Sandler, J. C. (2007). Topology of Female Sex Offenders: A Test of Vandiver and Kercher. Sex Abuse, 19, 73-89.]

Gannon, T. A., & Cortoni, F. (2010). Female sexual Offenders: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment - An Introduction. In T. A. Gannon, & F. Cortoni (Eds.), [https://books.google.ie/books?id=Qmi1ianYysAC&pg=PT4&lpg=PT4&dq=Gannon+Female+Sexual+Offenders:+Theory,+Assessment,+and+Treatment.+West+Sussex:+West-Blackwell.&source=bl&ots=obybC5BVZM&sig=DIMvlOFoHzlO_kURmdTiAO_as_w&hl=es&sa=X&ei=HcmLVaHrNoyR7Aaayo3wBg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Gannon%20Female%20Sexual%20Offenders%3A%20Theory%2C%20Assessment%2C%20and%20Treatment.%20West%20Sussex%3A%20West-Blackwell.&f=false Female Sexual Offenders: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment (pp. 1-7). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.]

Glancy, G., & Saini, M. (2009). Sexual Abuse by Clergy. In F. M. Saleh, A. J. Grudzinskas, J. M. Bradford, & D. J. Brodsky, [https://books.google.ie/books?id=uihg9Z6C2xoC&pg=PR4&lpg=PR4&dq=Sex+Offenders:+Identification,+Risk+Assessment,+Treatment,+and+Legal+Issues.+Oxford:+Oxford+University+Press.&source=bl&ots=9vgjazUAHp&sig=rkoqsGilbWu987GIvGITcfPxS-Q&hl=es&sa=X&ei=JNCLVcSJGuWR7AbbzZf4Bg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Sex%20Offenders%3A%20Identification%2C%20Risk%20Assessment%2C%20Treatment%2C%20and%20Legal%20Issues.%20Oxford%3A%20Oxford%20University%20Press.&f=false Sex Offenders: Identification, Risk Assessment, Treatment, and Legal Issues (pp. 324-339). Oxford: Oxford University Press.]

Harkins, L., & Beech, A. (2009). Assessing the Therapeutic Needs of Sexual Offenders. In J. L. Ireland, C. A. Ireland, & P. Birch, [http://samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/9781135846565_sample_533901.pdf Violent and Sexual Offenders (pp. 97-131). Devon: Willan Publishing.]

Harris, D. A. (2010). Theories of Female Sexual Offending. In T. A. Gannon, & F. Cortoni (Eds.), [https://books.google.ie/books?id=Qmi1ianYysAC&pg=PT4&lpg=PT4&dq=Gannon+Female+Sexual+Offenders:+Theory,+Assessment,+and+Treatment.+West+Sussex:+West-Blackwell.&source=bl&ots=obybC5BVZM&sig=DIMvlOFoHzlO_kURmdTiAO_as_w&hl=es&sa=X&ei=HcmLVaHrNoyR7Aaayo3wBg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Gannon%20Female%20Sexual%20Offenders%3A%20Theory%2C%20Assessment%2C%20and%20Treatment.%20West%20Sussex%3A%20West-Blackwell.&f=false Female Sexual Offenders: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment (pp. 31-51). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.]

Heidensohn, F., & Gelsthorpe, L. (2007). Gender and Crime. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), [https://books.google.ie/books?hl=es&lr=&id=3fl-kyIWBkoC&oi=fnd&pg=PR17&dq=The+Oxford+Handbook+of+Criminology+(2007)&ots=rG8lHVhObS&sig=3yAuwSsZAGSv7XKZyi3XwraBTgg#v=onepage&q=The%20Oxford%20Handbook%20of%20Criminology%20(2007)&f=false The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (pp. 381-420). Oxford: Oxford University Press.]

[https://www.uni-due.de/imperia/md/content/rke-forensik/material/hughes2007reviewofmedicalreportsonpedophilia.pdf Hughes, J.R., (2007). Review of Medical Reports on Pedophilia. Clinical Pediatrics, 46 (8), 667-682.]

[http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1117&context=ijass Lambert, S., & Hammond, S. (2009). Perspectives on Female Sexual Offending in an Irish Context. Irish Journal of Applied Social Studies, 9 (1), 15-32.]

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

[http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13552600.2010.488302 McCartan, F. M., Law, H., Murphy, M., & Bailey, S. (2011). Child and Adolescent Females who Present with Sexually Abusive Behaviours: A 10-Year UK Prevalence Study. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17 (1), 4-14.]

[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/000579679400071Q Miner, M. H., West, M. A., & Day, D. M. (1995). Sexual Preference for Child and Aggressive Stimuli: Comparison of Rapists and Child Molesters using Auditory and Visual Stimuli. Behavior, Research, and Therapy, 33 (5), 545-551.]

Muehlenhard, C. L., (1998). The Importance and Danger of Studying Sexually Aggressive Women. In C. Struckman-Johnson, & P. B. Anderson, (Eds.), [https://books.google.ie/books?hl=es&lr=&id=EwWSXYqtmk4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=Sexually+Aggressive+Women:+Current+Perspectives+and+Controversies,+.+New+York:+The+Guilford+Press.&ots=fPo5nNRGlj&sig=XqpQS-fls8EnNbgXIiv_0JG34e4#v=onepage&q=Sexually%20Aggressive%20Women%3A%20Current%20Perspectives%20and%20Controversies%2C%20.%20New%20York%3A%20The%20Guilford%20Press.&f=false Sexually Aggressive Women: Current Perspectives and Controversies, (pp. 19-48). New York: The Guildford Press.]

[http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13552600.2010.544414 Muskens, M., Bogaerts, S., van Casteren, M., & Labrijn, S. (2011). Adult Female Sexual Offending: A Comparison between Oo-offenders and Solo Offenders in a Dutch Sample. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17 (1), 46-60.]

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

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

Pervin, L. A., & Cervone, D. (2010). [http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470553057.html Personality: Theory and Research (11th ed.). Wiley and Sons.]

[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018837524712 Pino, N. W., & Meier, R. F. (1999). Gender Differences in Rape Reporting. Sex Roles, 40 (11/12), 979-990.]

[http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/37/1/47.short Pozzulo, J. D., Dempsey, J., Maeder, E., & Allen, L. (2010). The Effect of Victim Gender, Defendant Gender, and Defendant Age on Juror Decision Making. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37 (1), 47-63.]

Rousseau, M. M., & Cortoni, F. (2010). The Mental Health Needs of Female Sexual Offenders. In T. A. Gannon, & F. Cortoni (Eds.), [https://books.google.ie/books?id=Qmi1ianYysAC&pg=PT4&lpg=PT4&dq=Gannon+Female+Sexual+Offenders:+Theory,+Assessment,+and+Treatment.+West+Sussex:+West-Blackwell.&source=bl&ots=obybC5BVZM&sig=DIMvlOFoHzlO_kURmdTiAO_as_w&hl=es&sa=X&ei=HcmLVaHrNoyR7Aaayo3wBg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Gannon%20Female%20Sexual%20Offenders%3A%20Theory%2C%20Assessment%2C%20and%20Treatment.%20West%20Sussex%3A%20West-Blackwell.&f=false Female Sexual Offenders: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment (pp. 73-86). West sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.]

[http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13552600.2010.537380#.VYvam_l_Oko Sandler, J., & Freeman, N. J. (2011). Female Sex Offenders and the Criminal Justice System: A Comparison of Arrests and Outcomes. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17 (1), 61-76.]

Saradjian, J. (2010). Understanding the Prevalence of Female-Perpetrated Sexual Abuse and the Impact of that Abuse on Victims. In T. A. Gannon, & F. Cortoni (Eds.), [https://books.google.ie/books?id=Qmi1ianYysAC&pg=PT4&lpg=PT4&dq=Gannon+Female+Sexual+Offenders:+Theory,+Assessment,+and+Treatment.+West+Sussex:+West-Blackwell.&source=bl&ots=obybC5BVZM&sig=DIMvlOFoHzlO_kURmdTiAO_as_w&hl=es&sa=X&ei=HcmLVaHrNoyR7Aaayo3wBg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Gannon%20Female%20Sexual%20Offenders%3A%20Theory%2C%20Assessment%2C%20and%20Treatment.%20West%20Sussex%3A%20West-Blackwell.&f=false Female Sexual Offenders: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment (pp. 9-30). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.]

[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01541979 Sarrel, P. M., & Masters, W. H. (1982). Sexual Molestation of Men by Women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 11 (2), 117-131.]

[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018844231555 Simonson, K., & Mezydlo Subich, L. (1999). Rape Perceptions as a Function of Gender-Role Traditionality and Victim-Perpetrator Association. Sex Roles, 40 (7/8), 617-634.]

[http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13552600.2010.544413#.VYvb7fl_Oko Slotboom, A. B., Hendriks, J., & Verbruggen, J. (2011). Contrasting Adolescent Female and Male Sexual Aggression: A self-report study on Prevalence and Predictors of Sexual Aggression. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17 (1), 15-33.]

[http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224498809551401 Smith, R. E., Pine, C. J., & Hawley, M. E. (1988). Social Cognitions about Adult Male Victims of Female Sexual Assault. The Journal of Sex Research, 24 (1), 101-112.]

[http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224490309552168#.VYvcqPl_Oko Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson, D., & Anderson, P. (2003). Tactics of Sexual Coercion: When Men and Women Won't Take No for an Answer. The Journal of Sex Research, 40 (1), 76-86.]

Struckman-Johnson, C., & Anderson, P. B. (1998). "Men Do and Women Don't": Difficulties in Resarching Sexually Aggressive Women. In C. Struckman-Johnson, & P. B. Anderson, (Eds.), [https://books.google.ie/books?id=EwWSXYqtmk4C&pg=PP4&lpg=PP4&dq=Sexually+Aggressive+Women:+Current+Perspectives+and+Controversies&source=bl&ots=fPo5mOWKkn&sig=umsh6gQDADjq8ZKKpHbopJfAj6k&hl=es&sa=X&ei=Et2LVcr-M9GQ7Aauu4LIAg&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Sexually%20Aggressive%20Women%3A%20Current%20Perspectives%20and%20Controversies&f=false Sexually Aggressive Women: Current Perspectives and Controversies, (pp. 9-18). New York: The Guildford Press.]

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

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

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

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

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

[http://cjr.sagepub.com/content/27/2/284.short Vandiver, D. M., & Walker, J. T. (2002). Female Sex Offenders: An Overview and Analysis of 40 Cases. Criminal Justice Review, 27 (2), 284-300.]

[http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13552600.2010.540679#.VYvd8_l_Oko Wijkman, M., Bijleveld, C., & Hendriks, J. (2011). Female Sex Offenders: Specialists, Generalists and Once-Only Offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17 (1), 34-45.]

[http://sax.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/03/15/1079063210363826.short Wijkman, M., Bijleveld, C., & Hendriks, J. (2010). Women Don’t Do Such Things! Characteristics of Female Sex Offenders and Offender Types. Sex Abuse, 22 (2), 135–156.]

[https://books.google.ie/books?hl=es&lr=&id=UDtjSTQF5uoC&oi=fnd&pg=PR21&dq=Criminal+Law+Doctrine+and+Theory&ots=2H5aCbzX4_&sig=z8oB_jO4_x8H5kiVoU3Q962g8PU#v=onepage&q=Criminal%20Law%20Doctrine%20and%20Theory&f=false Wilson, W. (2011). Criminal Law: Doctrine and Theory (4th ed.). Essex: Pearson Education.]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2580:2480:D5DD:9643:F7C1:B331 (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't agree with you that the article is very good; the article is a mess. Anyway, I collapsed your references so that they don't take up much of this section. Flyer22 (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Verification on U.S. male assault numbers
I'm looking for verification for this statement in the section Male_rape


 * The Department of Justice's report (2008) leads to a conclusion that in the U.S. more men are raped than women.

The citation links to a Daily Mail story which includes this quote


 * More men are raped in the U.S. than woman, according to figures that include sexual abuse in prisons. In 2008, it was estimated 216,000 inmates were sexually assaulted while serving time, according to the Department of Justice figures. That is compared to 90,479 rape cases outside of prison.

The prison rape numbers appear to come from this DOJ report, but that source doesn't say how many of those 216,600 estimated assaults were committed against men. The non-prison numbers appear to come from the rapes in the Uniform Crime Report for 2007, but that source only includes rapes reported to police. The Daily Mail doesn't exactly have the best reputation for fact-checking, and I can't find another source for this claim. Does anyone else have an alternative citation or some outside verification for it? Nblund (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be good to have solid attributable numbers. I'm of two minds on this.  On the one hand, wikipedia prefers we use reliable secondary sources vs. primary sources, which the Daily Mail citation conforms to.  On the other hand, it would be good know whether or not that 216,600 number is mostly men (which is plausible given the relative male/female prison populations).  Where I net out, despite being a little on the fence about it, is that reliable secondary source conclusion is enough absent of other sources that say otherwise.  It's a good catch that we should try to find something more concrete.Mattnad (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the DOJ report is a primary source.
 * This essay on Potentially Unreliable Sources specifically mentions the Daily Mail as a source that typically is not reliable. Several comments on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard indicate a widely-held view that the Daily Mail is very rarely a good source -- particularly for this kind of material. The subhead in the Daily Mail story we're citing even contains a typographical error (it should be "women" not "woman"). They're claiming something is contained in a report that clearly isn't in that report, and I can't find any outside verification for it. I don't think the reliable sourcing policy says we should keep material until it is debunked, if it can't be verified, it should probably be removed. Nblund (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Venerability refers to whether or not they appear in reliable sources. What you're saying is the Daily Mail is not a reliable source.  I think the best way to address this is to go to the reliable sources noticeboard and get other views on it.Mattnad (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems extraneous, given that this paper appears to already be widely acknowledged to be unreliable, and that you're on the fence about it as well. I went ahead and posted a notice on the RS board, but, barring additional verification, I'm going to go ahead and remove it in the interim per WP:PROVEIT Nblund (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing it anyway. What do you make of this study.  It addresses a long-time bias in how rape has been define by the government.  Until recently, they didn't even track male rape, and only female victims were tabulated. In one statistic, when the researchers included "made to penetrate" as one of the questions, "The NISVS’s 12-month prevalence estimates of sexual victimization show that male victimization is underrepresented when victim penetration is the only form of nonconsensual sex included in the definition of rape. The number of women who have been raped (1,270,000) is nearly equivalent to the number of men who were “made to penetrate” (1,267,000)." (page 3).Mattnad (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Slate covered it too.Mattnad (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I think its fine to include this stuff, but a few caveats need to be made clear in the text:

1. Rightly or wrongly "made to penetrate" is not typically considered rape. It is treated as "sexual assault" under the CDC, UCR, or NCVS definitions. I understand there is an argument in favor of changing this, but, as it stands, its not how rape is defined by most of the data sources.

2. Even if "made to penetrate" is counted as rape, the rates are comparable only when looking at the estimate of 12 month prevalence, not lifetime prevalence. I don't know why that is, exactly, but the lifetime prevalence among women reported in the CDC numbers is less than a quarter of the "made to penetrate" (roughly 22 million women vs. 5.4 million men). Its a puzzling discrepancy.

I changed the wording of the section to reflect this. I also made a couple of edits to the caption for the graph. Its not really true to say that "male victims were ignored" in the past, they just weren't counted as being victims of rape. Nblund (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fair. Your notes on the period of measurement also applies to the other articles (ie, Campus Sexual Assault).  This has been one of my concerns about statistics without context from the beginning.  Black box numbers without sources are often presented with no context/framing.  That's why I was very careful to include the sources and the periods measured in the chart I added.  Mattnad (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The other thing, is that for the purpose of this article, the description in the lede includes other kinds of sexual violence. Makes me wonder whether, like Campus Rape --> Campus Sexual Assault, a broader title is warranted.Mattnad (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

That text was added by at the Rape by gender article. It made its way to the Male rape article some time a little after this article was created as a split of the topic of rape (since the topic of rape usually concerns the rape of females).

Nblund was right to cut that piece. The Daily Mail is repeatedly rejected as a WP:Reliable source here at Wikipedia anyway; see this archive on it at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and this archive on it at the WP:BLP noticeboard. I was going to complain about this edit by Mattnad, but Nblund took care of my main concern with that text. My other concern is giving WP:Undue weight to any study, especially one that has not been vetted by a review article; and I don't mean peer review (that is different). Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine will not providing "too much weight" to a study, but the note that the Journal article is based on US government research, and merely presented the data in one place. This is not the Daily Mail we're now discussing.  Also, it's not news that that rape has traditionally been viewed as only a crime that affects women (i.e., UCR that would not permit any classification of rape against men).  But I'm not sure where you're going with this given there are few studies that have even looked at the issue of assaults on men and particularly on incarcerated males.  Are you suggesting we don't include more from the study?  Do you have a better source that touches on the topic?  A peer reviewed study that is also covered by a mainstream reliable source (Slate) seems pretty solid from a reliable sources point of view.Mattnad (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * While on the topic of what's acceptable in this article, Flyer22, you removed this text because "Oh, and that last study is about children and teens; removed." I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Do we not include mention of studies that measure male victim rates if they are under 18?Mattnad (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We should not be using single studies, especially ones that have not been vetted by one or more review articles, to combat the established literature. In this case, it matters not that anyone considers the established literature to be biased toward female victims; what matters is WP:Due weight and not relying heavily on WP:Primary sources. Also see WP:Neutral point of view and WP:BIASED if you haven't already. I stated nothing about not using more from the aforementioned source you are clearly okay with using. But using it, or text attributed to it, inappropriately is a problem. Nblund fixed your text, and I noted it here at this talk page.


 * As for the text I removed in that link, I was right to remove all of it. How was I not right? The source that I cited as being about children and teens was used with the following text: "Studies suggesting that a majority of men convicted for raping women have a history of being victims of female perpetrated sexual abuse have recently been published. These studies suggest that a better understanding of female-on-male rape is necessary to understand why male-on-female rape occurs, and suggests that rape may operate as a cycle of violence whereby victims of rape go on to be perpetrators." Well, the source was clearly used to support part of that text, and was seemingly used to support the rest of it. The source is not strong enough for all of that material, and the text was WP:Editorializing. We should not be using sources that are specifically about children and teens to support male rape aspects in the broader sense (well, not unless the source specifically supports that); if a source is talking about child sexual abuse, then make that clear in the text by stating "child sexual abuse" or "child molestation"; don't simply state "sexual abuse." I've seen people (usually men) try to argue the existence of a larger number of female perpetrators (than what is usually reported) with regard to male rape based on child sexual abuse and/or statutory rape aspects. Well, thing is...the vast majority of female-on-male rape concerns child sexual abuse and/or statutory rape aspects, not women raping men (unless a teenager in a statutory rape case is considered a man because he is physically a man, but is not yet legally an adult). Flyer22 (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As written, it was inaccurate, but often editors correct the language rather than excise it and the source completely. I haven't spent a lot of time on this article, but in the little I have, I've found two serious journal articles that address the topics of women who in fact sexual abuse men and minors, with some secondary source coverage of the same.  I'm getting the feeling however that their findings may get push back from you under the "undue weight" argument if used more than one or two places with very limited text.  However, when there's otherwise a nearly complete vacuum on the topic of male victimization by women, it's not undue to include something to fill it provided it conforms to WP:RS.
 * I think like articles that more address female victimization, this article should include the spectrum of assault which includes "molestation" which I think we can all agree is pretty horrific to the victims. There's two ways to do this: ensure the scope of the article include these items (which the lede does partially), and possibly change the article name to something like "Male Sexual Victimization".  If we were to use "Male Sexual Assault" it's not clear who's the victim vs. perpetrator.Mattnad (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It sort of seems like this discussion is sprawling. I don't think we can coherently address a dispute about a 4 month old edit, a question about DUE Weight and a renaming proposal in the same thread. Perhaps we should put up an RfC for the renaming.

Its not really true that we have to include a study just because there is "otherwise a complete vacuum" on the topic. Wikipedia is not the place to RIGHT GREAT WRONGS I think its reasonable that some of the more obscure literature on male sexual victimization would get more coverage in this particular article than it might receive elsewhere, but most surveys still indicate that women are more likely than men to be victims of sexual violence. Some scientists (including the ones you cite) believe the existing conventional wisdom is wrong, and that's fine, but a minority opinion shouldn't be over-represented. Nblund (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Nblund. I agree with you and Mattnad that it's reasonable that some of the more obscure literature on male sexual victimization can get more coverage in this article than it might receive elsewhere. But like you, I feel that we need to be careful not to overrepresent the minority viewpoint. The WP:Neutral policy is clear that even in an article about a minority viewpoint, the majority viewpoint should be represented. And nowhere have I objected to this article covering child sexual abuse and/or statutory rape; it already covers that at some parts. I also edit child sexual abuse and statutory rape topics here at Wikipedia (as is clear from my user page). What I object to is using research about women having committed child sexual abuse and/or statutory rape to make it seem like the sources are talking about women raping men. And even in some of these statutory rape cases, the male victim and/or his family states that he is not a victim; this is usually in cases where the male is 16 or 17 (sometimes a month or so from being age 18) and he and the woman are a few years apart in age. We also know from studies that it's more common for male victims of statutory rape than for female victims of statutory rape to not see themselves as victims; this may be due to cultural attitudes and/or biology.


 * I obviously object to any WP:Editorializing of what the sources state. I removed the aforementioned text/source because I saw that it should be removed; I did not see a solid point in keeping the text and tweaking it, at least at that point in time when (as that edit's edit summary indicates) I was getting more and more frustrated with the WP:Advocacy taking place at this article, and lack of help to combat it.


 * As for the article title, I disagree that this article should be titled Male sexual victimization or Male sexual assault; for one, the term sexual victimization can include sexual objectification, sexual harassment, and, depending on the source, sexism. I know that sexual victimization currently redirects to the Sexual abuse article, and is commonly used interchangeably with sexual abuse, but it's a bit broader than how the term sexual abuse is usually used. And, as we know, the term sexual assault can be quite broad as well. I think we should keep this article limited to rape (male-on-male rape and female-on-male rape, including child sexual abuse and statutory rape). Flyer22 (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your views on keeping the article tighter. I've seen a lot of sprawl in the Capus Rape article because of this lack of focus and the inclusion of statistics that have very broad definitions, or no definitions at all and are just presented as a number.  On Nblunds point that the majority of studies don't consider some forms of sexual violence against males as rape, that's true.  Most studies don't even ask the question about men at at, and very few considered incarcerated males or females.  That bias is being addressed a little now. Since the article definition includes "sexual violence" it permits inclusion of some crimes that are not not yet covered in this article adequately.  I'll get around to expansion (with reliable sources) later this week. Mattnad (talk) 09:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought it was common knowledge that more men than women were raped in the US because of the frequency of sexual assault in men's prisons. Anyway, it looks like we have adequate sourcing to mention it in the article.  Newspapers are reliable sources. Cla68 (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Cla68, did you even read the valid points made above in this section or in the section? I'm sure you did, but are simply ignoring them to fit your personal views. There is no solid evidence whatsoever that "more men than women were raped in the US because of the frequency of sexual assault in men's prisons." And regarding your comment on my talk page that you "just read a blog that says that incidences of male rape (where the man is the victim, including sexual coercion) outnumber female rape," you know that I told you "it's not true" and that "I am quite fed up with male editors, especially men's rights activists, trying to put forth the notion that there are more male rape victims than there are female rape victims and/or that there are more female rapists than there are male rapists when the data on rape and male aggression is so far from supporting any of that." If you edit in a way that makes it seem that there are generally more female rapists than male rapists/more male victims of rape than female victims of rape, then I will see to it that such editing is handled via the appropriate Wikipedia channels, including by reporting such a matter at the WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, with scholarly sources showing that your views are not widely supported in the literature on rape. Scholarly sources are also preferable to media sources in cases such as these, mainly because media sources often get matters wrong and emphasize WP:Primary studies, which is why such a matter is addressed at WP:Identifying reliable sources and at WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Flyer22 (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Flyer22, what I read from your comments is that you dispute that data because it's from a single source. That's not true, but even if it were, the findings are also mentioned by other reliable secondary sources.  Per WP:RS, I don't think you have a leg to stand on, particularly since until now, no research has been done on the rates of assault of incarcerated males and females.  Other research does not take into account those prison populations.  So long as we qualify the populations (inside and outside of penal institutions) to derive the conclusion, it should be fine.  Do you think that rape is not a problem in prisons?  Do you think we should exclude reliable sources that present the data?  Or better, do you have a reliable source that includes the assaults in prison that states what you think this article should say?Mattnad (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * One other point. I think you're trying to limit sexual assault to only a very narrow definition of "rape" in the figures. However, per the lede of this and other articles addressing the topic, other sexual violence that doesn't conform to some definitions of rape are included.  If you look at other articles addressing the topic (i.e., Campus rape), sexual violence is on a spectrum.  I agree that we should not go as far as to include the breadth of definition that's permitted in that article (which includes verbal comments by some definitions), but it should not be so limited as to only include violent penetration of the victim either (or not even measured when the victim is a male prison inmate).Mattnad (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources do say that there are high levels of rape in prisons, and that existing research may under-count male victims because of sampling biases, but the statement that "more men are raped in the U.S. than women" doesn't appear to be supported by reliable sources. For my part, I don't really think that comparison is particularly enlightening even if it were accurate.
 * The article currently does include stats on the frequency cat-calling and sexual coercion, and I have no problem with including a more detailed discussion of forms of sexual violence other than rape as long as we don't conflate things. The note about the changing UCR definition is also a key point mentioned in a number of reliable sources that discuss the topic of male rape. Nblund (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mattnad. Cla68 (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Mattnad, nowhere did I state that I "dispute that data because it's from a single source." I was explicitly clear above about why I dispute the data. But, yes, a single source should not be used to try to contradict the established literature. And indeed, media sources on matters such as rape and domestic violence are often wrong, per what the rules I pointed to above state. How do you figure that I "don't [...] have a leg to stand on," when, as Nblund and I stated above, there is no solid evidence whatosever that "more men are raped in the U.S. than women"? You keep reading far too much into my posts and not enough into what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines state. And as for stating "I think you're trying to limit sexual assault to only a very narrow definition of 'rape' in the figures.", we've already been over this above; I told you I agree that "it's reasonable that some of the more obscure literature on male sexual victimization can get more coverage in this article than it might receive elsewhere." But I also stated that I think we should keep this article limited to rape. By that, I mean "generally limited to rape." The Rape article includes sexual assault material as well, mainly because rape is an aspect of sexual assault and the terms sexual assault and rape are commonly used interchangeably. But we shouldn't be giving WP:Undue weight in this article to groping aspects and the like; for example, the "when women make unwanted sexual advances on men, they tend to use tactics like verbal coercion, coercive seduction, or emotional manipulation rather than force" aspects that Nblund cited in the section below. If those aspects were routinely and legally classified as rape, I wouldn't have a problem with citing a lot of it in this article. But using such material to make it seem like female-on-male-rape is more prevalent than what is documented is a no-no.


 * Thank you again, Nblund, for having the mindset we should be having when reporting such material and for understanding Wikipedia's rules well. Flyer22 (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The article lede states, "Male rape is a form of rape in which the victim is male. This male sexual victimization includes both rape or sexual violence in general." Perhaps my understanding of "sexual violence in general" is different from yours, but I don't see any justification to "generally limit" the article to "rape".


 * Now let's discuss "the established literature" as you put it. In terms of overall rates of rape and/or sexual violence, do your preferred sources include rates of prison sexual violence?  If not, then they don't provide the complete picture.  Just because "the established literature" did not include prison populations, that does not mean an encyclopedia must as well.  When you include the sexual victimization of males in prisons, it's very clear that men are victimized more often than women overall.Mattnad (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The lead states that because you formatted the lead that way. And that should be removed since sexual violence is not necessarily rape; if it were always or usually rape, then there would be no Sexual violence article. If sexual violence, sexual assault and rape were all the same thing, they would not so often be defined differently, and we would not have Wikipedia articles for each of them. You know very well that the term sexual violence is broader than the term rape, just as you know that the term sexual victimization is broader than the term rape, which is why you proposed (above) that this article be titled "Male sexual victimization" or "Male sexual assault." Since this article is currently titled Male rape, it is perfectly reasonable that we generally limit its content to rape, just like the Rape article is generally limited to rape.


 * As for your argument that "Just because 'the established literature' did not include prison populations, that does not mean an encyclopedia must as well.", you completely miss the point on how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I told you that "a single source should not be used to try to contradict the established literature." I did not state that a single source cannot be used on its own merits. If you doubt that that's the way Wikipedia works (the "a single source should not be used to try to contradict the established literature" aspect), I have no problem at all with starting a wide-scale WP:RfC on this matter so that you understand exactly what I mean. And your reiteration that "When you include the sexual victimization of males in prisons, it's very clear that men are victimized more often than women overall." has no solid evidence to support it; you know that. Nblund has also been clear about that. Flyer22 (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * And if the "This male sexual victimization includes both rape or sexual violence in general." line is supposed to mean that the rape may have included other forms of sexual violence, then it should be clearer about that. Rape is sexual violence, but it does not always include another form of sexual violence. Flyer22 (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The article has included "other forms of sexual violence" in the lede from the beginning . I had nothing to do with that to you might want to retract your statement on that point.  For reasons I don't understand, you want to limit the exploration of sexual violence in this article to focus on rape, and not just any definition of rape, but that used in some legal definitions. I'm fine with including the legal definitions of rape (some of which don't even acknowledge that men can be raped at all), but just like in other articles dealing with these topics, we should also be open to the spectrum of other offenses including variations on definition.  I have not seen you so rigid on the Campus Rape article, which was renamed to Campus sexual assault because editors didn't want to focus only on one type of crime and the lede was similarly constructed to include other forms of sexual violence.  You edited that article yourself when it was called "Campus Rape" but NEVER, EVER made any of the points that we need to stick close to rape only.  Why is that?  It don't understand the contradiction in your position and editing history here.Mattnad (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the title of this article should be renamed to "Male sexual assault" per the precedent set at the "Campus rape" article? Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was wrong about you adding that text to the lead. I confused that matter with edits made to the lead of the Campus rape article (now titled Campus sexual assault); I had meant to check the edit history of the Male rape article to make sure I was correct. But that text still should not be in the lead of the Male rape article, per what I stated above. It should be clarified. As for you stating that "[f]or reasons [you] don't understand, [I] want to limit the exploration of sexual violence in this article to focus on rape", I don't see how you cannot understand that after what Nblund and I have told you. This article is called "Male rape." Not all sexual violence is rape, as is made perfectly clear in the sourced Sexual violence article. And using different aspects of sexual violence (which can include domestic violence aspects, by the way) and/or different aspects of sexual manipulation (which may or may not be termed sexual coercion) and conflating that with rape is problematic. Nblund has already pointed to problematic instances, including in the section below. In what way is "friends pressuring [a person] to have sex" or "a sexual partner repeatedly asking for sex" classified as rape under the law? Editors trying to use text like that to make it seem like female rapists are more prevalent than are reported are editors who are being deceptive by trying to mislead our readers. Plain and simple. Editors also should not be focusing so much on female-on-male rape, as though that is more prevalent than male-on-male rape. Those focusing so much on female-on-male rape clearly have an agenda that is at conflict with how Wikipedia is supposed to work. And your comment that I'm trying to limit the article to "not just any definition of rape, but that used in some legal definitions" is you putting words in my mouth. That aspect ("used in some legal definitions") is a discussion you have been having with Nblund. I stated above, my "05:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)" post, "I think we should keep this article limited to rape (male-on-male rape and female-on-male rape, including child sexual abuse and statutory rape)." Nowhere did I state anything about limiting this article to rape definitions "used in some legal definitions." But WP:Due weight is policy (not just a guideline, but policy). And forms of rape that are not usually classified as rape absolutely should not get a lot of space in this article. That includes what Nblund stated to you about trying to add "made to penetrate" in this article. Should "made to penetrate" and forms of sexual violence that are not necessarily considered rape get space in this article. Yes! I have been clear about that already. But they should not get a lot of space. This is per the WP:Due weight policy. I don't see why I have to keep repeating that.


 * And as for claims regarding my stance at the Campus rape article, you are wrong! As seen at Talk:Campus sexual assault/Archive 1 and somewhat echoed at Talk:Campus sexual assault/Archive 1, I was quite clear that the title "Campus rape" was not precise, given that so much of the article included non-rape material in it. By contrast, the Male rape article mostly includes rape material. It does not take a genius to figure out which titles are more appropriate for these articles and what content should be in them as a result of their titles. I repeat: I did not state that the Male rape article should only be limited to rape material. I stated that it generally should. And I've been explicitly clear about why that is. Flyer22 (talk) 05:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's what I think is going on. Some editors want to maximize the written prevalence of female victimization and minimize the written prevalence of male victimization.  There is a double standard on what text is desired in articles.  The campus rape article started out with a focus on the most serious crimes and then expanded to include broader items.  I'm OK with that provided we provide detail and context for the statistics.  Where I think the Campus rape article goes off the rails when prevalence rates are provided with no detail on how they were calculated and what they represent.  You on the other hand are working very hard to limit exploration of the spectrum in this article.  If the "Campus Rape" article was permitted to expand to the broader ranges of sexual assault,  I think the same applies here so long as we do a good (and hopefully better) job of having accessible details to what we're including.  I'm new to this area, but what I've learned is that there has been a systematic bias against measuring male victimization until recently, which is borne out by reliable sources commenting on it.  I would hope that wikipedia would not be part of that bias as well.Mattnad (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You stated, "You on the other hand are working very hard to limit exploration of the spectrum in this article." Incorrect. I'm following the WP:Due weight policy, and I've been clear about everything else above. I am not about to repeat myself yet again. The only reason that the Campus rape article came to be expanded far beyond just being about rape is because editors didn't adhere to the article's title and made it so that the title was no longer as WP:Precise as it had been. Adding some non-rape material to that article was fine, but when it got to the point of being WP:Undue weight, that was a mess with regard to what the article's focus was supposed to be. There is no valid reason to have this article progress in a similar mess of a fashion and then state, "Oh, let's now move this article to 'Male sexual assault' or 'Male sexual victimization' so that it can cover every sexual wrong that could possibly be done to a male, and include more information on women being a part of that." Flyer22 (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * On another note: "Campus rape" and "campus sexual assault" are usually tied to each other in sources, and the terms are commonly used interchangeably. So the Campus rape article progressing the way it did was not a huge problem; it did not have the same type of WP:Synthesis and conflation problems seen at this article when it comes to it reporting on different forms of sexual victimization. All forms of male sexual victimization are not linked to male rape; unlike campus rape and campus sexual assault, these matters are often discussed independently. For example, sources commenting on sexual manipulation, including women sexually manipulating men, do not usually tie the matter to rape unless offering the matters in comparative context, as seen with this regular Google search and this Google Books search. Flyer22 (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * User talk:Mattnad ::User talk:Nblund ::User talk:Cla68. As someone who have dwelled and researched thoroughly on rape, I can tell you that Dailymail statistics is false. Just in 2011, another study released by the Department of Justice found only 8,763 allegations of prison sexual victimization in 2011 . Also take note that US law defines US prisoners as unable to legally "make consent" to any sexual activity therefore even consensual sex with security guards can be defined as sexual assault. Therefore it creates the misleading picture that such for example male prisoner was brutally raped. Perhaps that is the discrepancy between Dailymail article and the one I cited. I think that it insulting to the 70,000 women who really are raped per year. Hence, it is best that we get rape statistics from FBI sources or scholarly peer reviewed ones and not cite misleading ones.

Also the reason wikipedia focuses more on female victims of rape because females are the one who tend to experience violent and abusive form of sexual assault which stereotypical is attributed to rape. FBI puts the numbers of rape against females at 70,000 while rape against males at 13,000 I believe. And also on another note, "made to penetrate" is defined as sexual assault (NOT rape) and more precisely as sexual coercion because it usually involves the use of psychological pressure not violent and brutal force that results in injuries.

Shootingstar88 (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)User talk:Shootingstar88Shootingstar88 (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pdca14.pdf

Definition of rape
Regarding this edit:

This is already noted elsewhere on the page. It also seems like an editorial comment, and, it appears as though it is being (incorrectly) attributed to the CDC.

As a point of fact: the CDC is using the commonly accepted definition of rape. The National Crime Victimization Surveys and Uniform Crime Reports also do not define rape in a way that would count being "made to penetrate" another person as rape. (NCVS definition, UCR definition) Being "made to penetrate" would not count as rape under the definition used by any major study that I'm aware of. There's nothing unique about the CDC in this regard.

I understand that there are some voices who believe the commonly accepted definition of rape is unfair or under-counts male victims, but, right or wrong, that criticism shouldn't be presented as though its a widely accepted view. Perhaps it could be addressed in a separate subsection, attributed to reliable outside sources. Nblund (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Thanks for helping to clean up this article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * also agree. A subsection with context is much better given mainstream definitions tend to exclude some forms of sexual violence. Mattnad (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The new definition of rape presented in the NCVS link does not specify who is being penetrated, only that the penetration is forced. Ms. Mary P. Reese, from the FBI’s CJIS Division’s Crime Statistics Management Unit, confirmed being made to penetrate counts as rape by the FBI definition. Also, the Collins English Dictionary - Complete and Unabridge 2012 Digital Edition and The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary define rape in such a way that would include "being made to penetrate."

More importantly, all of you here are being extraordinarily disingenuous. You all know fully well that when people read that 93% of rape perpetrators were male, they will interpret that as "93% of those who forced a male into sexual intercourse were male." You are saliently and gleefully aiding in a deception. - The author of "this edit" 02:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by De2nis (talk • contribs)
 * The NCVS definition does specify that "forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender", I think you mean to say that the UCR doesn't specify. That's true, but reliable sources seem to read the UCR definition as stating that "made to penetrate" would not be included. For instance, This recent study (which is critical of the existing definition) states: Although the new [UCR] definition reflects a more inclusive understanding of sexual victimization, it appears to still focus on the penetration of the victim, which excludes victims who were made to penetrate. This likely undercounts male victimization... (p. 21) I don't know what most people would assume, but the solution is to simply include a criticism section that discusses this complaint by citing reliable sources.
 * I don't think the blog post really constitutes a cite-able source, and its not clear whether this is an official statement by the FBI or an off-handed comment by an employee. The UCR training materials don't mention any "made to penetrate" scenarios, and if the UCR counts this as rape, its unique among national studies in that regard.Nblund (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think what this article could use is a section on the changing definitions of rape and include discussion of the systematic under-reporting (UCR, and historic lack of prison rape measurement for instance). However, "made to penetrate" is a new concept and is not widely accepted as rape in part due to that bias.  It is sexual violence, and if we relax from trying to put all forms of assault into the "rape" designation, we can probably avoid endless disagreements.Mattnad (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a disagreement, it's a matter of intellectual honesty. We all know that if you pulled 20 people off the street and asked them "Is forcing someone into sex rape", they would all say yes, and at least half would laugh in your face at the absurdity of the question. You know EXACTLY what people will assume, Nblund. "Made to penetrate" is a new concept because people, up until recently, did not realize it happened with any significant frequency. Not because people thought it was happening but did not consider it rape. - De2nis (talk


 * User talk: Mattnad ::User talk: Nblund ::User talk: Flyer22
 * I don't know if that's the case: many people still subscribe to the myth that male rape is "impossible". Regardless: we shouldn't write Wikipedia based on conjectures about what "most people would assume" - the article contains a discussion of the distinction between rape and being "made to penetrate", and relates the statistics associated with each. We should certainly report it, but we should avoid editorializing about this distinction, and we should avoid giving the false impression that the CDC definition of rape is unique or unusual among other data sources. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 20:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

International Crime Tribunal definition of rape (pg 8)

Crime against humanity of rape Elements

1. ''The perpetrator invaded the body of a person by conduct resulting in penetration, however slight, of any part of the body of the victim or of the perpetrator with a sexual organ, or of the anal or genital opening of the victim with any object or any other part of the body.''

2. ''The invasion was committed by force, or by threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power, against such person or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment, or the invasion was committed against a person incapable of giving genuine consent.''

So "made to penetrate" does not constitute as rape by international definitions as well as FBI definitions.

Shootingstar88 (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)User talk: shootingstar88Shootingstar88 (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it very clearly does. Definition 1 says "penetration [...] of the body of the victim or  of the perpetrator." You are objectively, indisputably wrong. - De2nis (talk

Parking
Since the article is currently locked to editing, I'm going to park this text addition here until it can be added Cla68 (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * A 2014 paper published by the American Psychological Association found the 43% of high school and young college men reported being coerced into sexual behavior and, of those, 95% reported that a female was the aggressor.
 * The section on female-on-male rape already includes some mention of the frequency of sexual coercion using data from the CDC study (see page 24 for the breakdown). This study is smaller and focused on a specific population, and doesn't use a representative sample. My preference, if we're going to expand this section, would be to include studies that actually primarily focused on female perpetrators. If we are going to include this info, it would be helpful to clarify what is meant by "sexual coercion":
 * A 2014 paper published in the journal of Psychology of Men and Masculinity found 43% of high school and young college men reported experiencing some form of "sexual coercion" -- a term which includes a variety of unwanted sexual behaviors ranging from nagging and verbal pressure to physical pressure. Of these men, 95% reported a female perpetrator.


 * I think the key takeaway here is this: when women make unwanted sexual advances on men, they tend to use tactics like verbal coercion, coercive seduction, or emotional manipulation rather than force. We could cite this article for that conclusion. Nblund (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's fine to qualify it, although I will point out the important changes to criminal laws that include verbal coercion without physical force in the expansion of the definition of rape when women are victims as well. It might be helpful in other articles to draw out that finer point in those other articles.Mattnad (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Exactly, Nblund. Like I noted in the section above, "If those aspects were routinely and legally classified as rape, I wouldn't have a problem with citing a lot of it in this article. But using such material to make it seem like female-on-male-rape is more prevalent than what is documented is a no-no." Flyer22 (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * And the solution for adding the study that Cla68 cited above, for this article, will likely be the solution I take with regard to him having added it to the Rape article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad: the NCVS definition includes "verbal coercion" as a form of force, but coercion has a specific meaning in criminal law. "Verbal coercion" in a criminal context would mean something like verbally threatening violence against a person who didn't have sex with you. "Verbal coercion" in this study, on the other hand, includes things like "friends pressuring me to have sex" or "a sexual partner repeatedly asking for sex", these wouldn't be illegal under any law that I'm aware of. I think its fine to include some of this material: unwanted sexual advances are a part of the spectrum of sexual victimization. Still, I strongly suspect I would get significant push-back if I attempted to include a stat on the frequency of this sort of coercion for women in another article. Nblund (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 23 October 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: MOVED to Rape of males. While there is broad consensus that "Male rape" is not appropriate, the exact wording of a more appropriate title is less clear. Four titles were discussed the most - "Rape of males", "Rape of men", "Rape of boys and men" and "Sexual assault of males". "Sexual assault" was supported twice and opposed twice. "Rape of boys and men" was supported three times and opposed once. Rape of men was supported four times (sometimes obliquely) and opposed once. Rape of males was clearly supported three times, and was not opposed. I am moving to the proposed title of "Rape of males" as that numerically is equal to "Rape of men", but has not been explicitly opposed, gets direct support, and is the original proposed name. There would be no objection to a new discussion to see if "Rape of men" gets a clearer consensus.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  13:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Male rape → Rape of males – Less ambiguous (identifying that the victim is male, rather than the possible interpretation of the rape itself somehow being male). I didn't want to make the move myself per the subject being controversial. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ (kaw), 20:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't it be rape of men, though? Specify the species, too.  —  AjaxSmack   01:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd support Rape of men in preference to the listed move. It removes the ambiguity just the same as the proposal, reads much more naturally, and as a bonus also makes it clear that the subject excludes the lower animals. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment from proposer: I'd be fine with this as well; I'll leave the discussion open to which name works better. Additionally, since this article is linked in many templates, that work will need to be done and is another reason I proposed the move rather than doing it manually. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ (kaw), 02:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: "Rape of men" suggests that all of the information pertains to men; this isn't the case. The information pertains to boys and men. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * So I don't support "Rape of men." But I've always though that "male rape" was ambiguous because it can be interpreted as being about males raping anyone -- women or girls, or men or boys -- as opposed to being about the males being raped. The only problem I see with "male" is that "male" covers non-human animals as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment this isn't the rape of male animals either, as bestiality does happen, and "rape" and homosexuality occurs in the animal world. Suggest Rape of boys and men or rape of male humans but Rape of men is acceptable, since "men" is frequently used to signify all male humans -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought about the title "Rape of boys and men" while making my comments above in this section, and I thought about how "man" can be used to include "boy," in the same way that "woman" can be used to include "girl," but it's still the case that "Rape of men" suggests that the article is about men and not boys. We know that "man" usually refers to an adult human male. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE the title rape of men, which refers to all members of the human species. SUPPORT either rape of male humans or rape of male men. rape of men includes both genders. ~ ip user 95.143.193.40 (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I think "male rape" is probably the common terminology, but what about Sexual Victimization of Males or "Sexual Assault of Males"? Rape is occasionally used colloquially to describe sexual coercion among animals, but the terms sexual assault and sexual victimization almost always refer to humans. It would also be more technically accurate, since we do talk about sexual attacks that are not generally considered "rape" in this article. Nblund (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I like Nblund's approach here.Mattnad (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the titles "Sexual victimization of males" and "Sexual assault of males", per what I stated in the section above (my "05:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)" post, and anything I stated after that about such titles). I especially disagree with the "Sexual victimization of males" title; it is far too broad. This article is currently mostly about rape, which means that the current title is the WP:Precise title. Articles commonly have material in them that deviate from the article title; that doesn't mean that the title should be broadened. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there another article that addresses the broader topic? If not, why wouldn't we have one that examines the spectrum of assaults against males?  What's to be gained by narrowing the content of the article as it now stands instead of broadening the title to match it?Mattnad (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Mattnad, since we've already addressed this in the aforementioned discussion, I refer you and others to that section for my feelings on broadening the title to "Sexual victimization of males" or to "Sexual assault of males." I was very clear in that discussion that sexual victimization is defined in various ways and is covered across Wikipedia; specific types of sexual victimization mainly belong in their specific articles. And we, of course, have the Sexual assault article, which is not just for girls/women. This Male rape article is not being narrowed; it mainly focuses on what the scope of the article is: Male rape among humans. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The sexual assault article primarily deals with female victims and is a higher level article than what's captured here already. Are you OK then with the creation of a "Sexual assault of males" to separately capture the details you want excluded from this article?Mattnad (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The literature on rape and other sexual assault primarily deals with girls/women; we both know that. So it's not surprising that the Rape and Sexual assault articles would do the same. If the Sexual assault article primarily deals with females (even though I don't see that it explicitly does), then the answer is to expand it with detail about males, but not in a way that gives false balance. The answer is not to create an unneeded WP:Content fork. Detail on sexual assault is already in the Male rape article; I am not trying to keep sexual assault material out of this article, especially since, as made very clear by the Rape article, the terms rape and sexual assault are commonly used interchangeably. I am trying to keep the scope of the Male rape article focused so that it doesn't cover everything under the sun about male sexual victimization, including sexual objectification, sexual harassment and sexism. Or, as noted in the section above, even sexual manipulation, which is generally not classified as rape when it is a case of a partner begging for sex or pressuring their partner into sex in a way that is not a coercion element included in the definition of rape. As I noted in the aforementioned discussion, sexual objectification, sexual harassment, and sexism are considered sexual victimization; these things are not considered rape or sexual assault, however... Well, with the exception of sexual harassment under some definitions. It's because of the interchangeability of the terms rape and sexual assault, and the fact that male rape or other sexual assault against males is not nearly as well studied or focused on as female rape or other sexual assault against females, that a Sexual assault of males article would be a WP:Redundant fork, as in redundant to the Male rape article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, I want to take the time to note that "human" is not actually necessary in the title, since the term rape is usually reserved for humans. It's a legal term. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why then have a "Male Rape" fork - we could just put in the high level rape article? Why then have any forks from the high level article.  If anything, the topic of sexual victimization of men (which is in the lede of this article from inception) is a better scope for this article since, as you mentioned, most of the literature ignores males as victims in any form.  In the sexual assault article, it includes the full spectrum (mostly of women as victims) and then we have forks for more detail (ie, Campus sexual assault).  Your argument doesn't seem to be in line with how it's handled elsewhere in Wikipedia.Mattnad (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * To state anything more would simply be repeating myself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * And my arguments on this matter are very much in line with how Wikipedia handles these matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, though a better rename is likely "Rape of human males" or "Rape of boys and men" if that seems too awkward. "Male rape" is incredibly confusing. These other two specify exactly the victims that the original title attempts to refer to. Wolfdog (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support "Rape of boys and men" as the article title. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support "Rape of males". Options like "Rape of boys and men" and "Sexual assault against males" are unnecessarily longwinded, so would be WP:CONCISE problems.  That said, they would actually be better than "Male rape", which looks like it means "rape by males".  An article about murders with Hispanic victims would not be called "Hispanic murders", and an article title like "Roman invasions" would imply invasions by, not of, the Romans.  Cf. Sack of Rome (410) which could also have been titled "Visigothic sack of Rome", but not "Roman sack (410)".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Age of Consent Federally
The article states that the age of consent federally is 18; this appears to be incorrect except when interstate travel is involved (see 18 U.S.C. Chapter 117 generally) as 18 U.S.C. § 2243 and related statutes convey that sexual abuse has occurred when the victim "has not attained the age of 16 years" (the Federal Code does not use the term rape as far as I can tell). I don't know how stuff works with wikipedia editing, but I figured I would bring it up as it appears the age of consent is 16 with limited exception and not a universal 18. I used Cornell to look this up because I am lazy, if I need to double check this with Westlaw or Lexis let me know which is preferred and I will do it, but Cornell has been pretty accurate in my experience. 2602:306:B856:4600:B47E:3F21:7234:3F1D (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. For the moment, I removed the statements about the age of consent because I couldn't find a quality citation for the stuff about "federal age of consent". It sounds like the question of the federal age of consent is actually a little complex -- so I don't know if it is within the scope of this article to include that discussion in the first place.
 * I could be wrong, though. If you think it's important enough to discuss in the article, you should totally feel free to be bold and add it. Ideally, you would want to include a reference to a secondary source like a law review, rather than citing the statute itself. Nblund (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

POV check, definitions
The article notes the new US definition of rape: "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

...And then states that: "This new definition encourages male rape victims to seek the help they need and concurrently include sexual assaults that previously were not covered by the definition of rape."

This gives the impression that everyone is happy with the new definition, but in fact the new definition has been criticized because, while it now includes males who are the victims of unwanted penetration (typically by other men), it *does not* include male victims who were forced to have traditional intercourse with a woman - whether facilitated by incapacitation, coercion, or direct physical force. -91.0.163.73 (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * talk

That has been the international definition for a long time.

'''International Crime Tribunals ''' Pg 8 Article 7 (1) (g)-1 Crime against humanity of rape

1. '''The perpetrator invaded the body of a person by conduct resulting in penetration,however slight, of any part of the body of the victim or of the perpetrator with a sexual organ,or of the anal or genital opening of the victim with any object or any other part of the body.'''

2. The invasion was committed by force, or by threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power, against such person or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment, or the invasion was committed against a person incapable of giving genuine consent.

So no. "Made to penetrate" is not considered. It's considered sexual assault It wouldn't make sense anyway unless you're suggested majority of victims who experience fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression and abused of power. (in most cases not involving weapons).

Shootingstar88 (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)User talk: Shootingstar88Shootingstar88 (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The article already notes a historic bias against categorizing men as victims of rape. Only relatively recently did many countries even consider penetrative raping of men in their laws and statistics, so it's no surprise that current common definitions exclude "made to penetrate".  However, there are some experts that are starting to include it in their analysis.  What may be better to directly acknowledge that the common definition requires some form of penetration, but there are less mainstream views that are starting to include "made to penetrate".  The article already covers that in the body copy.Mattnad (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The ICJ definition "conduct resulting in penetration, however slight, of...the [female] perpetrator with [the male victim's] sexual organ" certainly sounds like "made to penetrate" situations have been considered in this definition of rape. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Unequal amount of contents on the male on male rape and female on male rape contents
W#hy is the male on male rape content less than half the size of the female on male rape content? Why does the female on rape section includes results from surveys which the male on male rape section does not? Surveys also show that male on male rape is the most prominent form of prison rape, and that statutory rape is just as common between older man and little boys. You have even hidden reference to NAMBLA, which does not engage in the activity but supports it. In Britain homosexual rape isnt even considered rape, but a lesser offence buggery even though it is equally physically and emotionally abusing. Is it because to you it feels that male on male rape is less common or does not need so much elaboration like the female on male rape issue or is it that you re trying to use this to promote homosexuality and try to make homosexual offences less despicable than heterosexual ones. Results show that male children are far less likely than female ones to reveal sexual abuse by a man (which is by far more common than that by a woman, do research before contradicting me). But there is 0 reference to male on male statutory rape. You even ignored international references like bacha bazi in Afghanistan. If you are gonna talk about prison rape on the male on male rape section, strictly stick to the fact that it is the male on male rape section which is not the place to discuss female-female prisoner rape, but once again you do it anyway to make homosexual offences less offensive and promote homosexuality. Also do your research and find that male on male prison rape is far more common. Why can results of perception based surveys be included on the female on male rape section but not the male on male rape section. Where is the justice, the equality on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.97.174.59 (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * IP, when it comes to the current state of this article, I'll go ahead and note now that this article has been used for WP:Activism in different ways, including to highlight female-on-male rape when male-on-male rape is the more prevalent of the two. With this activism, I see the goal as being to highlight women as perpetrators of rape since so much of the rape literature focuses on men as the perpetrators of rape. I don't see that there has been a focus on promoting or demonizing homosexuality. As for NAMBLA, I don't think we should give them much credence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rape of males. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140423055204/http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20130717000008&cid=1303 to http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20130717000008&cid=1303

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Repeated sentence and note
The sentence (including note 26) "Elizabeth Donovan, a psychotherapist, stated that males have the added burden of facing a society that doesn't believe rape can happen to them at all.[26]" is repeated in two different sections of this article, for no good reason that I can see.89.212.50.177 (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Parallel construction
This is bad encyclopedia writing (caused by palimpsestuous edits by multiple editors): "The CDC reports in 2010 stated that nearly 1 in 5 women, 1 in 71 men in the U.S. have been raped or have had an experience of attempted rape, while 4.8% of men reported they were made to penetrate someone else at some time in their lives." Don't mix ratios, fractions, and/or percentages. And "1/71" isn't a fraction anyone's bring works with very well; it doesn't relate to anything in our experience, but 1.4% is easy to conceptualize. However, due to rounding approximations, we need to return to the original sources, and use the figures reported in them to calculate actual percentages for all these things, and use those. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  16:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

US federal law; "International law"
An anon recently added this:

Though this was reverted as "editorializing", some form of this observation (with sources, and further copyediting) is obviously relevant in the US legal section. Most of our readers would be unaware of this issue.

PS: The section "International law" needs to be renamed, since it is not at all about international law. I'm not sure if we have a standard section name for this; "National laws" would seem like a good bet, though. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  11:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I went with "National laws".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  10:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)