Talk:Types of rape

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sara.F.Shaikh, Michaelfashola, Ashleyher, ManuelSeraydarian.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Female - female rape

This phenomenon is mentioned in Prison sexuality and should be classified here as well. __meco 17:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem fair

A woman should only sue a man for child support if he raped her, never if she raped him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.234.213.255 (talk • contribs).

Being raped absolves you of responsibility to your child? I definitely don't see the connection.

If it is the child's interests that must be considered then it doesn't matter who pays for it. The man didn't choose to have sex if he was raped so it's unfair for him to pay child support. Why not have the government pay child support in these cases? That way neither person is being treated unfairly.

If the woman has the choice to have an abortion if she is raped, the man should have the choice of having the child aborted if he is raped by a woman. 201.80.110.49 (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Third Party Rape?

Are there are any examples of an outside party raping other people together? Would it legally be rape, or would they call it something else?

Rape by proxy Artheartsoul1 (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Rape of adults by an authoritative figure

I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned earlier. It's surely not less uncommon than the other types mentioned. Is there a formal name for it (like "crape" for "Bro rape")? It's basically the entire Sexual harassment article, but only focused on rape. -88.154.133.164 13:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

taboo topic until 1992

Where was it a taboo? Considered by whom? Xx236 14:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

See Comfort women.

This article doesn't inform about Comfort women. My addition has been removed. If you don't like the form, do it better but don't censor.Xx236 08:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Prison rape politically incorrect

The politically correct term is sexual battery.GOYANKSGONJ 17:53, 17 November 2007 (PST)

You best be joking 76.95.40.6 (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Bias?

Under the heading Blitz Rape, there is the following line: According to United States Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, in the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.' What does this have to do with blitz rape? It rather seems to me that this is a general statistic (true or not), that is totally out of place. I believe it should be removed. --Mukk 06:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I find this Types of Rape page to be unnessacry. Rape is forced acts of sex, no? If you want to make this an article about legal distinctions of types of rape for various countries, that makes sense. Otherwise, I find this to be an article with little value. It should be merged with rape.As is, I find this topic is open to more and more bizarre circumstances of rape being added by vandals.Knowing all the possible ways to commit rape is not needed to understand what rape is, and doesnt further the understanding or knowledge of what rape itself is. All it does is a list a potentially unending list of ways the crime is commited. I think Rape in Wartime is worthy of inclusion, or a link from the main topic page for rape. As is, I feel the page is not contributing much. Just look at this talk page, the first part of which is bizarre opinions about child support???? --Nihilistic Misanthrope 11:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihilistic Misanthrope (talk • contribs)

'mukk' how is this more biased than anything else written, these are factual statistics . and so this should b kept on the page instead of cowering to the 'politically' correct imbeciles who would like to keepthe truth hidden. and this statistic runs true in britain also. kate 15/nov/2009

Article Should be merged with Rape

I find this Types of Rape page to be unnessacry. Rape is forced acts of sex, no? If you want to make this an article about legal distinctions of types of rape for various countries, that makes sense. Otherwise, I find this to be an article with little value. It should be merged with rape.As is, I find this topic is open to more and more bizarre circumstances of rape being added by vandals.Knowing all the possible ways to commit rape is not needed to understand what rape is, and doesnt further the understanding or knowledge of what rape itself is. All it does is a list a potentially unending list of ways the crime is commited. I think Rape in Wartime is worthy of inclusion, or a link from the main topic page for rape. As is, the page adds little. Just examine this talk page. First entry inculding child support opinions relative to rape?? --Nihilistic Misanthrope 11:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there is nothing this article adds on its own and I beleive it should be merged with wiki rape article where it would gain more merit for existing. Also editors might like to view the talk section of the wiki rape article for ideas that might help bringing understanding to the types of rape — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.116.180.102 (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Spousal rape

I tagged this sentence:

possibly because of a lack of social validation that prevents a victim from getting access to support; a problem that domestic violence services combat

with a citation needed tag. Although it may sound logical it still needs a cite, there are a lot of alternatives. For example, it may also be or mostly be because spousal rape is the most traumatic form of rape, since it involves someone you may trust sincerely, love nearly unconditionally and have planned to spend the rest of your life with. The betrayal of such a relationship is likely to be extremeyly traumatic Nil Einne (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

yes spousal rape is traumatic but it is certainly not THE worst form of rape ,gang rape is likely the most traumatic kind . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.108.250 (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Rape as a means of warfare

This section discusses the rapes conducted by German soldiers during World War 2 in great subjectivity (calling "brutal" etc), while remaining totally calm when discussing the - far more numerous - cases of soviet rape of german women. This needs revision for neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.66.51.170 (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Third-party rape reference

I've removed the West Wing reference for this since even the footnote said it was unreliable. Anyone know any good refs on this subject? Olaf Davis | Talk 14:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Judicial Rape

Judicial rape is where someone is punished by ether a legal court, a vigilante court, or a religious court. In many moslem countries a loose or willful woman can be punished by being raped. If a islamic woman offends or insults a man, a sharia court can allow the victims to rape her as punishment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.62.8.253 (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. You are simply making that up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.160.240 (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

actually it is true ,this is practice in black (african) muslim countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.108.250 (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That's hot. Do you have a link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.254.193 (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Second here. The concept 'Judicial rape' may exist, but it's existence in any country or organization will need higher standard of evidence before inclusion. Otherwise it is just editorializing, and wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid. 128.250.0.86 (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Serbian soldiers rape

I have deleted this section, as it seemed the only purpose of it was to villify Serbians. The war was fought from all sides and atrocities commited by all sides. It seems that the article placing Serbian soldiers next to Nazi army is making the connection of equal evils. I would urge you to rewrite the article or leave it out, because it is not done neautrally. Sorry about my english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.229.132 (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Updating college rape section

College rape is a major concern with the growing number of Universities. The information in the "College Rape" section is dated from 1992. I believe it would be beneficial for this section to include updated information, as the statistics could have changed from over a decade ago.

Mngehri (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)mngehri 3/25/09

Statutory rape is not rape

Please remove. --91.11.103.103 (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Legally, it is. Certain persons are determined not to be able to give consent, so intercourse with such people - even if with their agreement - is nonconsensual sex and therefore rape. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because states treat it in courts as it were nonconsensual doesn't mean that it is nonconsensual. Calling it rape in some states' laws doesn't make it rape. According to the widely accepted definition of rape, statutory rape isn't rape. Rape seeds aren't rape either! --91.11.108.35 (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"states"? This is the English language Wikipedia - it isn't the US wikipedia, and while some States may have different definitions there are some other countries such as the UK, Australia, Ireland, Canada, South Africa and others who do have a form of statutory rape (even if described differently) on the lawbooks. I suggest that you look into the article Statutory rape, and see how you might better summarise it in the Types of rape section. In any event, Statutory rape exists as an offense in most of the English speaking nations and likely the majority of other language law cultures. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As you said, it is not called "statutory rape" in most jurisdictions. "Statutory rape" is described as follows by Wikipedia: "consensual sexual relations that occur when one participant [...]" Rape is defined as: "an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with or sexual penetration of another person without that person's consent." Per this two definitions statutory rape cannot even be rape! There is a plant called "rape" too. But it isn't rape either. --91.11.48.230 (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove the statutory rape section again, unless you have consensus to do so. The section is long standing, and links to the main article Statutory rape. If you wish to delete the Statutory rape article, then you should start an AfD discussion - and only when that article is deleted should you remove the section in this article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, nobody mentioned AfD before you did. Have you even read what I wrote here? I will repeat it for you: According to the definitions in Wikipedia of the terms "Statutory rape" and "rape", statutory rape isn't a type of rape. This article contains a listing of types of rape. Therefore "Statutory rape" doesn't belong there. We have 2 kinds of alternatives now: 1.) One or both of the definitions of the terms mentioned are wrong. Then we should of course correct the false definition(s). 2.) The other possibility is, and I think this is the one we have now, is that the definitions are right. Then, we should of course not list "Statutory rape" as a type of rape. --91.11.47.63 (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

For the purposes of the encyclopedia, statutory rape is here as a search parameter - people would question why it is not included, and would likely ensure that it is. However, nothing you have said - other than your interpretation of what Wikipedia (which is not considered a WP:Reliable source) - is evidence that statutory rape is not a type of rape. Unless you can provide reliable sources that determines rape as sexual assault or coercion only, and nothing to do with the giving of informed consent, then the existing consensus is that statutory rape stays in this article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The reliable sources you are requesting are the same for the sentences in the article "Rape" that say that it involves coercion. You are wrong by implying that this is a disambiguation page. Just by looking at the title one can see: this is not a disambiguation page of "rape". Then the title would be "Rape (disambiguation). Please cite reliable sources that "Statutory rape" is a type of rape. Until then, we should remove the paragraph. --91.11.121.133 (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The existing consensus, indicated by the fact that the section appears here, is that it is appropriate; thus it is your responsibility to provide the sources that indicate that statutory rape (non consensual sex) is not rape - you are only focusing upon the coercion aspect. A further matter for you to ponder upon, the matter of consent is mostly concerned with the age of one or more of the individuals. There is a very strong policy at WP regarding anyone who seems to be advocating, or arguing about the legal aspects, of sex between adults and persons below the age of legal consent (coercive or not). Unless you can provide the reliable, third party, references that non coercive sex involving persons below the age of consent is not rape, then I suggest you withdraw from this discussion and allow the existing consensus to stand. I have been quite patient, but I am not prepared to discuss this further without any evidence other than your interpretation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You mentioned a Wikipedia policy regarding sex between adults and persons below the age of consent. I cannot find this policy. Can you provide a link? --91.11.119.208 (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I shall do so over the weekend, but in the meantime I will point you to this discussion relating to much the same viewpoint. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) There was a request for a third opinion on this, but LessHeard is absolutely right. Statutory rape is a type of rape, and it should be included in the article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a link to the 30? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

How did you come to this conclusion, HelloAnnyong? So you think that a 17 year old boy having sexual contact with a 18 year old girl is rape? This sounds like playing down the horrendous crime that actual rape is. This is diluting the meaning of the word "rape". "Oh, you were raped? That means you had sex before your 18th birthday, if I recall that Wikipedia article correctly? Sounds like fun." --91.11.107.150 (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I really strongly suggest that you concentrate yourself to the projects determination of this matter, rather than challenge individual editors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing bogus "one in four" study

It's the statistic that won't die; but the study concluded "one in four" women had been "raped" by stretching the definition of "rape" well beyond what most people would consider rape.

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html

Koss and her colleagues counted as victims of rape any respondent who answered "yes" to the question "Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?" That opened the door wide to regarding as a rape victim anyone who regretted her liaison of the previous night. If your date mixes a pitcher of margaritas and encourages you to drink with him and you accept a drink, have you been "administered" an intoxicant, and has your judgment been impaired? Certainly, if you pass out and are molested, one would call it rape. But if you drink and, while intoxicated, engage in sex that you later come to regret, have you been raped? Koss does not address these questions specifically, she merely counts your date as a rapist and you as a rape statistic if you drank with your date and regret having had sex with him. As Gilbert points out, the question, as Koss posed it, is far too ambiguous...Koss now concedes that question eight was badly worded. Indeed, she told the Blade reporters, "At the time I viewed the question as legal; I now concede that it's ambiguous." That concession should have been followed by the admission that her survey may be inaccurate by a factor of two: for, as Koss herself told the Blade, once you remove the positive responses to question eight, the finding that one in four college women is a victim of rape or attempted rape drops to one in nine.

The author of the quote above is Christina Hoff Sommers; so I know that the ad hominems will soon be flying.Shrikeangel (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Prison rape

Some new information was added without any sources and has been removed multiple times. I added a fact tag rather than removing the info again. One of the two IPs that have added the info has added three sources. I do not believe any of these sources actually verify the information.

1. This newspaper article discusses rape and that rape is a crime of opportunity but it does not discuss rape within the prison community.
2. This is specifically about date rape with no mention of prison at all
3. Once again, the final added source is about rape in the general community not about prison rape.
4. The other source on the section that has been there for a while does discuss prison rape. It does not discuss the new information that has been added to the section.

I will remove all 3 sources and add fact tags to the section and if no sources are found in a couple of days remove the new information. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse you, but you aren't the sole judge as to what constitutes a good enough source. What I added doesn't even NEED a source to begin with, but since you insisted, I went ahead and found one. Are you seriously telling me that I have to PROVE that prison rapists aren't always gay? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. That's why Wikipedia always has and always will be trash. I'm so tired of coming on here and seeing gay bashing in so many articles. Go to the pages about black people and tell me if there's a criticism section. Gay people are human beings, and you all just continue to trample all over them. They aren't rapists, or child molesters, or horrible murders who wanna steal your children or "turn" prisoners gay. Get the fuck over yourself. I'm going to continue with the sources that I find appropriate. 174.58.137.241 (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks. I found my way here through the request for a third opinion. As such, I don't claim any special understanding of the subject being discussed. I'm just here to offer an uninvolved opinion.

Can I start off by asking that all parties observe WP:CIV and make an effort to participate in a respectful and considerate way, and avoid profane and offensive language.

I'll also note that the section under discussion Types_of_rape#Prison_rape was reasonably stable until quite recently. Can I suggest that a great way for 174.58.137.241 to show good faith would be to revert to the previously stable version while we discuss the edits in question? Apart from that, I recommend that no changes be made to that section until the issue is resolved.

So, with that preface, it seems that the dispute revolves around three related but separate facts;

1. that prison rape is a crime of opportunity
2. that prison rape is not necessarily for sexual gratification
3. that prison rapists (as opposed to prison rape) are not necessarily homosexual

.Furthermore, the dispute centres on;

1. whether these facts should be included
2. whether they need to referenced if they are included and
3. whether the references provided to date are adequate

Before I comment further, can I ask each of you to confirm that my understanding of the dispute is correct? cheers Thepm (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That all sounds right. FYI, I'm using a cellular modem so my IP will probably change several times. 75.253.61.173 (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

From my standpoint I would say that you summary is mostly accurate. I disagree with your second point #1 in a minor way. I do not have any concerns with the proposed addition at all as long as it is sourced to reliable sources that actually discuss the information in the proposed addition. In my opinion, the sources that have been added do not verify the addition since none of them discuss rape in a prison setting. I do not believe we can extrapolate that the information is applicable to the prison setting. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You are being too critical. It doesn't have to specifically talk about rape in a prison setting. Rape is rape, no matter where it happens. My sources put together can reasonably support what I added. Imagine75 (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That is the basis of our disagreement and that is why I asked for a third opinion and we should let that happen. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

It appears that there is no argument that the facts posited are irrelevant, rather the dispute is whether these facts need to be adequately referenced and/or whether the references provided are suitable. By way of preface, I'll note that we are talking about the section Prison Rape and therefore should discuss how prison rape is distinctive from other types of rape. Facts that apply to rape in general should not be included. GB Fan notes that there are 4 references available. I agree with GB Fan's assessment that the first three of these do not appear to address the specific facts that have been presented. On the other hand, the fourth reference does specifically address the question of sexual orientation of the perpetrator, stating explicitly that "the myth of the "homosexual predator" is groundless." That article has an entire section devoted to discussing the sexual orientation of the perpetrator. Based on this, I think the proposition that "prison rapists are not necessarily homosexual" is well referenced and should be included. As for the other two facts, my initial view of the proposition "that prison rape is not necessarily for sexual gratification" is that this is true of rape in general and I'm not sure that it is a distinguishing feature of prison rape specifically. The rape page itself mentions several motivations for the act and indeed there is an entire page devoted to the various motivations for rape. To me, this eliminates the need to include the statement "that prison rape is not necessarily for sexual gratification". As for rape being a crime of opportunity, it appears that this is sometimes (though not always) true of rape in general. By this I mean that some rapes (whether in prison or not) are planned in advance and are therefore not crimes of opportunity. The reference noted above actually seems to contradict the idea that prison rape specifically is a crime of opportunity, stating that "most sexual abuse in prison is not between total strangers" and suggesting that there is often a "long period of harassment" prior to the rape. I guess (without having done the research) that it's possible that the majority of prison rapes are crimes of opportunity and that this distinguishes prison rape from other sorts of rapes, but this would go against the existing reference and would need to be well supported before being included. Furthermore, any reference for this would need to specifically contrast prison rape with other rape. That's my opinion, I hope it helps! Thepm (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)—Thepm (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The added references don't support the statements. #1 doesn't seem to have anything to do with rape, and #2 and #3 do support that rape is not necessarily related to sexual gratification, but don't relate to prison rape. That is, even if "prison rape" is worth a separate section as a "type of rape". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources should be provided for: "This phenomenon is much less common elsewhere in the western world. This is partly because of the differences in the structure of the prison system in the US as compared to the prison systems in Canada, Australia and Europe." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:4E00:3A:48B2:80ED:2D69:E68D (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch

A Human Rights Watch reference has been marked as "unreliable source". Is this the consensus view of that organisation? Thepm (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit to Prison Rape Section

I've made some edits to the 'Prison Rape' section. I've removed unsubstantiated or irrelevant statements and added a couple of additional references. Thepm (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the new version reads better than the old version. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Muslim Neighborhood

Is it essential to say that there are Muslim neighborhoods in France? I mean in the footnote article theres nothing which shows a corelation of rapes and that there are also muslims living. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.55.26.8 (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Deceit rape

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/07/201072191017847251.html This article talks about "Deceit rape", I´m thinking of adding it to the article. Thoughts, anyone? "An Arab living in Israel has been sentenced to 18 months in prison for having consensual sex with an Israeli woman who apparently believed he was Jewish. Sabbar Kashur was sentenced on Monday after being convicted of "rape by deception"."

"Similar laws have been controversial in other countries, as well. A man in the United States was convicted in 2007 of impersonating his brother in order to have sex with his girlfriend. That conviction was overturned on appeal, though, after an appellate court ruled that rape laws apply only to non-consensual sex."Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Another source: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/07/21/israel.rape.by.deception/index.html?hpt=T2 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

War Rape Section is Bias

The examples given of war rape are bias, and likely to not represent the true extent of the use of rape as a weapon of violence and vengeance during war. There are documented cases of war rapes and atrocities on a larger scale than those mentioned in Rwanda and Nanjing, however, these are not given as examples. Rape during and after world war 1 and world war 2 was widespread and perpetrated by all sides including post-war occupying forces. This article, although an overview of the types of rape, is suggesting a bias by specifically mentioning the Japanese rape of Nanjing while not mentioning the rape of Eastern European women by advancing German and Soviet soldiers, nor the rape of German, Austrian, Hungarian, Italian and women in other former ' axis' countries by the advancing soviet and Allied troops. Including the extent to which rape was condoned and even promulgated by post war occupying forces.

I understand this is an overview of rape types, however, the section on war rape should contain less bias, as it glosses over the extent to which rape has been use throughout history as a weapon of war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.75.14.246 (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of text

An IP earlier today removed:

According to the testimony of numerous victims, local women who stray from traditional Islamic conduct in neighborhoods comprising mainly Muslim immigrants, such as western dress.

from the France sub-section of the gang rape section. The IP did not specify why they removed the text and it was reinserted. When I saw the removal I did not revert because the text is not a sentence as the clarify tag implies. It has been tagged as needing more information for 3 months and no one has fixed it. There is no citation to use to fix the fragment. I see no reason for the text to remain in the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ 13:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The ip should have noted that it was removing content per the template, and indeed you may also remove the content noting that rationale now, and it would not be a problem. However, this article has a lot of one off or irregular edits where editors, ip's especially, seek to include or exclude content according to personal interests or agenda's - witness one editor recently who wanted to detail Soviet atrocities directed at German women at the end of WW2 - and removal of blocks of text, with or without templates, need be explained if they do not wish to be reverted.

Per my edit summary, the Bold removal of content was Reverted by me and we are now having this Discussion - I think you have made a case for the removal to be appropriate, so do so if you desire, pending a grammatical rewrite. It is how WP:BRD is supposed to work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I have undone the edit reinserting it so other editors can follow it and I referenced this conversation in the edit summary. Agree, the IP should have specified why they were removing the text. I still don't know why they removed it, but the above is my best guess. I witnessed the IP wanting to put the Soviet example in the article and I removed it twice. Next time if I see a unexplained removal that I agree with, I will probably do a dummy edit to explain my rationale. ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Gang rape

Claiming "race is a serious factor for gang rape" based on one news story in one country is a gross over-reach. I wouldn't consider that a sufficiently reliable source for such a strong statement - if a scholarly publication exists to support this, then it's possible to integrate it. I've reverted, as has LessHeard VanU. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is called "Types of rape". Unless it is contended, with reliable sources to reference it, that "(Racial group) gang rape" differs from generic gang rape, then this article is an inappropriate vehicle for such content. As "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources" and the potential for defamation for including such material on the basis of one source, it may require consensus to add it to the encyclopedia in any event. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I just removed the same statement and source from the newly created Gang rape. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed. I have been reviewing this matter of gang rape, and wonder if the South African and French sub-sections should also be removed - again, these are possible coatracks by which certain sections of certain societies are being focussed upon, and nothing to do with types of rape. However, to remove the SA/French subsections may require a RfC to get consensus as they are of fairly long standing. As for our edit warring friend, I wonder if a report to the 3RR board might be best? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The gang rape article looks OK on cursory inspection bar that one bit which I've already removed. He's at 3 reverts for now, one more and it's a clear 3RR violation that should be reported (I don't know if there's been an edit after your warning, there hasn't been one after mine). This certainly doesn't seem the type of article to discuss specific societal or racial claims about the topic, it's also unclear to me whether it should be discussed at the main - certainly not without scholarly references rather than a news article.

Your comment about France and South Africa seems solid to me, it's not like "French/African rape" exists. This page at best would/could/should discuss incidence at most, that's it. The scholarly sources seem OK but the news sources should probably go (even though I think I edited the French section at some point). The mention of the US in the middle of the ostensible "South Africa" section seems particularly problematic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Per this discussion I have removed the South Africa and France sub sections from Gang Rape and also removed much of the Child Rape content, all on the grounds that the article is about types of rape. All sourced content may be placed in more appropriate articles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Bush rape

Being not native to English, I was wondering what was the *opposite* of date rape, that is, a rape where rapist is unknown to victim. I call it bush rape in my language, but I suppose this might not be the right term in English. Could someone improve the article - or at least answer here if there is any valid term. --193.64.14.2 (talk) 06:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The term for that is "stranger rape." "Bush rape" connotes the years 2000-2008. :-) 24.177.120.138 (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

acquaintance rape

I've removed the text "a form of acquaintance rape" from the date rape section. Is there any consensus to create a new section for that superclass? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

article outline and contents

I've removed the "not manual of style" drive-by banner since there was no talk page actions to support it. However, I'm opening this section since I think that the article is currently unfocused and could use a re-structure. I'd like to see consensus on

1. What subcategories are worthy of inclusion
2. How they are sorted on the page
3. What material should be in each section.

Personally I'd propose

1. Limit to a few (larger) categories
2. Sorted by prevalence
3. Link to main article, one/two sentence definition, one/two sentence on prevalence, both in first paragraph, second paragraph with succinct summary of main article.

Thanks for listening,
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Corrective rape

I'm currently working on updating the page on corrective rape and think that it deserves to be a topic on the page. The edited page will be live soon; please let me know if you have any suggestions or concerns. Rachelpop- (talk) 05:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

edit: I see that it is listed under "Anger rape." I do not agree with this connection and would like to remove it. Rachelpop- (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I just cut out the section you added; though the length of the corrective rape article indicates this is a notable topic, the sources used simply didn't verify the text they were attached to on this page. I have no issue with the material being sourced, so long as the attached sources are accurately summarized without any original research. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Gender Neutral

I would like to make some small changes to help this article sound more gender neutral. Consistently, this article assumes all rape scenarios are male-female, even though the introduction states that this is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremyburkhart (talk • contribs) 16:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sleep rape

Do the editors here think this might be an appropriate merger target for Sleep rape? It currently has a lot of problems, but is probably a worthwhile topic that readers might search for. WilyD 05:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Types of rape

Kinda missing the obvious one, people who just want to get laid that desperately! xD 101.98.153.99 (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Iraq rape - what the usa did to Iraq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.19.84 (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC) \

What about honor rape? I've heard the term used before, I think it happens in the middle east the most often. The snare (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

'long-term psychological trauma' only for this type?

In the section 'rape of children', mentioning '... and can result in serious and long-term psychological trauma' for one specific form seems to suggest that this is unique to incest, or at least far more so for that type. I doubt that that is the case, though I can't access the source, so I'd like to suggest it for deletion (or moving to a more general section). Mverleg (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Bestiality a type of rape?

Does the term 'rape' for this article only refer to acts for which the victim is human, or would bestiality be an accurately described here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.206.177 (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Prison Rape Odd Statement

"This phenomenon is much less common elsewhere in the western world. This is partly because of the differences in the structure of the prison system in the US as compared to the prison systems in Canada, Australia and Europe"

Where is this taken from (there is no source), and what exactly are the structural differences that make prison rape much more common in the U.S.?

24.193.117.225 (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Groth typology should come out

I think the Groth typology should come out of the article -- it's useful information, but it's really more about "types of rapists' motivations" rather than types of rape, which is the article topic. I may check later to see if that material could be moved somewhere else, or it is already appears elsewhere and therefore can be deleted without WP losing anything -- or somebody else could check, if anyone's interested. Just flagging here that I may remove it at some point, if nobody else does it, or makes a good argument for why it should stay. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your characterization of the Groth typology, I call on Legitimus, who is very familiar with Groth and can give a good assessment of whether or not to remove it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

My opinion: From what I know of the typology, it should stay in some way. While I understand your point, I don't entirely agree with your distinguishing "types of rape" from "types of rapists' motivations" in the case of the Groth typology. Flyer22 (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a new article to me, so I don't know the history of it and am catching up. What I will say is technically, Sue is semi-correct; Groth's work is "types of rapist", rather than the other headings which appear to describe actus reas. I have to say, it does not seem to fit. Though I would not so much delete as move it, perhaps under a sub-heading.

Also, while Groth's model is very popular, it's a little old and not the only one. The more recent Holmes textbook on criminal profiling favors the work of Knight and Prensky which divides rapists into four categories: power-reassurance, anger-retaliation, exploitative (power-assertive), and sadistic. There are obvious cross-overs between these models but I feel the Knight/Prensky model is more complete.Legitimus (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks -- that's helpful. I'm going to leave it for now and maybe move it or restructure it (and possibly add in Knight/Prensky) sometime in the future, unless someone else does it first :) Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: I renamed and downsized the section (followup edit here) because there now exists a Types of rapist article, which was created by Yev Yev a month after this discussion. That article mostly copied the section in question. Yev Yev is a very problematic banned editor (who continues to WP:Sock when he can) and I usually have his articles deleted per WP:G5, but I'll let this one stand since it can be beneficial. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Payback rape

This section is currently limited to raping a woman to shame her relatives.

But what about other types of payback? Such as raping your rapist, or raping someone who fired you, and other such sorts?

Should these go in this section, or should we create a new one titled Revenge Rape? Artheartsoul1 (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Corrective Rape

1. The article on Corrective rape mentions that Homophobic rape would be a more accurate term. (Though this sometimes excludes rape of people who don't follow traditional gendernorms--they don't have to believe a masculine woman is butch to "correct her".)

2. While correction is certainly a motivation, how different is it from punishment? Is raping an LGBT person as much a correction as punishment?

Is this different (outside of homophobic/gendernorming justifying by the rapist) from Punishment rape (which isn't in the article), such as raping a child or spouse for "bad behavior" or raping someone for how they dress? (Skimpy clothing, Muslim wear, etc.) Artheartsoul1 (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Types of rape. 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/20081001193848/http://www.ru.ac.za/academic/graduation/addresses_and_citations/2005/Judge_Pillay_citation.doc to http://www.ru.ac.za/academic/graduation/addresses_and_citations/2005/Judge_Pillay_citation.doc

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

UCSF Foundations 2 2019, Group 7a goals

This article is a Class S article that is still developing. Our group plans to improve this article by adding additional citations from reliable sources for verification and clarification. We also aim to expand on Spousal Rape, providing a better summary of the sub-topic.

Ashleyher (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Jacklyn Ang's Review for UCSF Foundations 2 2019, Group 7a goals

•Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

Overall, only one header (spousal rape) was edited from the group. Compared to the previous article, the group did substantially improve the paragraph.

•Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify…

Yes, hyperlinks and citations are appropriately implemented in the article. Domestic violence and sexual abuse were hyperlinked for further reference. A citation was reused (#10 from references) to support another neutral point regarding spousal rape. Sentences were added to talk more about spousal rape. Overall, format of the article stayed consistent, and the content is relevant to its header.

• Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

The overall goals were broad (it didn't specify the paragraph(s) to be edited), so overall improvement has not been met yet because the edits were only based on one header (spousal rape). There has been additional citations for verification and clarification, but the article itself can be improved more since it is an undeveloped article (class S).

To improve the article more, I recommend providing statistics when these types of rape occurred if possible. Then, further explain that these statistics were not accurate since not every victim has came out with the truth. I would also like to see examples (maybe use celebrity news?) to emphasize these types of rape happens to everyone, no matter who they are.

Jacklyn.Ang (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Matt's Review

Part 1: The article was substantially edited as the section on spousal rape was almost completely written. Group 7a's goals were partly met. Citations and references were not found to be added anywhere in the article to provide verification/clarification aside from their own section on spousal rape. However, the spousal rape section was substantially elaborated upon which accomplished their goal.
Part 2: The article maintained a neutral point of view. However, the source used in the spousal rape section was a primary source as it was a study which could be improved by citing a review instead. Maludino (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Colette's Review of UCSF Foundations 2 2019, Group 7a Goals

Goal 1. Additional citations were not yet added outside of the "Spousal Rape" sub-section.
Goal 2. A significant amount of relevant information was added to substantially improve the "Spousal Rape" sub-section.
Overall, the section-specific goal was achieved. However, further revision of citations would be beneficial.
Although a citation was included in the added points, it should be noted that it is a primary source. A secondary source would provide better credibility to the information added.

Cpktruong (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Emily's Review to UCSF Foundations II 2019, Group 7A

The group met their goal of expanding the spousal rape section. I think they did provide substantial improvement to the overall article. However, they have not yet met their goal of adding additional citations, except for the one citation they used for the spousal rape section.
No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation was found.
Emilyplasencia (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Rape

Mention and explain the type of rape 2C0F:2A80:B9:7C10:303C:A140:D09B:6F7F (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)