Talk:Rape/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

'Experts' as NPOV

There are a few places where people on one side of a contested issue are described as 'experts' while those who disagree with them are not. Could someone explain, at least here on the talk page, who (specifically) qualifies as an 'expert' and while kind of objective study anyone referred to as an expert has based their ideas upon? I assume, for instance, that the Catholic Church would not be described as an expert in the matter of rape, despite their study of the matter. Describing only one side of an argument as having expertise, particularly when their views are based more on social and political criticism than methodical study, seems NPOV. If I'm missing something here, maybe someone could shed some light on the subject. --Ryan Wise 00:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Experts

This opening sentence... Rape is a form of assault where one individual forces another to have sexual intercourse against that person’s will. Some experts assert the primary cause of rape is an aggressive desire to dominate the victim rather than an attempt to achieve sexual fulfillment

...should state the word "experts" because as I stated in my edit summary of changing it back to that, an expert on something is someone who studies a great deal in that particular field and thought of by others who also study in that particular field as having great knowledge on the subject. People call these individuals experts. Most sources call these individuals experts. We shouldn't be calling them groups, as if they are a part of a cult or something. Why are we trying to make this article seem "more neutral" in that way? That's not more neutral, it's just off. Rape isn't even a neutral topic. Flyer22 00:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an argument from authority on a controversial issue. Maintaining an NPOV tone is especially important on such topics. It's worth asking what kind of evidence a particular group bases their expertise on. Though if it's preferable, I could maintain balance by citing other experts instead. --Ryan Wise 00:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Saying "maintaining an NPOV tone is especially important on such topics" has nothing to do with the fact these people are experts. That's what they are called, just as experts on pedophilia are called experts...not groups or social critics. I'm changing it back to what it is and originally was titled, unless a group of editors here insist on your wording. Flyer22 01:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"Some" or "most"? "Experts" or "groups"? Unless we have a verifiable statement from a reliable source any variation of those is POV. Name names and cite sources. - Mdbrownmsw 14:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel that we need a source (of any kind) for the word "groups", seeing as that is just identifying a group of whatever, no different than saying the word people. The word "group" doesn't have to mean an official group or anything. As for the words "most" or "experts"...yes, a valid source is needed for those, but perhaps the source already provided with the wording "most experts" in this article cites that. If anyone has access to that book, perhaps they can clarify. As for the word "some"...I feel the same about that word as I do about the word people. However, the word "some" should be used sparingly in an article on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia doesn't like it that much. Flyer22 15:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to go with 'most' since the new source on Felson and Tedeschi's work provided reluctant testimony that the view predominates, at least within academic circles. It's not a rigorous measure, but reluctant testimony seems a good second best. As long as that opposing expert POV is kept, or something similar, I'm fine with what's there now. --Ryan Wise 19:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We should remove that "attribution needed" tag from the word "most" there and add the cite that also spots most as being true in this case. I'll go do that now. Flyer22 19:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"female assailant" and "acute stress disorder"

"

or may involve the forcing of a vagina or anus onto a penis by a female assailant.

"

Shouldn't gender be non-specific? No need for "female assailant".

Also, "acute stress disorder" should be "post traumatic stress disorder" which is common in sexual assault/rape/abuse etc.

LaraS (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Only females have vaginas. Paul B (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent enhansements notified for further appraisal and enhansement

[en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape&diff=174968756&oldid=174888453], including reference from a prior edition of Encyclopedia Britannica.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Um...I'm completely against your recent edits to this article. Those edits completely redefine what rape is and put a different (inaccurate) spin on it. Those are not improvements. Flyer22 02:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The article acknowledges diverse concepts about what is and is not part of the rape experience, which it did not as much do so previously. There are improvements in copyediting, terminology, additional relevant categorisations and referencing from WP:RS (Encyclopaedia Brittannica on the issue). And remember not to wholesale revert/suppress because you have an issue about a definition that you could have just finetuned.Bosharivale 02:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, your substantial changes - which you are still marking as "minor" edits, by the way - are interjecting substantial amounts of point-of-view language and redefining rape as "self-expression" in the lead, which one would suggest is rather an incorrect way of defining it. The inclusion of the word "alleged" throughout the article is questionable, as is the change of the word "victim" to "complainant." This suggests that your belief is a person who has been raped is not a victim of a crime, which is incorrect. You have also changed the section on the effects of rape to completely twist it around and make it about false allegations - that is not what the article is about. If you feel that you have some beneficial edits you can make to this article, please discuss them here, as this is a major change for an article with a heated history. I will revert to the previous version, as this one is unbalanced and inaccurate. Feel free to bring up suggestions for improvements that do not go counter to editing guidelines here. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What am I talking about? What are you talking about? I am talking about what Tony Fox has just summed up so beautifully. Thank you, Tony. I am now going to go check out the Date rape article and remove any inaccuracies I see there as well. Flyer22 03:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What's -not- self-expressive about coercing another person to sex? Tell us. Everything's self-expressive about that and it's in no way controversial to admit that people do rape to say something as much as for any other reason. 'Victim' is a glariningly inappropriate and non-neutral term in these contexts and simply must go. The use of it validates only the POV of the complainant whereas we aim to be a neutral, unpresumptive and nonjudgmental reference source so we have no choice other than to prefentially employ the terms 'complainant', 'accused', 'initiating sex participant', and 'noninitiating sex participant' here and in the related articles.

I encourage you to think about it from both perspectives. A person has a regretted sexual experience attempts to smear another as there rapist when, hello, there is another side to the story and its not all so simple, and not apt to this ridiculous 'victim' vs 'rapist' reactive labelling. There are shades of responsibility and accountability between the partnered participants. I shouldn't need to remind that this happens countless times as seen in the cited low investigation, prosecution, and conviction rates for the allegation of it. A person who feels they have been raped (remember, it's a subjective experience) at the end of it all usually proves not be the victim of a crime but is definitely a participant in sex. I have NPOV-proofed the language to reflect this. Your wholesale reversions completely misapply WP:BOLD (it's for boldness in developing content, not stifling it) and just sweep away a lot of useful referenced content and categorisations. Don't be doing that.Bosharivale 04:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What the ....? What's -not- self-expressive about coercing another person to sex, you ask? Rape is NOT a self-expressive act of coercing another person to sex...unless you are talking about statutory rape, and that is not what the lead of this article is talking about. Your definition is not even defined as that in the scholarly field. The word Victim is POV? Are you kidding me?! Right now I need to take a deep breath and cool down, because all of that mess (yes, mess) you have just stated has my blood boiling. I am usually an easy person to work with and don't lose my cool easily. But here "listening" to you? *Steps away* for a bit. Flyer22 05:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Bosharivale, several users have asked you to discuss changes here before making them. Your choice of language is questionable and without reliable citation. It has been discussed here and on your user page. Please try to maintain consensus when making major changes, particularly those that invlove taking liberties with definitions. I am going to revert your changes. Please reconsider your approach, working with consensus makes for a happier and more productive environment. Thank you. Phyesalis 04:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you make a compromise proposal rather than all this repetitive un-WP:BOLD and unpersuasive content raping? That really would be the right way to go forward and resolve this. I'm willing to concede that all of the self-expression, violence, and evolutionary natural selection aspects of the subject should get fair coverage in the lead. The new categorisations should stay unless there's cogent reasoning why they do not apply, but perhaps some of the see-also articles can be removed. In my opinion the Encyclopaedia Brittanica stuff about testing the complainants story is important and not otherwise referred to, married women wanting to extend rape allegations against their lawful husbands is a very controversial development, and there needs to be a small section if not an independent article about the consequences of rape allegations and smears for those who are subjected to them as well as their families. I'm willing to work to come together on this. Are you?Bosharivale 04:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Willing to work together? You? You sure don't show it. You keep changing the lead of this article to a VERY inacurrate definition, you keep marking those edits of yours as minor, when they aren't...and worse...you keep changing this article to that POV version of yours without consensus here. But, really, there can be no consensus for your version because it is inaccurate. Just because some men are falsely accused of rape does not mean that the definition of rape should be changed to that outrageousness that you are injecting into this article. If you want a small section, if not an independent article about the consequences of rape allegations and smears for those who are subjected to them, as well as their families, then go about that...with valid citations, but do not try to change the definition of rape and act as though victims of rape are not truly victims. If you continue this direction of editing, I will take this to an administrator or some form of higher-up to see about either getting you to listen or blocked from editing Wikipedia...temporarily or permanently. Flyer22 04:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The simple fact is that your edits - the wholesale changes you have been making - entirely violate a large number of guidelines; while some portions may be of benefit to the article, such as some of the categorizations, the wording changes are skewing the article away from neutral point of view. I challenge you to provide us with a reliable source that states that rape is a form of self-expression, as a starting point. I'm leaving it there for the moment; other editors may wish to change it if they so desire. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, things seem to be getting a bit tense here. Bosharivale, thank you for your conciliatory attitude. However, you have made a number of contraversial edits. Removing the links to Comfort women and trafficking is not appropriate. These are legitimate links. Please do not remove them again. WP applauds boldness, but only when it is well-sourced. Please review WP:R for an overview of acceptable sources. Perhaps it would be best if Bosharivale, Tony and Flyer step back for a day or two. (I won't add any content either.) This would give you time to look up sources for the content you would like to add, B. It would give Flyer time to work on Date Rape, and Tony and I would be free to pursue other interests. Sound good? Phyesalis 06:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Kind of a moot point; Bosharivale has been blocked as a sock of User:DavidYork71. That's one way to solve the problem. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to look at the Date Rape article

I am not an expert on rape, and it looks like there are a lot of people who watch this article carefully who are much more knowledgable about rape than I am. Could someone please look at the date rape article? It is biased to the point of inaccuracy and it seems that some of the same users whose misogynist comments are getting edited out of this article are doing whatever they want with the date rape article.--Madscientistgirl 03:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it. Flyer22 03:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Definition: Rape not always 'assault', though never not (albeit sometimes assaultative) 'self-expression'

I've read the discussion between Bosharivale and Flyer22 above where the latter went rather out of line to vilify the former's thoughtful contributions as a 'mess'. Bosharivale raised the very important nuance that, across the broader animal kingdom and the broader context of human experience inclusive of organised warfare and biological natural selection, rape essentially manifests self-expression and not necessarily assault.

If you restrict rape to just 'an assault' that activates only the human legalistic/criminal justice paridigm and ignores the aspects of rape being something that has been observed across many animal species as an effective breeding and survival strategy - being applied in warfare and group situations. So when a pack of (say) bonobos acts to coerce sex from one of its females its unhelpful to always say "oh that's rape, therefore an assault". Realising threat and social pressure she may have submitted to the biological group self-expression without being attacked and without that kind of rape needing to be fitted into the contrivance that is the assault-concept.

I propose to make immediate change to bring back the 'assaultative self-expression' definition and get rid of the less useful, unhelpfully narrow, and unreferenced 'assault that forces sex' definition that is presently sitting there.

Also, a lot of useful categorisations have been lost as well as the information re testing veracity of complainants of this phenomena. Could we have it all back? Comment please. Cheers.81.177.16.151 16:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Out of line, was I? You're out of line. And I very much assume that you are Bosharivale. To say that rape is "self-expression" is like saying that murder is. Oh, yes, when a man rapes a woman, it's him having coerced sex out of her? Ridiculous. No different than saying that when someone murders someone, the victim coerced the attack. The way you define rape is not what it is and is not how it is defined by experts and scholars. I'm not interested in your POV, and other editors have shown distaste for it as well. A male lion, for instance, who does not get the concept of rape (of course), cannot be compared to a human male who clearly knows that he is hurting the woman and it is an act against her will when he is raping her. Your POV will not be inserted into this article. You can propose it as much as you want. Flyer22 18:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Rape necessary involves sex and sex (in humans and other species) is a mode of self-expression (emotional expression, genetic expression, power-expression, expression of autonomy and independence, etc). Why can't you concede that?

You were 'out of line' in the sense of losing composure and then indulging incivility when civility was being afforded you, that's all that's being said there and you're encouraged to reflect on it.

I hope you'd agree that its an unhealthy development to see attempts to silence some quarters of the discourse and that those sorts of attempts should be to every possible extent resisted.

So acknowledging as you do that rape is a broader concept than just a feminolegalistic-anthropocentric one, and acknowledging as you do that (say) lions and other species are brought into this, then it must be acknowledged that the basic definition must be the one with the broadest applicability. That's obviously the 'self-expression/assaultative expression' (the socio-biological evolutionary definition) definition - not the 'assault + nonconsent' (the human feminist ideology definition) one.

For how is it appropriate to suggest that the 'assault' and 'consent' concepts have applicability to nonhuman participants in rape when for them it is purely a behaviour that's a self-expression? It isn't.

And even as a human myself I know that if I participated in rape it would be purely as a self-expressive act with no consideration of 'assault' or 'consent' coming into the matter. Many rapists report the same thinking at it has been documented in extensive post-event interviews conducted with. Plus the undisputed fact that most subjective rape allegations predicated on the concepts underlying the HFI definition prove not to be objectively sustainable and not to be the basis of a conviction or finding of rape. For non-initiating participants, 'assault' and 'consent' often do not even occur to them except as afterthoughts following regretted sexual experiences that they then wish to characterise as rape. This also has been documented in published professional & clinical reviews based upon extensive interviewing of such participants. So therein the ideological definition that you cling to defending fails even in the human sex interaction context.

So where are we? For the reasons above I say the broader and more basic definition is the way to go, I welcome more views on this and I want to thank you for for having expressed yours, sis. It's a good and worthwhile discussion to be having.

81.177.16.151 06:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anon. If you read the conversation, then you understand that this is a contraversial change that is being proposed, one that so far has failed to find consensus. Further changes without in language without appropriate citation will most likely be considered uncivil. Also, talk page discussion are not for general debate. Conversation should be restricted to article issues. If you would like to propose this change, you will need to find a reliable and verifiable source to cite it. Until that time, continuing to discuss the issue is disruptive. Phyesalis 06:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You won't succeed in silencing by labelling reasoned discussion 'disruption'. Sure it disrupts your presumptions of thought.

Address the logic. You haven't yet. The defining of an animal behaviour and evolutionary strategy should not be tied to anthropocentric and legalistic concepts of 'consent' and 'assault' that most of the time don't even occur in the minds of human participants in that behaviour. As a basic statement, what is wrong or controversial about that?81.177.16.151 06:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to address your logic, it is OR and unsuitable material for advancing an argument about contraverial and contested changes. If you can provide a reliable and verifiable source, then I need only address the manner in which it is represented. This is not the appropriate place to air one's personal philosophy. Please refrain from general commentary unsupported by documentation. Phyesalis 06:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no referencing of or sourcing for the lead definition concept as it is so its quite appropriate for me to expose the illogicality of it. If you want reference to a scholarly work that defines sex as self-expression and also examines the occurrence of homosexual rape in the animal kingdom then look no further than Biological Exuberance. Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl PhD (St. Martin's Press, New York, 1999). So there you have enough information to make the change to the unsupported/unreferenced (and wrong and illogical) definition that is presently there and doggedly being clung to.81.177.16.151 07:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

First, don't speak to me of indulging in incivility. I care not to hear it from you. Second, your definition is the one that is wrong and illogical, with your need to put humans on the same level as animals. The fact is that rape is not defined as what you are trying to inject into this article. Your definition is hilarious. You act as though rape is a mating call. I'm sure the men in prison who are raped (and, yes, by force, as we are NOT talking about statutory rape here) would consider rape a mating call as well. Laughable. Medical experts and scholars define rape as force. But, really, they don't have to. It is force, plain and simple. If you hold someone down and force sex on them, that is what rape is. If you drug someone and have sex with them, that is what rape is. It is not some mating call, it is not as you call it, "purely a self-expressive act with no consideration of 'assault' or 'consent' coming into the matter". Experts in this field, and I know a few of further knowledge than myself, define rape as being about harming the victim (yes, victim) in a lot of cases. Rape, as it is defined in just about every source you can find online and in a library is not about some "human feminist ideology". Rape is defined by what you see in this article. And you want us to change that to an inaccurate definition of just being about self-expression, have Wikipedia be the lone source stating such? Ridiculous. Many things could be said to be self-expression. Murder, child molestation, jumping off of a cliff, but that does not change the fact that murder is where you take someone's life, child molestation is sexually abusing a child...and jumping off of a cliff is suicide (unless you are bungee jumping). Just as raping someone means sexually forcing your body onto another person's/against their will. You ask me why can't I concede your definition of rape. Why can't you concede what rape actually is? Again, your POV will not be injected into this article. You can keep proposing, but it will be to no avail. Furthermore, you are a banned user, tagged as having exhausted this community. Don't even try to act as though you are not the banned user cited above. We don't have to even consider your thoughts...based on that alone. Flyer22 08:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've observed Wikipedia long enough to have seen quite a few excellent contributors ridden out of town usually for some perceived petty political incorrectness on their part or for some point of principle that they stand up for. It always starts with a content dispute and a ganging up to exclude newcomers from an article or subject article that is apparently owned by others in this space. Seeing that sort of hateful clubbishness in action time after time has certainly helped me in my decision to edit anonymously whenever and whereever I can. Personally, I don't have an issue with rehabilitating earnest-though-out-of-favor contributors and listening to anyone who speaks logically and with a purpose and a point of building the coverage comprehensiveness in a subject area. But you do (have such an issue), and that's just something the rest of us will have to lament and judge you upon.

Regarding your most recent remarks, it misdescribes the essential point put forward by me which is that 'force', 'overcoming of consent' and 'assault' are not features that are always seen in all coerced sexual activities but self-expression is a factor that is always present. This refers to social expression of the group through both participants being fitted into a 'top' and 'bottom' role in the social hierarchy, or the expression of the initiator that he/she effectively compels the noninitiator to be a coparticipant in.

In the prison example, very often actual force is at play, though not always. There are cases of submission because of inevitability or because of fear of being outside the protection of the gang. In those situations, the punk-male submitter will submit to coercion to sex without any marks or signs of 'assault' though reporting, quite legitimately, to the experience of rape. In that circumstance the rape is a social expression of his taking on the recipient and submitters role, and the initiating participant(s) self-expression of affirming their 'lead' or 'top' or 'man' in the social hierarchy. It is a social expression that has a significance quite apart from overriding consent or exerting power or violence but it is still coercion to sex and a rape.

We really are a lot closer than we are far apart on what we are defending; it's just that you are defending a definition that describes some rapes whereas I am going broader to a definition that covers some types of nonassaultative and nonviolent coerced sex participations that are may fairly be considered rapes in either or both of the human and animal social contexts. Again I refer you to Bagemihl as the reference on this.

Finally I am completely OK with identifying humans with animals because not only does the definition of the latter encompass the definition of the former (!look it up!), but there is great deal of analogy between many animal behaviours and corresponding human behaviours (see eg. mobbing, herd mentality, herd instinct, etc ) including on this issue.

Let us canvass more views and work toward exposing both/all viewpoints of significance in the lead summary and article content.81.177.16.151 12:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell me what I have an issue on. An issue? Yes, I have an issue (a big one) with someone who wants to redefine the definition of rape as though it is a mating call. The matter of the fact is...is that rape is NOT whatsoever defined as what you are trying to inject into this article, not in the medical field and not in the scholarly field. Thus, it should not be defined as such on Wikipedia. The fact is...is that rape is force. It is. Just because rape is self-expression of that person committing the crime does not take away from the fact that it is forcing sex on a person, and that is NOT coercion. All viewpoints of rape? All viewpoints of rape are represented in this article. A viewpoint that says rape is not force, but rather a manifestation of coercion? That's not a viewpoint on rape, but rather an ignorance and redefining of the term. The fact that humans and animals are compared often by scientists and researchers does not take away from the fact that rape is force and that the human mind is vastly different from the animal mind. You can act as though human beings and animals are very much the same all you want, but they are not. The human being has qualities that very much separate humans from animals (you look it up). Rape is applied to humans because of our understanding of right and wrong. Your wanting this article to reflect the animal kingdom is quite off considering such. Most importantly, to have the lead of this article open with defining rape as self expression instead of force when rape is force, unless we are talking about statutory rape, is quite off. Even if it were defined as self expression...rather than assault...in some cases, it would still be force and assault in most cases, therefore your wanting to change the lead of this article to something largely not identified as rape is beyond outrageous (and not in a good way).

What else? Oh, yes. You aren't convincing me whatsoever that you are not the banned user cited above. That banned user wasn't at all helpful to Wikipedia, while you state to have seen "a few excellent contributors ridden out of town usually for some perceived petty political incorrectness on their part or for some point of principle that they stand up for." No, that's not why they were/are ridden out of town. They were/are ridden out of town because they do harm to Wikipedia. And your plea to redefine the lead of this article to that POV of yours is a plea for harm to Wikipedia. Now, wait, before you go on and on again about that same POV you keep citing, I must state that I'm basically done conversing with you. You can keep talking here all you want, but consensus is most certainly against you. Flyer22 13:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This shouldn't be a debate about personalities and personal identities which is what you seem to want to make it into. Have I tried to attack your viewpoints because of who I speculate that you are? And have I adopted your own tactics in that vein to suggest that somehow your identity or your personality should somehow be a basis for you to be silenced, dismissed or ignored? I know I haven't, and I can tell you the reason for that is because it would be incredibly unworthy and just utterly crass for me to seek to operate in such a way.

What we would like to know this: have you really thorought read the article including this subsection and this sub-article? It makes it very clear that rape, with reference to observations made across many species, is an effective reproductive strategy which may be alternatively defined in such terms. Numerous references are cited: 5 in the main article, and the works of Thornhill, Abele, Gilchrist, Palmer and Barash cited in the subarticle. It's a significant body of work, yet we find this viewpoint completely absent from being mentioned in the present lead and from being factored into how we define our basic terms (ie. what rape is, what it extends to, what it encompasses, its biological usefulness and its importance to natural selection and evolution). That is a problem. It is a problem solved by, at the very least, developing the definition of rape to include acknowledgment of it as a successful selection/breeding strategy 'for certain males who lack the ability to persuade the female by non-violent means to pass on their genes' (quoting from the article's subsection on sociobiological theories of rape). This is part of what it meant by asking to admit that apart from contrived concepts of 'consent' and 'assault', rape is a behaviour (or an assaultative expression or self-expression) and a strategy.

If part of the editorial consensus on what rape is didn't include that, then the subsection and subarticle on sociobiological theories wouldn't be there .. but THEY ARE. In other words, the consensus includes the very viewpoint I have been representing for encompassment and therefore acknowledging changes should be made to the definition and article lead accordingly.81.177.16.151 15:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, who's "we"? Are you suggesting royalty or is there a frog in your pocket? The unproven and contested sociobiological theory does nothing to contravert the fact that rape is assault. If a man can't persuade a woman by non-violent means to have sex, then he either doesn't have sex or he sexually assaults a woman. Rape is sexual assault, and as far as I know, no reputable source contradicts that definition. The definition is common knowledge and can be verified in any dictionary. The term "rape" is uncontested and therefore, the standard defintion applies.

The presence of sociobiological theories does not support your claim that rape is "self-expression". Palmer and Thornhill certainly do not categorize rape as self-expression, but as you noted, they do propose alternate causation. They're not arguing against the definition of rape as assault but against the logic that rape is merely the product of dysfunctional male psyches (as they do not extend their theory to male on male rape or female rapists, this is one of their theory's great weaknesses). Additionally using a text that covers only male on male animal rape (I'm thinking the text does not include humans) does suffice to provide a definition for all forms of rape, the majority of which are committed by men against women.

Phyesalis 18:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out what you did, Phyesalis. And, IP, who you suspect me of being? Oh, yeah, I'm a banned member too or some kind of sockpuppet of another user on Wikipedia (laughs jokingly). My main point about you being banned from Wikipedia is that we don't have to converse with you and very well should ignore you. You can call it silencing you all you want, but it's Wikipedia policy that banned users are not allowed here. Since you love to cite Wikipedia policy so much, that's an important one. Don't even begin to call my methods in which I have talked to you crass. The way you have gone about polluting this article is crass.

In every sense of the word, rape is defined as force and assault, by medical experts, other experts on the matter and scholars:

[1]

[2][3]

Prison rape

[4]

Scholarly

[5]

[6]

[7]

And in Randy Thornhill, Craig T. Palmer's book A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (a book I happen to have at home), they mention that coercion may be a broader term for rape (of course, we are not going to change the title of this article to coercion), but they also note the fact (which is not an opinion) that rape is force and assault, and that it is taking a woman's choice away from her.[8]

So, no, the lead of this article won't be getting changed (at least not permanently, in case you find some way to change it again) to state rape as more so self expression instead of force and assault. Flyer22 18:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I support the use of the term relational aggression ahead of the POV terms assault (which has a specific legal meaning implying at least unauthorised touching), and 'violence' or 'force'. Rape is one kind of manifestation of relational agression. Introducing the concept of consent is not greatly helpful knowing, as we do, that this type of relational aggression is most frequently observed in the animal context. Consent hardly rates as a concern among animals. They eat eat other, Jiminy!

Instead of the female believing that it is she who is exercising the choice about reproductive expression in relationships, rape is the male taking the lead in exercising the choice.

Please don't vilify others' good faith contributions as 'mess', 'hilarious', 'outrageousness', 'pollution' etc. We don't behave so downmarket toward you.Mcilhenny 03:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Get a source. Not all relational aggression is rape and not all rape is committed in the context of a relationship, thus relational aggression fails to be an adequate word choice for this article. Flyer has taken the time to provide resources that show the consensus definition of rape is not POV. Assault is not POV, it is a well-documented definition. The arguments of Bosharivale, Anon. and Mcilhenny are OR and POV unsupported by a single ref. If a man wants to have sex with a woman then indeed, the choice is the woman's. M, again, what's with the we? And let's be fair, the statement "rape is the male taking the lead in exercising the choice" is so "downmarket".

Get a source. Phyesalis 04:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Phyesalis, there is no valid source for his definition of rape. And even if there was, the definition (real definition) that I cited above is the far more supported. And, DavidYork71, Bosharivale, CranberryIce, Mcilhenny, whoever you are today, you say we? You're the same person. Take you and your other billion sockpuppets elsewhere. The fact that you still try to inject your silly POV into this article with the very definition of rape staring you in the face, which is not what you are trying to define, goes beyond logic. If you believe I (or we) villify you, then perhaps it is because you are the villain. There's nothing "good faith" about your edits...at all. Flyer22 04:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Starting afresh

The namecalling of others as 'villain' has gone too far and I, for one, feel entitled to take a dim view of it. Start imitating civility.

While you're at it, adress whether you have any objections, or constructive commentary, regarding the following categorisations for this article -

• Category:Crime
• Category:Genocide
• Category:Human behaviour
• Category:Human sexuality
• Category:Interpersonal conflict
• Category:Military strategy
• Category:Paraphilia
• Category:Property law
• Category:Psychological torture techniques
• Category:Selection
• Category:Violence
• Category:Rape
• Category:War crimes

I can see that the above categorisings have continually been swept away without proper consideration as part of the warring, suppression and namecalling agenda.

With calmness let's approach this.Conciliationist 05:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that you've returned with two new sockpuppets. Oh, my. And I did not call you a villain. I said perhaps you are the villain. You're the one who feels villified. Your showing back up here is what has gone on long enough. Do I consider you a villain? I'm sure you can guess. We have said all we need or should say to you. Flyer22 (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I added Violence, Rape, and War Crimes. Crime is redundant. Human behavior, sexuality, Interpersonal conflict, Military strategy, Paraphilia, Property law, Psychological torture techniques, and Selection seem pretty inappropriate. Phyesalis 07:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Address the substance and keep it professional. Are any of the categorisations inappropriate? Any of them? Or should none of them every been reactively stripped out??

You are not the only person with a hand in having developed this article as other editors have already taken the lead in resupplying some of these categorisations - [9] - but you are being invited to make your view known. I'm hoping you can maintain a shred of goodwill and positivity.

Conciliationist 06:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Conviction % problems

I am removing the following: Even when rapes are reported to the police, the chance of a successful conviction is very small:

If the rape is reported to police, there is a 40.9% chance that an arrest will be made according the the FBI Uniform Crime Report. If an arrest is made, there is an 80% chance of prosecution. If there is a prosecution, there is a 58% chance of a felony conviction. If there is a felony conviction, there is a 69% chance the convict will spend time in jail. So, even in the 39% of attacks that are reported to police, there is only a 16.3% chance the rapist will end up in prison. Factoring in unreported rapes, about 6% of rapes—1 out of 16—will result in jail time for the rapist.[citation needed]

First, it positively reeks of synthesis. "So, even in the..." sounds like "I did the math and came up with...

Next, it's not cited.

Next, the numbers don't work. 40.9% x 80% x 58% x 69% does NOT = 16.3%. To get 16.3%, we need to ignore the 80% chance of prosecution (oops!).

Next, this assumes that the only time a perp arrested for rape will see jail is if tried and convicted for a felony. This ignores guilty plees, plee bargains and convictions on other (non-felony) charges.

Next, "factoring in unreported rapes" (given as 39% reported) takes the erroneous 16.3% to 6.4% ("about 6%"), while using all the numbers given gives a lower figure.

Finally, we cannot combine all of these figures in the manner proposed for several reasons: 1) If they are from more than one source, they likely use differing methodologies, which might conflict. 2) The figures are quoted in differing levels of significance: "40.9%" would typically mean "40.85X% - 40.94X% with a reliability suggesting differences below .1% are unreliable". while "80%" could be significant to +/- 10 points, +/- 1 point or +/1 .1% (if the editor was reporting "80.0%" as "80%"). 3) Multiplying figures from a given confidence interval gives figures of a substantially lower (but unknown) interval.

Essentially, the whole section is worthless as is.

Mdbrownmsw (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I can give you the numbers I have read in other encyclopedias and reference materials:

"Only about 2 percent of all rapists are convicted and imprisoned and, on average, convicted rapists serve only one half of their original sentence... the low conviction rate is due to the difficulty of proving rape under most state laws." World Book Encyclopedia

Macdonalds, J. (2007). Rape. In The World Book Encyclopedia. United States of America: World Book Inc.

If you want to look up the numbers to correct the entry here are some resources:

The main government resources from which most organizations derive their data are:

Department of Justice

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/welcome.html

Statistics from the FBI - Uniform Crime Reporting from the DOJ

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

National Crime Victimization Survey

(NCVS) from the DOJ.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm

An explanation:

"The U.S. Department of Justice administers two statistical programs to

measure the magnitude, nature, and impact of crime in the nation: the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Each of these programs produces

valuable information about aspects of the nation’s crime problem. Because the UCR and NCVS programs are conducted for different purposes, use different methods, and focus on somewhat different aspects

of crime, the information they produce together provides a more comprehensive panorama of the nation’s crime problem

than either could produce alone." US Dept. of Census

UCR: "Uniform Crime Reports (UCR)—The FBI’s UCR Program, which began in 1929, collects information on the following crimes reported to law enforcement authorities: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larcenytheft, motor vehicle theft, and arson."

NCVS: "National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)—-A second perspective on crime is provided by this survey of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Details about the crimes come directly from the victims. No attempt is made to validate the information against police records or any other source."

US Dept. of Census :http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/07statab/law.pdf

--Survivor (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Be bold. Put it in. While reckless editing on a page like this produces far more heat than light, the "Harmonius editing club" approach rarely makes much progress on an article this contentious. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)