Talk:Rape culture/Archive1

Distrust
There is something I'd like to add, but i'm not sure how to word it. When you go into a police station to report a rape, you are treated with a sense of "distrust" (?) that you are likely as not lying, or that at least you were culpable in your own rape - in a way that i don't see when you report a mugging, or someone breaking into your house - which isn't just blaming the victim, it's the whole idea that either rape is "kinda whatever a crime", or that we are all just lying bitches. not sure which. Secondly, when you go into the hospital no one looks at you, talks to you, calls you by name. you are "the victim", and you are a vagina with dna evidence in you. Part of it is to protect the sanity of nurses and doctors, i'm sure. but it feels very different than when you were hit by a drunk driver or mugged, and still have to have some tests done. Those are both very much part of "rape culture", but i don't knwo how to talk about them dispassionately. --Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans  20:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How about "dehumanization"? --Seth Peck (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a major issue & definitely worth including, with appropriate citations. Search "second rape" (how police treatment of rape victims has sometimes been described) & you'll find quite a lot on the subject.  This report is relevant: .  20:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (What i wanted to say was, "the reporting and exam made me feel worse than being raped". Sethpeck hit the nail on the head - dehumanizing. thanks i'll add the report and do some research.--[[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot  She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans  22:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This seems remarkably unskeptical.....
... and has some very odd notions in it as well. Emergency room staff talk of "DNA evidence in the vagina", and "make sure to photograph all the bruises on the victim", in a way that removes the person raped, from the exam. If you're arguing that rape is underprosecuted, it seems quite odd to demonize ER staff for taking steps to preserve vital physical evidence of the identity of the perpetrator and of lack of consent. In any legal proceeding, the identity of the perpetrator and the fact of lack of consent are likely to be issues. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * there are very good reasons for the ER staff to be somewhat disconnected emotionally. Its not their job to console a 'victim' but it is their job to document and testify to that in court if needed.
 * the same applies to the police. There are probably more false allegations made so they need to be skeptical, rape is also a difficult thing to prove. When I worked a crisis phone line we got a fairly large number of young women who wanted to know if they had been raped. This ranged from "I was so drunk", "I didn't really want to but he's my boyfriend and I want to keep him", to "he punched me in the face and then...". It is sometimes the case that a rape allegation is made when the teenage girls parents are awake when she gets home and notice her sweater is on inside out. I have never had a woman on a date strip her clothes off and say "nail me big boy" while winking, licking her lips and wiggling her ass.  Hamster (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Rational wiki my ass
Yet another biased and unskeptical article that swallows feminist propaganda without questioning any of it's tenants, why not just call yourself liberalpedia? Frankly I have no more interest in reading a website full of liberal propaganda than one full of conservative propaganda. At least your arch-nemesis is honest about his website. 09:11, 26 October 2013‎
 * We're likely to take note of the uneducated poltroon that you appear to be?
 * "tenant: One that pays rent to use or occupy land, a building, or other property owned by another."
 * Could you possibly mean "tenet: a belief, opinion, or dogma"?
 * also:
 * "nemesis: A source of harm or ruin" "arch-: chief, highest, most extreme"
 * Assuming that you mean Mr Schlafly, I don't think so, the only thing he is likely to harm or ruin is himself.
 * Scream!! (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a very, very poor answer. Obviously, OP means "tenets"; like myself, he is most likely not a native English speaker. Had you wished to contribute with anything more than sarcasm, you would just have assumed that and answered his points rather than completely avoiding them and focusing on a spelling mistake.


 * 90.205.234.107, I see quite a few accusations in your comments but I can't spot any argument. What is it about this article that you find unskeptical? What is it about it about it that you find biased? Etc. Without arguments to back it up, your criticism is both empty and useless. Kamizushi (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't answer for 90.205.234.107, but the article reads *extraordinarily* biased, unscientific, full of value-judgements, and over-emotional. It's quite similar in style to how evolution is described on Conservapedia. It is quite obviously written by someone who is deeply involved in the more "religious" branches of gender studies and who has an axe to grind. I have little opinion one way or the other on the topic, but completely agree with 90.205.234.107 that RationalWiki seems anything *but* rational on the matter.
 * Cool story, bro. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 20:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

A youtube video
I see the amazing athiest's latest vlog seems to focus on this article. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KQQ1bzQn0k Ydam (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

While I disagree with much of what he says, reading this article I did find that there was a lack of interest for rapes where men are victims or where women are perpetrators. I think it's a very important aspect of the rape culture and it's unfortunate that and article about it would focus almost exclusively on men to women rapes and prison rapes. I will mention it in the article but I encourage others who might know more than I do to elaborate. Kamizushi (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I should point out that according to footnote 7: http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/SV-DataSheet-a.pdf the same number of men and women are sexually assaulted every year. A Real Libertarian (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What I got when I clicked that link was a very nicely layed out PDF with zalgotext for content. Ikanreed (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

What rape culture involves
ADeadKennedy's changed wording pretty seriously altered the meaning of the first paragraph of this section, which refers to a specific and common response to reports of rape. The changes also didn't really seem to have much to do with the source referenced. I changed it back, though I did change the sentence structure of the first sentence to make it flow better.Dowdicus (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see very much change in meaning between the two versions (link). It just looks like a rearrangement of the same words & phrases.

The Male Issue.
OK, the CDC says that the same number of men and women are raped/forced to penetrate in the past 12 months (1.1%, page 18-19).

http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

So should this be in the article?

And the CDC says that more men experience domestic violence in the past 12 months (4.7% vs. 4.0%, page 38).

Should that be in the article? A Real Libertarian (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Those statistics don't necessarily demonstrate anything conclusive about rape culture, which is the subject of this article. They cetainly don't prove the thing about blaming the victim as "wanting it" that you keep trying to add. You also seem determined to lie about the numibers of men raped according to the report (1.4% during their lifetime, too few to quantify in the past 12 months) & replace them with numbers forced to penetrate while still claiming these as numbers raped.You might consider the two things to be equivalent or synonymous, but the report clearly doesn't as it provides separate figures for each. When you swap them about to fit your own agenda while citing the report as if that's what it says, you're being dishonest. 00:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "You might consider the two things to be equivalent or synonymous" As of recently they are:http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-06/fbi-rape-definition-adds-men/52398350/1
 * Or are you arguing that men weren't raped because at the time it wasn't called rape? Because that line of argument seems pretty close to "There were no homosexuals before the 19th Century because that's when the word was invented" for my tastes.
 * And I'm pretty sure that most people who say men can't be raped say "he obviously wanted it" as their reasoning.
 * Why are you arguing "forced to penetrate isn't rape" if that isn't the reason? A Real Libertarian (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As of recently, what? The article you cited states that the FBI definition of rape (which isn't the only definition, BTW) is now "any kind of penetration of another person, regardless of gender, without the victim's consent". It doesn't say anything about being forced to penetrate also being defined as rape. When I checked the FBI regulation wording on Wikipedia, it suggested the same thing: non-consensual penetration of another person, not forcing another person to penetrate oneself. The rest of your comment makes even less sense. Just false analogies & bare asumptions. 01:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So why are you saying "forced to penetrate isn't rape"? A Real Libertarian (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the relevance of your complaint. Yes, men do occasionally get raped, but they aren't stigmatized for it the way women often are. Rape culture is an issue of societal power imbalance between men and women, and it's something both men and women need to be aware of, because both genders perpetuate it to some extent. (In fact, one of the big things that separate radfems from the rest of feminism is disagreement over whether willing participation in sex work and other occupations that appear to be exploitative perpetuates rape culture or not. Radfems say yes; everyone else says "it depends".) EVDebs (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Men are raped at the same rate as women, if you disagree, explain why "forced to penetrate" isn't rape, please.
 * Men are stigmatized for being raped to the point where they're erased from popular consciousness.
 * The big power imbalance is that one gender is specifically an acceptable target, one gender is believed by a very large part of the public to be incapable of being a rape victim, one gender is nearly incapable of reporting the crime without being insulted and shamed by the cops, one gender can be mocked to their face about being raped on national TV without the show being cancelled in an atomic shitstorm of bad publicity. Which gender is that, do you think?
 * All this is leaving aside domestic violence, do you have any thoughts on that issue? A Real Libertarian (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Men aren't raped at the same rate as women. Check those statistics again. You've claimed that the CDC & FBI define rape of men in ways which they demonstrably don't. & Your assertion that men can't report sex crimes against them without being mocked isn't backed up by anything more than bare assertion. 03:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Men are raped at the same rate as women 1.1% vs. 1.1%, if you disagree, explain why "forced to penetrate" isn't rape, please.
 * P.S. Comment 164, mudpuddles: http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/09/04/the-startling-facts-on-female-sexual-aggression/, Lil Wayne on Jimmy Kimmel A Real Libertarian (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Men are not raped at the same rate as women. Please actually read the figures you keep citing & you'll see that figures for rapes of men are actually provided & are way lower than you claim: 1.4% in their lifetine. "Forced to penetrate" is listed in an "other sexual violence" category, not classed as rape. Lots of non-consensual sexual acts are considered as sexual offences or assaults without being classed as rape, definitions of which vary by jurisdiction but generally mean non-consensual penetration of another person (as, for example, in that FBI definition which you thought was saying something that it actually wasn't).  03:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So it's not legitimate rape? Where have I heard that before? Oh, right "How forms of rape that don't conform to a (deeply offensive and sexist) specific set of standards aren't as important as those that do. That is, if the rape doesn't involve male stranger(s) on younger female victim penile-vaginal penetration with a large degree of force, then it's not "real rape" and can be downplayed or apologized for as necessary." This article http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rape_culture#What_rape_culture_involves.
 * The only difference is it's female on male. 1.1% of American women were raped in the past 12 months and 1.1% of American men were "forced to penetrate" in the past 12 months. The only difference is who is the perpetrator and who is the victim. You can't argue that it's rape when it's male on female, but it isn't rape when it's female on male.
 * P.S. So do you agree that "The big power imbalance is that one gender is specifically an acceptable target, one gender is believed by a very large part of the public to be incapable of being a rape victim, one gender is nearly incapable of reporting the crime without being insulted and shamed by the cops, one gender can be mocked to their face about being raped on national TV without the show being cancelled in an atomic shitstorm of bad publicity."? If not what part(s) do you disagree with?
 * P.P.S. Sorry about that, I read "The new provision will define rape as any kind of penetration of another person, regardless of gender, without the victim's consent." as meaning it's now irrelevant who owns the appendage/object in question, the only thing relevant is who did not give consent. A Real Libertarian (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The first comment in this section by "A real libertarian" states: "the CDC says that the same number of men and women are raped/forced to penetrate in the past 12 months (1.1%, page 18-19)." This is totally incorrect. There is no combined category of "raped/forced to penetrate", although they do break down the categories of "raped" and "forced to penetrate" separately. In fact, the survey states that many more women than men are raped: Quote: "Nearly 1 in 5 women in the United States has been raped in her lifetime (18.3%). this translates to almost 22 million women in the United States." And: "Approximately 1 in 71 men in the United States (1.4%) reported having been raped in his lifetime, which translates to almost 1.6 million men in the United States." How the heck does "A real libertarian" conclude that 22 million women being raped is equal to 1.6 million men? Also, it seems the original poster is making the assumption that females are the perpetrators of the rapes when the opposite is the case. Quote: "Sex of Perpetrator in Lifetime Reports of Sexual Violence: The majority of male rape victims (93.3%) reported only male perpetrators." So, we can conclude that rape of men is overwhelmingly male on male crime. Rape of women is overwhelmingly male on female crime. Also, women were much more likely to be raped by a stranger, and by more than one perpetrator, and victimized once, twice or three times. Whereas most men reported a single incident. Please read the report fully and do not misrepresent the statistics. Thanks. Rape is a gross violation of human rights, whether it be a male victim or a female victim. Refugee talk page 21:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would agree with you, mostly, but I also think you misunderstood the poster a bit, he didn't misrepresent the statistics as much as you think. Nullahnung (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "The first comment in this section by "A real libertarian" states: "the CDC says that the same number of men and women are raped/forced to penetrate in the past 12 months (1.1%, page 18-19)." This is totally incorrect."
 * Actually it's completely correct.
 * Number of women raped in past 12 months according to page 18: Weighted % 1.1, Estimated Number of Victims 1,270,000.
 * Number of men "Made to penetrate" in past 12 months according to page 19: Weighted % 1.1, Estimated Number of Victims 1,267,000.
 * There's also discussion here:http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Forum:Is_RationalWiki_under_the_control_of_Feminist_activists%3F#Rape_and_Domestic_Abuse. And here:http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Forum:Is_RationalWiki_under_the_control_of_Feminist_activists%3F#On_the_characterization_of_feminists_here_and_elsewhere. (I'm further down the page.)A Real Libertarian (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't try to direct me to a discussion on another talk page, there is no way I am wasting any more of my time reading that particular stupid pointless talk page - I already weighed in there early, when I said: "The ratio of female to male editors at Rationalwiki is really low... there are actually very few female editors here, I can only think of 4 that are active: me, Godot, Kels, Proxima." So, unless the 4 of us female editors have "taken over" Rationalwiki (and 3 of us rarely edit) there is no reason to continue such a ridiculous discussion, the question is absurd, and I am not about to continue a discussion from this page to another one. As far as this topic: it's obvious that you have an "axe to grind" and a huge dislike of women, but make your case on facts, not by trying to skew statistics. This article on "rape culture" (which I have never contributed to) is actually an interesting topic, one that makes a person think more about the subject. This wiki already has tons of pages slanted from a male perspective, there's no reason to delete one of the few articles that may actually help men think more about their views on subjects they normally might not spend time contemplating. I really enjoy reading comments by the men here who are able to look at typically "female" topics with an open mind, and heart, and objectively review the information and subjects. Sadly though, it seems as if recently this wiki has seen an influx of rabid, angry women-haters, or perhaps there are just one or two, using multiple names. Peace & love, Refugee talk page 20:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * quote from 'A Real Libertarian':"Number of women raped in past 12 months according to page 18: Weighted % 1.1, Estimated Number of Victims 1,270,000.
 * Number of men "Made to penetrate" in past 12 months according to page 19: Weighted % 1.1, Estimated Number of Victims 1,267,000."
 * Well,
 * These statistics are indeed written like that in the report, he didn't skew them, but whether we should be drawing any kind of conclusions from just that is debatable.
 * And yes, there is no reason to continue the linked discussion, linking it merely shows how it came to some of the things that are talked about on this talk page. Nullahnung (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that was not the original poster's comment. You changed it. On the other hand, I quoted his comment exactly, by going to his comment at the top of this section and copy/pasting it here. I am responding to his comment, not your interpretation of it. He posted, and I quote: "OK, the CDC says that the same number of men and women are raped/forced to penetrate in the past 12 months". There is no category in the CDC report called "raped/forced to penetrate" as the original poster stated. He combined unrelated categories in an attempt to make it look like sexual violence against men and women are equal, which they are not. In the CDC report, there is a category of "Rape" and under a separate category of "Other Sexual Violence" (not under the category of "Rape") is a subgroup called "Made to Penetrate". Note that under the category of "Rape", the report states that: "Nearly 1 in 5 women and 1 in 71 men in the U.S. have been raped at some time in their lives." Does that give you, or anyone, the impression that the same number of men and women are raped? The report breaks it down into two sections: a 12 month period, and a lifetime period. For the 12-month period for females it says: "Estimated Number of Female Victims of Rape in a 12 month period was 1,270,000" and for males: "Too few men reported rape in the 12 months prior to taking the survey to produce a reliable 12 month prevalence estimate." Again, does that give you, or anyone, the impression that the same number of men and women are raped? I'm not going to respond again to any absurd postings further debating this. If anyone is unable to read the report for themselves and to see that far more women are raped than men, it would be a waste of time and energy to further discuss it, and there is nothing more to be said. Refugee talk page 22:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm the one who is agreeing with you on everything you say. YOU need to look more closely at what I'm posting and what he's posting. This is an EXACT QUOTE from him just a few posts up, I DID NOT change anything, it certainly isn't my own interpretation, but the EXACT WORDINGS from him:
 * "Number of women raped in past 12 months according to page 18: Weighted % 1.1, Estimated Number of Victims 1,270,000.
 * Number of men "Made to penetrate" in past 12 months according to page 19: Weighted % 1.1, Estimated Number of Victims 1,267,000."
 * Just look up a few lines and you'll see that I quoted DIRECTLY. I think you are confusing me with someone else or something. Nullahnung (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Made to penetrate" is rape. Look at the definitions on page 17. Notice anything? "Made to penetrate" and rape cover the same things except one will have mostly male victims and one mostly female victims.
 * Frankly this is a perfect example of rape culture. You're arguing that it's rape when it's male on female, but it isn't rape when it's female on male.
 * To me rape is rape, it doesn't matter who is the victim or who is the perpetrator, it's still rape, and you don't get a pass because of your genitals, you don't get told "you have the wrong naughty bits, you wanted it". A Real Libertarian (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're an idiot, you know that? The definitions on page 17 make it clear that rape is defined as forcible or non-consensual penetration of a woman or a man and that "forced to penetrate" means being forced to penetrate, and that these - while both defined as sexual violence - are not the same thing.  The definitions and statistical reports both make it clear that both male & female rape victims are enumerated.  & All this stuff you keep saying about male victims being told "you wanted it" - where is it coming from?  It's not in the CDC report.  Got any other sources for this claim? 02:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is how rape is defined:
 * "Among women, rape includes vaginal, oral, or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It also includes vaginal or anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object.
 * Among men, rape includes oral or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It also includes anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object."
 * This is how "Forced to penetrate" is defined:
 * "Among women, this behavior reflects a female being made to orally penetrate another female’s vagina or anus.
 * Among men, being made to penetrate someone else could have occurred in multiple ways: being made to vaginally penetrate a female using one’s own penis; orally penetrating a female’s vagina or anus; anally penetrating a male or female; or being made to receive oral sex from a male or female. It also includes female perpetrators attempting to force male victims to penetrate them, though it did not happen."
 * You really can't figure out how sexist it is to define "rape" so that it's almost impossible for a female perpetrator to commit "rape" while it's almost impossible for a male perpetrator to not commit "rape"?
 * P.S. If you're not claiming male victims "wanted it" then why are you claiming forcible penetration and "forced to penetrate" are not the same thing? You've dodged this question before. A Real Libertarian (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Forcible penetration and "forced to penetrate" are not the same thing because they are not the same thing. Having another person enter one's body against one's wishes (rape) is generally considered to be pretty much the most invasive & traumatic form of sexual violation, more so than being forced or coerced to perform sex acts, including penetration, on other people.  As a man, it's statistically much less likely to happen to you than to a woman.  If this makes you feel left out or marginalised in some way, then I think you should seriously reconsider your whole approach to the issue, rather than redefine rape just to make out more female perpetrators & male victims, which is what your "it's almost impossible for a female perpetrator" argument boils down to. Nobody other than you has made any claims about male victims "wanting it".  Being made to penetrate is already defined in this report as a form of sexual violence, along with other forms of sexual coercion & unwanted sexual contact.  03:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. "Having another person enter one's body against one's wishes (rape) is generally considered to be pretty much the most invasive & traumatic form of sexual violation," Evidence? You could argue that the sensation of being trapped is just as traumatic so let's get some evidence.
 * 2. "If this makes you feel left out or marginalised in some way, then I think you should seriously reconsider your whole approach to the issue, rather than redefine rape just to make out more female perpetrators & male victims,".
 * If this makes you feel left out or marginalized in some way, then I think you should seriously reconsider your whole approach to the issue, rather than redefine rape just to make out more female victims who have already given consent in their marriage vows.
 * If this makes you feel left out or marginalized in some way, then I think you should seriously reconsider your whole approach to the issue, rather than redefine marriage just to make your sodomy acceptable.
 * If this makes you feel left out or marginalized in some way, then I think you should seriously reconsider your whole approach to the issue, rather than redefine marriage just to make your race-mixing acceptable.
 * Yeah, turns out there's a reason "separate but equal" is bullshit.
 * 3. Every other crime in the report is roughly equal over the past 12 months, except rape and "Made to penetrate". I wonder why? It couldn't happen to be institutionally sexist definitions now could it? A Real Libertarian (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Responding to Nullahnung: I see the very first sentence by "A real libertarian", in this section entitled "The Male Issue" states: "OK, the CDC says that the same number of men and women are raped/forced to penetrate in the past 12 months." That is the comment I am replying to. His first sentence in this section. Now, to "A Real Libertarian" YOU obviously did not read the CDC report, or my comment above where I quoted the report: " "Sex of Perpetrator in Lifetime Reports of Sexual Violence: The majority of male rape victims (93.3%) reported only male perpetrators." So, we can conclude that rape of men is overwhelmingly male on male crime. Women are not raping men in any significant numbers. Stop making unfounded and inaccurate statements and conclusions. Done with you now. Refugee talk page 03:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Personal remarks: A real Libertarian: stupid idiot. Weaseloid: you are still cool. Yay. Refugee talk page 03:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What do I have to post to make you see that I completely agree with you?? I don't know how to say this any clearer: I AM JUST TRYING TO CLEAR UP WHO QUOTED WHAT, BUT MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THE SAME AS YOURS, IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU?? Nullahnung (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Calm yourself, no need to yell, that's exactly what I was doing, clarifying what he posted, and where. I think that's been cleared up now, have a nice day. :-) Refugee talk page 18:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, miscommunication just really irritates me, and I felt misunderstood. I do realize that it's partly my fault to not state my position clearly, but whatever. A nice day to you too. Nullahnung (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "The majority of male rape victims (93.3%) reported only male perpetrators." Due to the sexist definition of rape. A Real Libertarian (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * lol. silly troll. bye. <font color="#000066">Refugee <font color = "#00F0A20">talk page  18:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Mission
What is this for? It's a poorly written screed that debunks what, exactly? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  03:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Human's continuing crusade to piss on everyone else, part 50.  05:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Game of the Year edition. --Revolverman (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously on mission. Deals with fundamentalism in a key way ("forcible,") and media in a real way. <font color="Green">Hipo <font color="Maroon">crite 21:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

What is meant by this?
"Emergency room staff talk of "DNA evidence in the vagina," and "make sure to photograph all the bruises on the victim," in a way which is insensitive to the victim."

How else are you supposed to talk about collecting evidence? How is this insensitive to the victim? How would you phrase it differently if you were emergency room staff?

Clarification appreciated. Nullahnung (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See the first comment at the top of this page. 17:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just seen it. Apparently the problem is that doctors are conditioned not to emote/empathise with their patients. As Godot said, it may be a protective emotional barrier doctors learn to setup. I can find no better explanation either. Nullahnung (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It was added by WfG. I think it's a poor description of an actual phenomenon, and I'm not sure if it can be considered a part of rape culture. The article is poor, anyway.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This article needs a rewrite
At the moment, this is mostly a list. There's a skeleton of an article, but not much meat on the bones. Someone needs to bite the bullet and re-write it as joined-up text, and it would be very nice if that someone is familiar with the topic.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

There are deeper problems with the article related to a cognitive bubble in rape research. The author is clearly writing from a social determinism perspective and glosses over (unskeptically) potential controversy in the nature-nurture debate and how it impacts rape research. It is a common theme among social determinists that culture is subconsciously programming us (is it really that simple?), and the entire notion of "rape culture", while real, becomes the start and end of an analysis that really needs to consider human nature as well. For example, rape (also any sex and violence) is fetishized by popular culture because people find it titillating, including women, and titillation can be translated into attention and money. Most rape is committed by a small portion of young men, of women, and is clearly a way to cheat sexual selection. Thus we should consider seriously the notion that "men hunt" and "women choose" as a broad generalization based in the mechanics of DNA, and a projection onto culture, and not the other way around. Pointing out that rape is about cheating sexual selection -- to young people, women esp. -- is far more useful in identifying and avoiding problematic behavior than blaming institutionalized misogyny. Rapists themselves obviously don't respect women, so preaching to them about misogyny will come across as blah-blah-blah. Rape in the legal system usually boils down to the question of consent, and it is (and will probably always be) very hard to prove that consent wasn't given. This is a terrible state of affairs, and much work needs to be done in the legal system so that victims are treated respectfully; however, a sane legal system must weigh the presumption of innocence appropriately, since (unlike murder) the charge of rape is easy to make, and equally difficult to prove as to disprove. In short, this article only partly satisfies the rational part of rationalwiki. Microbox (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

"Institutionalized"?
Either the word is uses in an unusual way, or the latest edits contradict the way I (and the people I've been reading) understand the term.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What would you change about this word in the article if it were you writing? Please be more specific. Nullahnung (talk) 10:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would avoid "institutionalised" because it's very jargony, and is often the SJW equivalent of throwing big words around to sound more photosynthesis. I prefer the lede in the second edit, though. Scarlet A.png't click here 11:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently "photosynthesis" is now considered jargony. O_O Nullahnung (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with ZooGuard. "Institutionalized" to me implies a consciousness and deliberate use of official capacities. There was institutionalized racism against blacks in the Jim Crows South: People were well aware of the fact that the laws they passed hindered blacks - in fact that was the whole point. That's institutionalized racism. Rape culture IMO mostly feeds on subconscious, internalized sexist attitudes rather than on deliberate, conscious desires to keep rape victims or women down. And of course a whole lot of of rape culture is rooted in people's attitudes and doesn't need to involve social or political institutions at all. I would remove the word from the opening paragraph, and also remove the sub-headline "institutional rape-culture"... that sub-headline makes no sense being the only one in the "What rape culture involves" section anyway. Octo8 (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Man-hating
Apart from being just really badly written (and extremely unskeptical, taking the term rape culture at face value), this article plays a very clear blame-game against men, and even dares to "debunk" the 'not all men' defense, while not ever even mentioning that women might be part of rape culture, or might have responsibility or accountability. As if they're the wise and entirely blameless sages that have swallowed the red pill and now see the Matrix for what it really is. This entire article is disgusting.
 * Cool story, bro. --Revolverman (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I hate men! I loath them!  In fact, I eat male fetuses.  or... something....One tin soldier (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, you are *really* gonna like my "not all men" article, which basically says, because of culture - yes, all men. Won't that be a kick in the rubber parts! One tin soldier (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please make it a general Not all X article, 'cos libertarians are big on this one too (sometimes it's like "libertarian" is a group with no members, just ask one) - David Gerard (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do. I'm trying to remember how to do sandboxes, and I'll draft something - let the world hack at it in there (to remove my vagina bias), and then present it to the wiki. heh. One tin soldier (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (Please ignore the good-for-nothing posts above and address these things I'm about to point out)
 * EC)"Because of the overall sexism in rape culture, men do not get raped. That is, of course they get raped, but because of the way rape victims are seen by society, men who are raped are either ignored or labeled as sissy, or gay, or simply weak, in order to maintain the illusion that "men do not get raped""
 * This bit in the article says how rape culture has male and female victims. Explain to me how that is in any way, shape or form something a man-hating article would have.
 * Also this: "Discussing or admitting that rape culture exists does not mean anyone believes men think rape is somehow a good or valued thing. Nor does it mean that someone is accusing you of being a rapist. Discussing the fact that in America 1/4 of women[15] and some difficult-to-pin-down number of men have been raped or sexually harassed does not mean anyone thinks 1/4 of men have raped someone. But it does mean a culture exists which makes it hard for victims to come forward, to talk, or to heal."
 * This discusses how the blame is not with the men, it is just a problem of society. Explain to me how an article written for blame-gaming men would have this. Nullahnung (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Presumably the part where the rapist is always referred to as male and the victim is always referred to as female.
 * Language matters, if you always see "rapist" as man and "victim" as woman, you're going to react badly when someone who doesn't fit your view of the world comes along. --A Real Libertarian (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would personally suggest you learn to read. "Because of the overall sexism in rape culture, men do not get raped. That is, of course they get raped, but because of the way rape victims are seen by society, men who are raped are either ignored or labeled as sissy, or gay, or simply weak, in order to maintain the illusion that "men do not get raped". And in the same vein, women cannot rape men. Men, society teaches, are always horny, always seeking the next conquest and always ready for sex. So how could they be raped? -- Because of these very attitudes, society is extremely slow to address, much less change, the way male rape victims are treated.[2] [3] The FBI did not even classify male rape as rape until 2012.[4]" Right there we say men are raped, and women can be rapists. But it's easier not to actually read what you are challenging.One tin soldier (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (EC)You just perfectly described one of the main reasons why rape culture is bad. It makes the men out to be the rapists and the women out to be the victims, which is why male rape victims are implicitly shunned (and thus not treated properly) as not fitting in and female rape victims aren't treated properly (crimes white-washed, etc.). Nullahnung (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And for the record, in our introduction, we do not talk about gender anywhere. we say "victim" and "rapist".  In the paragraph about blaming the victim, we say the most "acceptable" (as in, prosecutable) victim is white female virgin.  Then we say male victims are on the lowest level of prosecution.  That is to say, Rational Wiki gets, admits, and addresses male victims.  it is society that does not.One tin soldier (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah-Hem: "Rape culture is a term used to describe the ways in which a society trivializes, rationalizes, and even condones rape and other acts of sexual violence, despite being nominally against rape or classifying the acts as crimes. "Rape culture" includes a variety of issues from the way raped individuals are treated by police to the way rape is portrayed in fiction and the media. Rape culture is steeped in institutionalized misogyny, having at its core cultural features of a society that is defining, politicizing, and ultimately controlling women's bodies. Rape culture, like all other aspects of culture, informs individual behaviors on many levels - often in ways the individual isn't even aware of."
 * For the record, I've rarely seen male victims called "sissy", "gay" or "weak". In my experience it's usually "misogynist", "derailer" or "MRA troll". And "exception", "sister punisher" or "lying male" when the victim is also female.
 * And throwing in a token "men get raped too" doesn't offset the drumbeat of "men rape, women are raped" "men rape, women are raped" that permeates the article. --A Real Libertarian (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The article says that when someone is raped, it's probably a woman (who isn't treated properly), and when it's a man, he isn't treated properly either.
 * So yes, it is statistically the overwhelming case that men rape women, but we should take care not to ignore the other cases, and I think that was done to appropriate proportions in the article. If you disagree, then suggest specific changes maybe?
 * Your experiences online might just be due to the internet being full of assholes as usual, a problem that can be seen in online feminists as well as online whatever-other-movement. Nullahnung (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a token "men get raped too". I have used that language on other pages, in a token way, but here we are really addressing rape culture as one that victimizes male rape victims as much or in ways MORE than it does women.  We make a point to say "How can society deal with raped men, if it doesn't even admit men are raped".  We talk about prison rape.  For what it's worth, and to me it's worth a lot, addressing issues of rape of men, and domestic violence of men came about because of women addressing rape culture and violence in the home, not despite it.  One tin soldier (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The third type of lies is statistics for a reason. Just invent a category of sexual violence called “being made to penetrate” and you make most victims of female rapists disappear.
 * Of course this where Weaseloid comes along and tells the victims their suffering is lesser because they were assaulted by a woman. And Refugee calls me a troll for pointing out the problem. --A Real Libertarian (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "Very clear blame game against men" I don't think you know what "very clear" or "blame game" mean.  The charge is that being caviler about rape has consequences in the minds of actual rapists.  So the blame, with the context of the idea, clearly doesn't fall on all men, and the "NOT ALL MEN" objection you're raising is irrelevant, defensive, and stupid.  Ikanreed (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, let me touch upon the 'Addressing the "not all men" defense'. Why is that even there? Is it because the term rape culture is currently use to only imply that MEN are active participants in and proliferators of rape culture? Why is there no mention of some "not all women" issue? Maybe because it doesn't exist? Here, the section itself has a few nice quotes on it


 * Numbered list item 1. "Unfortunately, discussions about rape culture can make men feel cornered, attacked or defensive." Yep, it seems women aren'r part of it.
 * Numbered list item 2. "Rape culture is not a conscious conspiracy by men to keep women "in their place"." Again, only talks about not really being about men keeping women in their place.
 * Numbered list item 3. "It is not something that men are generally even aware they participate in." See, this line right here shows perfectly what's wrong with the entire article. The existence of rape culture is taken at face value. Where's the "criticism" section? You'd think there'd be one for such a hotly debated issue that has its very existence questioned. Furthermore, the line only speaks of men disliking being shoved into the "rape culture" basket. I guess women either LOVE being in it, or AREN'T in it at all.
 * Numbered list item 4. "Discussing the fact that in America 1/4 of women[15] and some difficult-to-pin-down number of men have been raped or sexually harassed does not mean anyone thinks 1/4 of men have raped someone." Oh look, the one-in-four statistic! I love it how it includes "some difficult-to-pin-down number of men" as being rape victims. With wording like that (A QUARTER OF ALL WOMEN and some men, sure), it's no wonder the public doesn't accept the fact that female-on-male and male-on-male rape is a thing.

Anyway, do I understand that "crime data" is almost useless in the study of rape? No, I do not, because that is simply not true. Not 100% accurate? Sure. But now you have the wonderful job of trying to prove that males have a higher percentage of reported rapes than women. Do you honestly believe that it's easier for a man to come forward and *admit* to being raped, than it is for a woman? I never once said "it's not real if it's not crime reports", I merely compared two of the better studies of crime reports. And while 4-7% might still be shockingly high anyway, it is 4-7% IN BOTH GENDERS. And that is what I am trying to say here. Sincerely, unreported male rape victim.--91.142.139.3 (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's how to fix the article: Reword pretty much 90% of it, add a criticism section, and include actual facts, not hyped-up bullshit. I'd be happy to do it for you, but I have this feeling that all my efforts are going to be taken down for trolling or something.--91.142.139.3 (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The article actually does focus quite a bit on male victims, maybe it could do with more, but I'd vouch for adding more content regarding male victims rather than rewriting it to focus on men specifically --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think it's "hyped-up bullshit", it should be easy to provide a link to a counter statistic, right? Nullahnung (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If the IP brings up the fucking Kanin study I'll weep --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why the hell would I bring up a false rape study in order to back up my point that men raping women (~5% by most studies if you ignore retarded studies that conclude rape victim from questions like "Have you ever had something done to you against your will?") happens about as often as women raping men (4.5%, if you're wondering, counting made to penetrate alone). But it's nice to see that you admit the claim that rape is a problem concerning primarily women and the perpetrators are primarily men.--91.142.139.3 (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, most statistics, as well as my personal experiences, do seem to support that it is primarily female victims, with prison rape being the main outlier in American studies, and that the perpetrators are primarily male, in and out of prison. That said, I do agree that male rape survivors are not fairly represented, and that the marginalisation of male rape victims is a large part of rape culture. As I said, I do think that it would be good to include more coverage of male rape victims, but not by taking the focus away from female rape victims, which would achieve very little. What study are you quoting with ~5% and 4.5%? I believe the one in four statistic includes attempted rape? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not submitting links, am at work, half the internet is blocked off. Will try to link up later on. The one-in-four is a fabrication, an embellishment of the one-in-five report which is itself a more sensationalistic way of rounding off 18.2% result which comes from a trainwreck study that did not depend on actual crime data, but phoning up random women and asking them a series of questions, none of which were clearly about rape. That study was taken at face value by the CDC, which included it in a rape report along with the numbers for woman-rapes-man forced-to-penetrate statistics, themselves obtained from a more credible study. The WRM FTP study does not include attempted rape. The "one-in-four" does, along with whatever else the interviewees considered "forced intimacy" (I think their most forward question used was something along the lines of "have you ever had intimacy forced upon you"; nothing remotely like "have you ever been a victim of rape or attempted rape"). The fact that the 18.2 and 4.5% numbers were included in the same report made it very clear that women were victims in a four-to-one ratio. UK had a pretty good man-rapes-woman study in ~2000, I think, with the conclusion of 5%. As far as rape studies in the western world go, you mostly get numbers between 4 and 7%, with a 55-45 to 51 to 49 split. Yes, women are more often victims. By pretty much nothing. --91.142.139.3 (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you understand that "crime data" is almost useless in the study of rape? I've been raped.  Twice.  Once the stranger rape (got me pregnant too, which is supposedly "rare", but isn't) and once a date rape.  I used to hold myself fully to blame for the second.  I sometimes held myself to blame for the first.  I reported the first, because i was taken to a hosptital.  this was the 80s, and maybe things have changed, but based on how I was treated, i would never, ever report another rape.  Seriously.  I did not report the second, cause again, at the time, i held myself to blame.  I invited him to my dorm and was making out with him, after all.  I've sat on, and as a wise old woman of my 50s, now lead rape survivor groups.  I assure you, the whole "it's not real cause it's not crime reports' is pretty much bullshit.  Many women, especially thsoe raped by people they knew or were dating, and almost all the men survivors we have, never say a thing.  even to their family and friends.  why?  cause we put them down.  dismiss them.  blame them.  proad them.  I say this, not to make personal stories matter, but to explain from personal experience why "crime stats" are uesless in this field, and why studies that actually talk to women and men, get somewhere.One tin soldier (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I respect you for talking openly about your personal experiences with this, I wouldn't be brave enough to do that myself. I've met rape survivors of both genders, including people who were systematically sexually abused over long periods of time, and a relative majority had and have not reported it. One of the biggest reasons why people don't go through the system is due to the stress that the process causes, especially as many rape survivors develop PTSD. I would trust a questionnaire where those asked are not pressured into taking legal action over crime reports, particularly as many children don't understand molestation until adulthood where you feel too far removed from the trauma to go through with legal action. Furthermore, 4%-7% would be shockingly high anyway, if that is the amount that are successfully taken to trial and proven. I've heard all of the arguments for "innocent until proven guilty" and I agree that the person accused should be held to that, but not ever the victim --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The most you talk with people, the more you open up and get them to open up, the more you realize that we live in a world that rapes. It's a sad statement; one no one really wants to say or think about, but it's a real statement.  I think much of the repulsion of "It cannot be 20-25% of women, that's way to high" comes from the fact that we dont' like ourselves as a culture were there is so much sexual abuse.  Our culture is horrible with sex.  we tell girls they "should be pure", yet praise the ones that aren't (at least in the media), so that girls are not very aware of how to own their sexuality.  "am i suppsed to want sex, not want sex?" we should be teaching our kids how to talk about sex, and how to talk to EACHOTHER about sex before they have it.  "what do you like?" "are you ready to start a sexual relationship?" "do you have any fears or hesitations?"  etc.  And we really need to get ride of the old "no means yes" or "a woman will say no at first, but it's your job as a man to push her till she says yes. like a good cassinova" crap.  Start there, and lots of the non-violent rape stops. One tin soldier (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't honestly say that this derailment comes as a surprise.
 * You still haven't contributed any actual figures or studies, just continuously asserted that there are a higher percentage of male victims without them. The fact that you have had multiple users listen to you shows that there is no desire here for derailment, I really wish you would put forward some links or study names now that it's been a few days. I agree that it is a big part of rape culture that male victims feel less comfortable talking about what happened and going to the police with it. Again, what studies did you compare? You still haven't given names or links. Also, I'm sorry to hear about that, I respect that you can talk openly about it --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In a case of "famous for one wrong statistic, but actually has quite a lot of useful, credible information", page 18/19: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf --91.142.139.3 (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Which statistic am I looking for? This actually looks quite good, it includes information on forced to penetrate which is often overlooked when people consider the sexual assault of males by females. That said, it still puts sexual assault of women higher statistically than men. e.g. "Nearly 1 in 2 women (44.6%) and 1 in 5 men (22.2%) experienced sexual violence victimization other than rape at some point in their lives", "Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives", "Approximately 1 in 21 men (4.8%) reported that they were made to penetrate someone else during their lifetime". It seems like a good study if you wanted to include a section on forced to penetrate (if that is what you want me to be looking at) but I'm not sure that it warrants reshaping the rape culture article so that it focuses on men rather than women. As I said repeatedly, I think we should include more information on men, but I do not think we should rewrite the article to focus on men --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The bit where they say 1.27M female and 1.267M male rape victims classed as forced to penetrate. Paints a pretty clear picture that rape is an equal opportunity crime, with males and females pretty much just as likely to be both victims and attackers. I never said we should rewrite the article to focus on men. In fact, that is the exact opposite of what I said. My beef here is that the article portrays a biased account on rape culture, takes it as fact, does not include criticism, and gleefully runs with the "blame the males" vibe that the term rape culture usually runs with. --91.142.139.3 (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, where is the actual man-blaming in the article? I pointed out how this article is not written for that above, but you seem to insist on it. Nullahnung (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, well in that case I completely disagree. I do not get a "blame the males" vibe at all, although I do think we should improve coverage of male rape survivors, as the marginalisation of male rape survivors is a huge part of rape culture and probably the reason why rape is seen in the way that you describe. If it weren't for rape culture, male rape survivors would be taken more seriously by both the police and general media --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The article actually begins by detailing how rape culture affects male rape survivors:
 * ''"Rape culture informs our entire legal system, from legislating offenses, to criminal investigations, to the trial and punishment.
 * ''*Victims are defined and unofficially classified based on how well they conform to a (deeply offensive and sexist) specific set of standards. Standards which are almost always based on assumptions about women's value in general. A white virgin who has been beaten is a more proper victim than a Hispanic co-ed who has a boyfriend. Being raped by a stranger, vaginally is more titillating taken more seriously than being a male victim. The more "real" a rape is, largely informs how the investigators and litigators will deal with a case.
 * *Because of the overall sexism in rape culture, men do not get raped. That is, of course they get raped, but because of the way rape victims are seen by society, men who are raped are either ignored or labeled as sissy, or gay, or simply weak, in order to maintain the illusion that "men do not get raped". And in the same vein, women cannot rape men. Men, society teaches, are always horny, always seeking the next conquest and always ready for sex. So how could they be raped? -- Because of these very attitudes, society is extremely slow to address, much less change, the way male rape victims are treated. The FBI did not even classify male rape as rape until 2012."
 * I don't see how you can have a problem with the article as it stands based on its coverage of male rape survivors --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it seems I'm repeating arguments made earlier on the talk page. I joined half way through the debate and engaged with you because I thought you cared about improving the coverage of male rape survivors in the article. I get the impression now that you just want to debunk the concept itself --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And also, he somehow reads blame into sentences that don't have any blame. That's the impression I get anyway. Nullahnung (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggested a few times that we could work on improving the coverage of male rape survivors but they didn't seem interested. I don't see how the article as it stands could possibly stigmatise male rape survivors - it makes a number of references to them and how rape culture negatively affects men. The study provided was interesting and I'm probably going to be thinking about it for a few days but I don't see how it helps the IP editors case in any way (if anything the way that legal systems treat made to penetrate cases should be included as further evidence for rape culture) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * When I rearranged how the article is laid out, i focused specifically on men because as all of us have said, RAPE CULTURE IS EXACTLY WHY MEN DO NOT COME FORWARD. We do not deny, and I think do a better job of highlighting male victims than most pages.  WE do not toss them in as an after-though or "token 'oh, they are raped men, too", but focus on the damage to men when society says "Males are so horny, how can they be raped.  they always want it!" (at least for forced to penetrate type rape).  and if you are raped by another man, society treats you equally bad for different reasons. (many of which are tied into homophobia, which might be important to add).One tin soldier (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's quite possible that they haven't read the article properly and that it is the concept of rape culture itself that they are opposed to (and possibly misunderstand as, like you said, rape culture largely concerns male rape survivors and is documented as such in most books that use the term) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I never claimed that the article dismisses male victims, I claimed that it primarily focuses, by either direct implication, omission, or failure to address common criticism, the image of the rapist being male and, secondarily, the victim being female. From a site like rationalwiki, that prides itself in fairly objective reasoning and debunking, I'd have expected a better coverage. Again, where is the criticism section? The only peep about dissent I can find in this entire article is the "some males feel offended at being called responsible for rape culture". Where is the mention of the YesAllWomen tag? Why is the idea of rape culture automatically accepted as true here? The very first line of the article states that "Rape culture is a term used to describe the ways in which a society trivializes, rationalizes, and even condones rape and other acts of sexual violence, despite being nominally against rape or classifying the acts as crimes", while that other wiki starts with a pretty unbiased "Rape culture is a concept that links rape and sexual violence to the culture of a society, and in which prevalent attitudes and practices normalize, excuse, tolerate, and even condone rape". Furthermore, nearly a third of the other wiki's article is devoted to criticism and challenging the current understanding. Do you see the difference? All I hear from you is "yes, men have it tough too, because of rape culture", and it's being repeated over and over again. Why, then, is half the opening paragraph devoted to misoginy and the control of WOMEN'S bodies? Why is the article still what it is, but I see this entire talk page full of links that clearly demistify that "some number of male rape victims" and point out the gender-specific weight of responsibility? I see I'm not the first one to notice the bias in this article...


 * As I said before, reword the article so that it defines rape culture as an often challenged concept instead of a confirmed scientific theory or model, add a criticism section to explain the dissent, and remove the 1-in-4 bull.--91.142.139.3 (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (EC)You keep repeating that OUR ARTICLE implies that men are the rapists and women are the victims, which I don't see how you could come to that conclusion logically. Here's the deal. The CONCEPT of rape culture says that rape culture implies men as the rapists and women as the victims, which is why people influenced by rape culture have a hard time dealing with the thought that these roles could be reversed. And that concept is what this article is written about. THAT is why the opening paragraph is about control of women's bodies, because that is what the influence of rape culture - which implies men as the rapists and women as the victims, which is wrong - does.
 * It is not our article in itself that implies men as the rapists and women as the victims. In fact, our article actively argues for a very different attitude towards the concept as seen in this quote here:
 * "Discussing or admitting that rape culture exists does not mean anyone believes men think rape is somehow a good or valued thing. Nor does it mean that someone is accusing you of being a rapist. Discussing the fact that in America 1/4 of women[15] and some difficult-to-pin-down number of men have been raped or sexually harassed does not mean anyone thinks 1/4 of men have raped someone. But it does mean a culture exists which makes it hard for victims to come forward, to talk, or to heal. And, the very fact that a culture informs the thoughts, feelings and behaviors of a society does mean that all people in a rape culture carry some aspect of it in their personality"
 * As for the statistics referenced in the article being bull, I was not involved in the making of the statistic and I don't see any evidence confirming that it is bull or not, so I can't comment on that. Nullahnung (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand how adding a lengthy criticism section debunks the idea that men are raped less frequently than women or that the article is concerned primarily with female rape survivors and male perpetrators. In fact, rape culture itself is responsible for this idea. Your reasoning for a much more skeptical restructuring of the article is not really backed up by your arguments here. Even if the article did focus significantly more on female rape survivors, something that I don't think it backed up by any of your extracts posted from it, then I think adding more criticism rather than more content that focuses on male rape survivors is not a particularly good compromise --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ^^THOSE TWO posts^^! it's not our article you disagree with, clearly. it's rape culture.  it's society telling the rest of society (yes, that's circular - welcome to socilization) that women are raped and men are rapists.  One tin soldier (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The intellectual dishonesty here is strong. You have now, for the third time, intentionally attacked my position as a strawman and misconstrued my meaning. Never, in my entire argument, have I said that the article focuses too much on female rape survivors. What I did say, and allow me to say it again with some different words this time in hopes that you'll finally get it, was that the article does nothing to challenge the way rape culture is understood; that men are rapists, the women are victims, and it's up to the men to change this. Yes, One Tin Soldier, it is this concept of rape culture that I disagree with. The article presents the concept as an unchallenged fact of life, which is something that I feel is not only dishonest and biased, but actually harmful to society, and is, in my opinion, likely to result in an increased occurence of rape. Nullahung, you are the most intellectually dishonest one here. The fact that you still claim that you do not have the tools to judge if the 1-in-4 statistic is bull or not, even though I have submitted evidence to the contrary that was in no way challenged baffles me. The fact that you are happy to leave this unsupported factoid up there in the article without any way of backing it up clearly tells me that you have no business being an editor on a site such as this. Your "nuh-uh!" replies are entirely uncited and bear no relation to the article at hand. You stated that "The CONCEPT of rape culture says that rape culture implies men as the rapists and women as the victims, which is why people influenced by rape culture have a hard time dealing with the thought that these roles could be reversed", and yet you see no need to try and debunk this belief in the article, as if you're quite happy with your non-rapist lot in life, and see no reason for it to change and endanger your status. --91.142.139.3 (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't insult people in this relatively civil discussion, as that leads to escalation, thanks.
 * First of all, you claim that our article's view of rape culture says "it's up to the men to fix it", which is an assertion you need to back up with specific quotes from the article. YOU have the burden of evidence here, not me. When I say the article says something I usually back that up with a quote, you need to start doing the same.
 * Second of all, what I meant about the 1-in-4 statistic was that I have not seen any evidence of that statistic at all, either directly addressing it or directly supporting it, from the CDC. What I mean with that is that the people who have put forward the 1-in-4 statistic I would appreciate if they provided evidence about it. Of course you have provided a link to a statistic from the CDC that appears to be in conflict with the 1-in-4 statistic, so using your statistic instead of the statistic we currently have is a possible outcome of this discussion and I would be happy to implement that once this discussion is over. And that's me clarifying my position in more words than I have previously used. Satisfied about this point?
 * Third of all, I am apparently, if I understand your last point right, a rookie skeptic who has no clue how to debunk a concept (and apparently that disqualifies me from being an editor on this site). Please show me how, then, o person who apparently has much greater critical thinking skills than me. Nullahnung (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No offense IP, but continuously calling people in the thread intellectually dishonest is not really helping your stance here, neither was titling the section 'Man-hating' and using red pill imagery. If anything asserting your argument as the only correct one and insulting other contributors to the article is not the sign of somebody who has a genuinely good argument. Reading through, you only really presented your argument clearly mid-way through the thread, at which point it was probably presumed by some that you were close to strawmen associated with this topic. After all, we get a lot of people who would fit that definition come here. Anyway, I believe it does cover the male-focused facets of rape culture pretty clearly, I gave some examples in article that do earlier. That said, I'm sure people would be happy to include more content about male rape survivors in the article. Why are you repeatedly pushing for criticism on rape culture when we could improve the coverage of male rape survivors? Isn't that exactly what you want? Also, what do you mean by "quite happy with your non-rapist lot in life"? I am male myself and I know that the theory of rape culture itself doesn't automatically presume that men are rapists. If there is any strawman argument it is that one --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think his position is expressed most clearly in this quote from him: "the article does nothing to challenge the way rape culture is understood; that men are rapists, the women are victims, and it's up to the men to change this."
 * In answer to that position I, you and others have said that, yes, rape culture perpetuates labeling men as rapists and women as victims, and that is wrong. We have also said that it's not "up to the men to change this", if anything, it is just a problem of society in general. This is what IP just doesn't seem to understand, our article's ACTUAL view of rape culture. Nullahnung (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, I wish the IP had come here with a less confrontational and sensationalist attitude, this discussion would have ended quite quickly if we had been able to discuss it calmly --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Attitude is warranted when my points are being ignored or intentionally misconstrued. I have already provided four page quotes, only for them to be dismissed and ignored. This doesn't exactly provide me with an incentive to go and dig around the article again. The article is gender biased and has several factual errors. I have outlined some of the bias and provided a citation for one of these errors. If you think I'm in error here, read this discussion again.--91.142.139.3 (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And I could say the same, that you have been ignoring or intentionally misconstruing my points, and that is indeed the way I feel, but I am still for civility in terms of avoiding insults. As I said, the citation you provided seems good and using it to replace the disputed 1-in-4 statistic is a possible outcome of this discussion. Nullahnung (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Moving on... when have I misconstrued any of your points?--91.142.139.3 (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You asserted: "The fact that you are happy to leave this unsupported factoid up there in the article without any way of backing it up"
 * I never said that. I said I don't know anything and have not seen anything directly related to that statistic, so I don't feel comfortable joining the discussion on that one. That means I am waiting for other people to bring links in front of me that are directly related to said statistic, so I can make up my mind on how it came to be.
 * Anything I have meant to say about the article I have supported with quotes from said article to show you how you've misinterpreted the article. I feel like I'm being ignored on those efforts. Nullahnung (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A Real Libertarian already commented on those, especially with the line "a token 'men get raped too' doesn't change the tone of the entire article" (paraphrasing). I saw no point in saying something he already said, especially since his entire input in this conversation has been flat-out ignored.--91.142.139.3 (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ignored? We have two direct replies to A Real Libertarian directly under said post.
 * And I also have another reply that would address A Real Libertarian's post later down the line, let me just quote myself: "You keep repeating that OUR ARTICLE implies that men are the rapists and women are the victims, which I don't see how you could come to that conclusion logically. Here's the deal. The CONCEPT of rape culture says that rape culture implies men as the rapists and women as the victims, which is why people influenced by rape culture have a hard time dealing with the thought that these roles could be reversed. And that concept is what this article is written about. THAT is why the opening paragraph is about control of women's bodies, because that is what the influence of rape culture - which implies men as the rapists and women as the victims, which is wrong - does."
 * I originally wrote that to tell you how you've misinterpreted the article, but it goes for A Real Libertarian as well. Nullahnung (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So... let me get this straight... (even though I have already replied to this particular quote)... You think that the the concept of rape culture enforces the commonly held belief that men rape and women are raped, and you think that the opening paragraph of the article echoes this paradigm... as a joke?--91.142.139.3 (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I dispute your claim that the opening paragraph echoes the paradigm perpetuated by rape culture. Also, I was not saying anything about a joke. Nullahnung (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean the part that says "steeped in institutionalized misogyny, having at its core cultural features of a society that is defining, politicizing, and ultimately controlling women's bodies"? Nobody is saying that rape culture doesn't affect women, they are saying that it affects women and men. I'd prefer it if we didn't minimalise the experiences of either... --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the problem here is that you are arguing for two very different things. On the one hand, you vehemently oppose the cultural notion that men are not sexually assaulted, or that it is only women who are sexually assaulted, something that makes it difficult for male rape survivors to come forward to the police or talk about their experiences as rape survivors. On the other hand, you seem to think that the concept of rape culture used by theorists is responsible for the idea that men are not sexually assaulted, something that is largely at odds with how the term is used to describe this aspect of society. That is to say, rather than rape culture itself being responsible for this idea, you are arguing that it is the theoretical concept that is, correct? I don't know where you got this idea from, that is to say, that the concept of rape culture used in theory is responsible for the notion that men are not sexually assaulted, as the term is used to describe both female and male rape survivors. I definitely agree with you that the experiences of male rape survivors are made light of in society, but I have no idea why you feel that criticising the terminology in which this societal framework is described in any way helps male rape survivors --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (OP/IP here) Oh boy, this will be fun.
 * "Nobody is saying that rape culture doesn't affect women." I agree. One can also note that I never once said nor implied that rape culture does or does not affect women, or should or should not. Pro tip: when in doubt about wether or not someone said "rape culture doesn't affect women", look at their post and see if you can find the words 'rape', 'culture', 'doesn't', 'affect', and 'women' right next to each other. It's a dead giveaway in most situations.
 * Moving on...
 * "I think the problem here is that you are arguing for two very different things." I am arguing two things, and it was my mistake for even mentioning the second, as it is a subset of the first, and you're clearly not ready to discuss the second if you discount the first. My main point is that the article is badly written, biased, at times factually wrong, and does not offer a dissenting opinion. It takes the idea of rape culture, presents it as pretty much a fact of life, and even uses it to further reinforce ideas such as "institutionalized misogyny" and "controlling women's bodies". Furthermore, my second point is that I think the idea (note that I said idea, as opposed to phenomenon; the two are not the same) of rape culture is insulting to both men and women, victim and otherwise, and is actively harmful to society in general by potentially releasing rapists of responsibility because they're just "products of their culture". --93.141.74.202 (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, in that case, you should probably have explained what exactly in the introduction you had an issue with rather than being so vague. The notion of confronting rape culture isn't to release rapists of responsibility, it's to encourage rape survivors to go forward to the police about their sexual assaults and to try to improve the way in which society treats rape survivors after the crime. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported. Rape culture is the notion is that society itself is responsible for this --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Rape culture is the notion is that society itself is responsible for this" If that is the totality of what rape culture is, the article does not agree with you.--93.141.74.202 (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well no, not really, it's a little more complicated than that. I'm just giving an example of one aspect of it that differs from your assertion that it releases rapists of responsibility --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And I suppose that Agent Orange is just a herbicide and, since being a herbicide is its intended notion, it should not be banned just because someone claims it has some negative effects on humans, right?--93.141.74.202 (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your analogy is inconsistent and repulsive --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "I definitely agree with you that the experiences of male rape survivors are made light of in society, but I have no idea why you feel that criticising the terminology in which this societal framework is described in any way helps male rape survivors".
 * From Page 17 of the CDC's National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 2010 "How NISVS Measured Sexual Violence":
 * "Rape is defined as any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threats to physically harm and includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent. Rape is separated into three types, completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, and completed alcohol or drug facilitated penetration."
 * "- Among women, rape includes vaginal, oral, or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It also includes vaginal or anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object."
 * "- Among men, rape includes oral or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It also includes anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object."


 * "Being made to penetrate someone else includes times when the victim was made to, or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetrate someone without the victim’s consent because the victim was physically forced (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threatened with physical harm, or when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent."
 * "- Among women, this behavior reflects a female being made to orally penetrate another female’s vagina or anus."
 * "- Among men, being made to penetrate someone else could have occurred in multiple ways: being made to vaginally penetrate a female using one’s own penis; orally penetrating a female’s vagina or anus; anally penetrating a male or female; or being made to receive oral sex from a male or female. It also includes female perpetrators attempting to force male victims to penetrate them, though it did not happen.'"


 * Can you see the problem? If rape is hidden behind nice, safe euphemisms like "made to penetrate" then rape is much harder to stop.
 * "Torture" is a monstrous deprivation of human rights, "Enhanced Interrogation" is being a bit rough with the bad guys to save lives.
 * "Slavery" is the most debased and extreme loss of freedom imaginable, "Property Rights" are the basis of civilization and justice.
 * "Genocide" is most evil action humanity has come up with in thousands of years of bloodletting, "Final Solution" is permanently getting rid of a problem instead of just cutting it down a bit and waiting for it to break again.
 * "Rape" is a horrific act of violence that can never be justified, "Made To Penetrate" is no big deal, just a slightly uncomfortable experience.
 * Words have the power to both destroy and create... be careful with them. --A Real Libertarian (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You mistake what I meant by "the terminology in which this societal framework is described". Again, by the prevalent definition of rape culture, the minimalisation of male rape survivors would be due to societal reasons, not theorists who use the term rape culture in their papers or articles. In other words, that is just more evidence of rape culture and how it negatively affects men --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

So what about rape culture are you actually denying exists? I could go on, but apparently it's time for dinner!One tin soldier (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Rape is a tool used to socially control behaviors, especially in women, but also in gay men.
 * Victims of rape are largely disrespected, especially if the victim is not a pure white virgial woman, but is very sexually active, black or a male. "a victim's value as a victim is directly associated with how well they fill the image created by society of a rape victim".
 * an industry of romance novels for women, and porn for men exits around the idea of taking a woman without her consent, to somehow show her how good you are.
 * a policing and litigation industry that belittles victims of rape.
 * a media that is unapologetic in exploiting rape stories to paint their characters in particular ways (especially women cops).
 * Per the CDC, one in five women experience rape or attempted rape or sexual harrassment in their lives. Lots of men experience it as well.
 * The story told about rape is that men are the rapists and women get raped. It would be near to impossible to convict a woman of raping a man if they both went home to his house and made out, and he said "stop".  It might or might not be hard to convict a women in the same circumstance, but a man would be nearly impossible because the story says "men always want sex".
 * Rape victims who are part of a relationship were told for the majority of our history, to "live with it" or "work it out".
 * There is a myth that most rape alligations are false, when the reality is 3-8% of women or men make false claims. about the same as any other crime.
 * Rape scenes in movies are often filmed in such a way that heightens the sexual aspects of the crime, and not the violence. Rape scenes often are in low lighting, with titalating shots of breasts and thighs, and erotic blood or sweat trails.
 * There are a fair number of points on this list that I think are not true.
 * Rape is a tool used to socially control behaviors, especially in women, but also in gay men. This is the big one that I simply don't see any local evidence for.  Yes, there are societies where rape is apparently encouraged and organized by local leaders and groups of organized gangs as a punishment.  Those places are distant and tribal and not like around here, and I know of no evidence of any such things in Europe or the Americas.  If there have been, and there might, I see no evidence of general cultural approval; and the handful of notorious US coverups all involved sports or celebrities, and are therefore atypical.  I would cheerfully concede that fear of rape controls many women's lives here, but these cautions don't seem to be willed by society or the men in it; it doesn't even benefit the 'patriarchy'.  What, exactly, is the evidence for this claim?
 * a policing and litigation industry that belittles victims of rape. People accused of crimes are entitled to a defense.  This is a bedrock principle I would not see weakened at all, and one reason why I see the idea of "rape culture" as authoritarian and prosecutorial.
 * a media that is unapologetic in exploiting rape stories to paint their characters in particular ways (especially women cops). Are we talking about fictional characters here?  The relationship between themes in fictional stories and social values is... complicated.  The contents of porn and romance fiction are fantasy; and politicizing somebody's fantasy life is itself aggressively authoritarian.
 * There is a myth that most rape alligations are false, when the reality is 3-8% of women or men make false claims. about the same as any other crime. So maybe somewhere around one in twenty accusations is false.  Again, the accused get to defend themselves, cross examine witnesses, and have the assistance of a lawyer.  Preserving these principles trumps "rape culture".
 * So, yes, at least some of the "rape culture" ideas continue to seem to me to be false, unproven, or argued from the contents of published fantasy rather than social reality. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Your analogy is inconsistent and repulsive" I understand that you'd describe something you disagree with as repulsive in order to acquire internet points, but how is it inconsistent?
 * P.S. Where did 80% of the talk page go?
 * EDIT: nm, didn't see the archive link, lol.--91.142.139.3 (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You think that the way the term rape culture is used by theorists has caused comparable societal damage to a herbicidal warfare program? I don't know how you can possibly say that if you have seen the pictures from Vietnam --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. If that is all you are able to gather from an analogy, then person of unspecified gender and familial relation to me, you need to brush up on your comprehension skills.--91.142.139.3 (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "I'm just giving an example of one aspect of it that differs from your assertion that it releases rapists of responsibility"
 * "And I suppose that Agent Orange is just a herbicide and, since being a herbicide is its intended notion, it should not be banned just because someone claims it has some negative effects on humans, right?"
 * What exactly is it that I'm missing here? It seems like you are connecting the use of rape culture to herbicide orange directly --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * At this point I can only assume that you are either being intentionally dense, or are genuinely incapable of comprehending my meaning. As this has proven to be somewhat of a trend with you in this discussion, I must conclude that communicating with you is pointless, so I'll refrain from doing so in the future.--91.142.139.3 (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if you did go voluntarily, you don't seem to have anything to contribute to the website and your bigoted attitude makes it impossible to work with you --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ...w3-8% of women or men make false claims. about the same as any other crime. If that figure is correct, that would mean that the rate of false reports is two to five times larger than for other comparable crimes (which floats between 1.5 to 2%). Here's one link to confirm that: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf  --91.142.139.3 (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So.... one month later, and nothing's changed in the article. Still as bad and biased as before. Should I start writing up a new version and hope someone won't just revert it? --91.142.139.3 (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

#yesallwomen
One of the main points of "yesallwomen" is that rape culture and the institutionalized misogyny are so common, that all women have experienced it at some time. The problematic side to addressing it, though, is that just because of the way society paints our roles, and the fact that we are first and foremost creatures of society, and that we have a very hard time escaping society, odds are, virtually all men have harassed women probably with out even being aware of it - and likely when they were first learning roles as teen agers. Same is true with white women having likely judged or discriminated against women of color; hearing persons discriminated against deaf, etc. The point of intersectionality, "yes all women", and discussions of rape culture are not to point fingers, but to begin to say "how have i been shaped by society, such that my behaviors are reinforcing things I might want to change." But as long as people are defense to that change, and cannot understand that odds are at one time in their lifes, they've looked at a woman's boobs and whistled, or they have cat called, or they have pulled her down for an unwanted kiss cause that's what you do - (and this goes for every majority group about the way we understand and treat minorites) - as long as our defensiveness drives us, then yesallwomen will remain all women. (sorry for the soap box and not an actual talking point about the article, but I'm kinda getting tired of fighting someone's defensiveness, someone's need to deny reality for the sake of making sure men are not blamed. Men have controlled society for 10,000 years, so yes, there is more than a little blame to go around.One tin soldier (talk)


 * Women experience misogyny, and men experience misandry. Not they are not the same or equivalent, but the prevalenthece of disrespectful behaviour does not have to be caused by culture per se, making the conclusion that misogyny is "institutionalized" unwarranted. I personally believe that misogyny *is* institutionalized, but not to the same degree as you suggest, and for different reasons that paint a far more complex picture. You will always be able to find some argument to cloth your opinion (which is why rational wiki exists -- to find sound arguments), which can make a good faith discussion on the issue difficult because it is always tempting not to listen to what others are trying to say. After-all, you have all the answers, and the others are just "wrong". The notion that men have (only) controlled society for 10,000 years is a howler. I recommend that you read Merlin Stone's "When God was a Woman", and then Eller's "The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory" back-to-back, and ask yourself what the evidence rationally suggests. That's a clue to the point that you may be living in your own bubble when it comes to this issue. Microbox (talk)

15:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Umm, I have never looked at a woman's boobs and whistled, I have never catcalled, I have never given an unwanted kiss. I think we need to be careful when we use words like "everyone", "always", "never", "all". Nullahnung (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * [[image:doh.gif]] NOT ALL MEN! 00:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The trouble with "not all men" is that it's irrelevant. "Not all men", but so what? The trouble is that virtually all women have faced some kind of sexual harassment. Nullahnung (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So why did you respond with an irrelevant "not all men" response? & Why are you saying "all" now when you objected to it a couple of hours ago?  01:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (There is a difference between "all" and "virtually all", though it is only significant to pedants.)<-irrelevant, pls ignore
 * I don't know about "virtually all men have harassed, probably without realising it", but I see significant evidence of "virtually all women have been harassed in some way" (one can happen without the other). I was responding to her post where it said "virtually all men". Nullahnung (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you kind of missed the point. OTS said "I'm kinda getting tired of fighting someone's defensiveness, someone's need to deny reality for the sake of making sure men are not blamed".  You responded by getting defensive about men being blamed.  02:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you read more into it than I was trying to say. I was not defensive about men getting blamed, more about individuals (not men, individuals who happen to be men).
 * That aside, I didn't necessarily miss the point, I just didn't address it at all. As in, I didn't respond to her main point, I was responding to one of the side statements in support of said main point, without discussing the main point. Nullahnung (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's probably the issue with the "not all men" thing. I get where you are coming from, it would be worthwhile to edit out generalisations in the main article, like to change "virtually all" to "many" or "most" if it appeared there, but it wouldn't change the meaning behind the original post very much if you were to do so. I'd say it pretty much goes without saying that there are men out there who have not harassed women, so there really isn't much point in using it as a retort --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't actually making any significant point... more just being a pedant about one of the side statements she made. I think the article, as it is, is dealing with the "all" thing decently. Nullahnung (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (EC like several times) Nullahnung, you seem to be familiar with the concept of the "not all men" argument and how it derails discussions about sexism, privilege, rape culture, etc. and yet that's exactly the argument you made: not addressing the main point but focusing defensively on a pedantic quibble about "individuals who happen to be men" (i.e. not all men). And like you said, The trouble with "not all men" is that it's irrelevant. "Not all men", but so what?  02:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes yes, I admit to having been pedantic about a side point while completely ignoring the main point. The thing is, I have no problem with the main point, so why should I respond to it? Instead I saw a side point and responded to that. I probably should have anticipated that people don't deal well with a pedant going off on a tangent while the main subject is being ignored, so I'm sorry about that. Nullahnung (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's absolutely fine, it's just slightly ironic in the context of the yes all women hashtag --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 07:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "not to point fingers" ... "there is more than a little blame to go around." What a wonderfully consistent line of reasoning.
 * "Men have controlled society for 10,000 years, so yes, there is more than a little blame to go around." So to rectify that, women should control everything for 10 000 years, and in the year 12014, we will finally be able to have an egalitarian society?--91.142.139.3 (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's useful to blame anyone, and it's not like anyone is a deserved target of any blame either, since this is a societal phenomenon (yes yes, we can keep on blaming the rapists, but that is a blame that we distribute for their individual actions, not a blame we distribute for the phenomenon of rape culture). You also do not rectify a situation by overcompensating and doing it wrong the other way around, you rectify it by making things as they should be in the first place. Nullahnung (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Finally we agree on something.--91.142.139.3 (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I, for one, welcome our new feminazi overlords. 21:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * At the very least, it's unlikely that they could do a worse job --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hardly anyone seriously uses the word feminazi anymore nowadays unless MRA or ignorant. Nullahnung (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been ridiculous since Limbaugh first used it. It doesn't surprise me that MRAs like it so much though --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never heard it used in a serious manner.--91.142.139.3 (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Confucius joke
Does this joke count as rape culture: "Confucius say when lady say no, she mean maybe. When lady say maybe, she mean yes. When lady say yes, she no lady!" Or is Confucius just saying, you might be able to convince her to change her mind and say yes. Fleet (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes and yes. Also racist culture. 21:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

For your lelz
"Well... shit. What about LessWrong? Are there any other alternatives?" - David Gerard (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please keep the Facebook circlejerk memes to Facebook.
 * That said, I liked more "It's for the Atheism+ community." (AFAIK, the overlap between RW's community and the members of the A+ forums is about 0. Unless they are using "Atheism+" in the same overbroad way some people use "MRA".) and "The gender-oriented articles are all watched over by Rebecca Watson's crew and have been for years." (Ditto: AFAIK, the overlap with the Skepchick commentariat is about 0. And let's not even mention actual Skepchick contributors.)--ZooGuard (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Has RW taken enough flak from social justice warriors recently? If ideologues of all stripes aren't getting annoyed in equal numbers, we yeah, yeah, I know aren't doing the job right. Flux gate gamma (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The users on r/mensrights wouldn't be happy with the article unless it looked like this: . I think SJWs could possibly have issues with our prejudice plus power article among a few others. Our article on Radfem Hub is also largely critical --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That article at wikimannia needs some improved spelling/grammar/writing... That said, it shows one of the clearest patterns in any "debate" (in marks because it's usually just people talking past each other) arising from this. Our article has a completely different definition of rape culture than theirs and thus if both sides start discussing without agreeing on what the topic actually is first it just leads to calling each other out on straw-manning the whole time. Nullahnung (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, as it stands, ours is better sourced, and considerably better written. We also touch on how it affects both male and female rape survivors. The WikiMANNia article looks like it's going to take a critical look at the ideology at first but quickly deteriorates into typical MRA slogans like "Rape culture is just drunk college sluts lying" and "Rape culture is nothing but flawed statistics and angry bitches who hate men". There isn't a whole lot of content there, just a collection of quotations --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a half-hearted effort by a couple of editors with little text outside of quotations, seemingly written to preach to the choir a la "I don't need to go in-depth on any of this, just look at the quotations to see what I mean!" I wouldn't pay much attention to it in terms of being able to represent any side in a serious discussion. Nullahnung (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was posting it to make a point. That is what they think that feminists think rape culture is and why they have such a problem with the article. I imagine most haven't even read it properly. If they came to this article and tried to make the point that male rape survivors are minimalised (which is, as mentioned in article, a huge part of rape culture) then I would have more support for their cause. A legitimate men's rights movement would spend more time trying to support male survivors of rape and domestic abuse rather than form counter arguments to feminist ideas based on strawmanning. The WikiMANNia website even makes this argument concerning rape culture here when they say "One particular form of rape that tends to lack recognition is rape of men by women", they just don't call it that: . When a movement is more interested proving other civil rights movements wrong than helping support those within their cause that need support, then it has significant problems in its thinking --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Needs a gender-neutral rewrite
I think the article would benefit from a more gender neutral rewrite such as using "Victim" and "Rapist" more. Whilst these numbers certainly aren't a solid platform, it should be noted that as of right now As of now, "Male" is said 7 times, "Man" is said twice, "Men" is said 17 times, "Female" is said once, "Women" is said 25 times and "Woman" is said 5 times. Many of these terms are used in quotes, but I suggest we find places to drop the gender to make the place a little more inclusive for everyone here.

Similarly so, if anyone here is from outside the US it'd be great if they could shed some light about the culture in other countries! Thanks everyone :) User:58.106.160.16 07:53, 21 November 2014‎
 * . . . Why? 09:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Because gendered language is unnecessary and paints females as victims, males as rapists. I support a gender-neutral rewrite in this and all articles. 00:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Rape culture really isn't a gender-neutral phenomenon. It treats men & women very differently, approving certain behaviours in men & disapproving certain behaviours in women.  Trying to pretend otherwise is just burying your head in the sand.  01:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As the article itself says in the lede section, "Modern rape culture is steeped in institutionalized misogyny, having at its core cultural features of a society that is defining, politicizing, and ultimately controlling women's bodies". 01:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that male and female rape victims are treated differently, with females disproportionately suffering, as a result of the misogyny present in much of modern society. However, I'd like to look at one section from the article:
 * Victim blaming is a notable feature of a rape culture. If the victim can be shown to be "out of line" at any point, society turns on her, often demanding she at least voice some sense of remorse for her behaviors that led to the rape. Was she dressed "like a slut?" Did she lead the guy on? Had she been out partying? Is she pretty? Was she "friendly" (wink-wink, nudge nudge) with the boys? If so, then shouldn't she have at least expected the likelihood of being raped, and done something to prevent it? Even if a rape victim actually does meet the maximum standards for sympathy, the implication is that the victim's transgression against traditional values and polite society was more important than the actual act of violence done to the victim.
 * I'm almost certain that victim blaming occurs to males. (In the 2nd bullet point, we say men that are raped are either ignored or labeled as sissy, or gay, or simply weak. If a male is sissy, gay, and/or weak, to list a few factors, then victim blaming can certainly come into blame.) The article does not cover said instances of male victim blaming. Instead of covering specific examples predominantly in from the point of view of victims of one gender or another, we should introduce each concept in gender-neutral language and provide examples of how it applies to both genders (if it applies to both genders).
 * Rape culture is misogynistic, but that misogyny often hurts males. 01:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you're quoting something that's already in the article (that male rape victims are labelled as sissy, or gay, or simply weak etc.) and then claiming that the article doesn't cover it. As for the paragraph about female rape victims' behaviour & whether they were "dressed like a slut" being an issue, this is important to keep because it's a recurring feature in how rape cases are handled by police, courts & the media.  A "gender neutral" rewrite of this paragraph would completely miss the point.  13:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Jezebel
Out of curiosity, what is our position on the reliability of Jezebel? My two cents - it's titillating clickbait, but seems to be heavily cited as a source on the gender issues pages. Brenden (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I expect you might have to apply judgement on a post-by-post basis or something tricky like that - David Gerard (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Repeated repeated words words
This article has literally the same sentence twice in a row. This article has literally the same sentence twice in a row. What does it add the second time? What does it add the second time? Calieber (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Calieber (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please do something about this? It was briefly fixed six months ago or so but then someone helpfully came along and messed it up again. &lt;3 CSapphire bullets of pure love 04:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

CDC report of 2011/2014
Wasn't it debunked? IIRC their questionnary counts unsolicited porn as sexual assault and other more specific stats were dumped in one gross generalized pile. 16:46, 26 March 2015
 * If by "debunked" you mean, lazily accused of those failings on MRA websites with little-to-no substantiation, then yes. You can find those "debunkings" with google.  If by "debunked" you mean academically criticized with real data, withdrawn by the publisher, or any sort of fact-based refuation, then no.  It wasn't.  If you see someone say a study was "debunked" on the internet, that's shorthead for "I don't believe it because I disagree."  Actual refutations are much more substantive, and tend to result in papers being retracted from publication(or for smaller mistakes, having corrections attached).  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, debunked was a too strong term here. It's government agency report, selfpublished, do they even retract or correct anything at all? And how could even be refuted self report survey, besided faulty methodology? Which was criticized (questionnare, which arguably bloats violence category). And, I guess, thanks for an urge to revisit report, since I found detailed age data in both reports this time, which, kinda, explains those huge percents, in big part it's pedos victims. Strangely, nobody gave a shit about kids when it was published. 46.0.12.33 (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

1/5 statistic
If I recall correctly, the one in five statistic comes from a study with pretty vague definitions of what rape is. It even included "unwanted looks" as rape. Should we not be using the updated consensus statistic of 0.4/1000 reported or extrapolate the actual rate from the reported rate and the estimated reporting percentage? Not an MRA, just not a fan of using inflated statistics "for the better good." Schurch80302 (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "It even included "unwanted looks" as rape". No.  It didn't.  there's a reason we include ciations.  Read it.  The terminology of the self-reporting survey is completely unambiguous.  (you're long gone, but I'm still answering)  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

1 in 5 women being raped means feminist have achieved nothing and that all men are rapist.--106.69.213.0 (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop being a fucking idiot across RationalWiki.—<font color="Plum">Ryūlóng (<font color="DodgerBlue">琉竜 ) 11:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Article seems pretty irrational to me
I thought this was rationalwiki? Oh well.108.68.41.117 (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * CorruptUser (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Bubba41102Taste the shortness 20:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's be fair here. We don't reinforce this IP's personal beliefs.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What the hell, I have nothing better to do tonight, so...  05:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

My Only Complaint
The article is pretty western-centric.67.234.54.93 (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We welcome everyone to add to our articles; if it's missing vital information about other parts of the world, please don't hesitate to contribute. CorruptUser (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it seemed like a big change, so I thought I should bring it up here first. Also, I plan to look for some sources on non-western nations when I get the chance, but it's not something I really know much about, so I thought I should throw that out there for anyone else who might be interested. I know I wasn't that specific before. I couldn't think of what to say before I had to go.104.39.33.148 (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

12% of men sexually harassed
Wait, how are we defining sexual harassment? Because under loose definitions, I've been sexually harassed twice this year so far. Unwanted rubbing, random hug/kiss out of nowhere. CorruptUser (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Unwanted sexual contact is defined as unwanted sexual experiences involving touch but not sexual penetration, such as being kissed in a sexual way, or having sexual body parts fondled or grabbed". 23:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So, twice this year. CorruptUser (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Rape Humour paragraph ill-informed
"Rape culture often uses rape as a subject of jokes, in ways not seen with similar crimes like murder. For example, memes such as "surprise sex!" attempt to minimize rape, while at other times, rape apologia such as "if they orgasmed, it wasn't rape" are thrown around as 'jokes', where the fact that the speaker "obviously didn't mean it" (which the reader must simply assume) are the only reason not to take the statement at face value. However, actual rapists may interpret these statements as signs that others agree with them, or even encourage them to commit the act."

What? Murder is absolutely the subject of many jokes. Anecdotally speaking, I think casual death threats are far more common than casual rape threats. Even children's humour references murder (two cannibals eating a clown, one says to the other "does this taste funny to you?"). The idea that a murderer would interpret this as a sign that others are pro-murder is clearly ridiculous, but the idea that a rapist interprets rape jokes as pro-rape is somehow being given credibility?

To be honest, I take issue with the article as a whole, it reads to me like someone who's living in the previous generation, but this was the paragraph that made me want to comment.

175.38.214.114 (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Major difference: Nobody ever makes "he wouldn't have been murdered if he wore something else" as a serious argument. I'm not even 1 of those people who thinks comedy shouldn't be offensive or dark, but that's just an obvious observation.104.39.35.243 (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how that is related to why rape jokes should be considered harmful. The justification the page gives is "Jokes and other humor about rape are generally viewed as problematic as they try to bring levity to the horror of sexual assault", but fails to provide any justification as to why bringing levity to the horror of sexual assault is harmful to society. It does goes on to claim " jokes that marginalize victims by framing rape as a forgivable and just retribution for some other action propagates rape culture", but 175.38.214.114 has, afaict, a fairly good argument against that line of reasoning. 73.239.173.59 (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Listen to the content of the jokes, not just the subject matter. Jokes about murder aren't "HA! Murder!" Murder is not the punchline. Murder is involved in the joke, yes, but the punchline is not that a murder happens, the punchline is tied to some aspect of the murder, whether it be a funny motive, weapon, method, reason or other distinguishing feature. The only time where murder is the punchline is typically when it is used as a shocking ending, like in sketch comedy when someone decides to kill someone else over something minor. The humor still comes from a distinguishing feature of the murder. Contrast this with rape jokes, where the joke is typically "HA! Rape!". The "surprise sex" meme is one such example. Furthermore, there's also the audience to consider. Most audiences will not contain people who have been murdered. Even people who just were close to a murder victim aren't super common, because murder isn't actually that common when compared to the population. However, all audiences will contain a victim of sexual assault, rape or some other form of sex crime, because the statistics there are that high. Furthermore, people who were close to someone who was murdered may find murder jokes in bad taste (but not all of the time), but it's unlikely (not impossible) that they'll have PTSD from the experience. However, it's quite likely that at least one, likely more, of the sexual assault/rape/etc victims in the audience will have PTSD, because such experiences are PTSD-forming. In addition to this, studies exist that have found links between rape jokes + sexist humor in general and sexism. This article is pretty good, and is how I found those links. Now, it might be possible that murder jokes do actually increase the murder rate, but I have never seen any research into that. If murder jokes do in fact increase the murder rate, we might want to consider getting rid of them as well, but as it stands, I've seen no evidence that they do so I'm not worried about them. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

added structure
I realize the changes I made look drastic. If you're worried, notice that paragraphs that appear to be deleted are just placed, nearly always intact, into a more detailed hierarchy. The diff just makes it look like I butchered the entire article. Not my intent! MarmotHead (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

What a farce
The article basically admits at the bottom that rape culture doesn't exist, at least here in the west. Most people are taught rape is wrong, most young men don't commit rape, the incidences are declining and so on. The principle advocacy group seems to agree. And am I supposed to believe that law enforcement makes people pay for kits because most (or a sizable minority of cops) think rape if funny? If rape culture does exist it is a subculture of a subculture of a subculture of a subculture. Burkean (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The very fact that there is even an issue at all with potential rape victims having to pay for their own rape kits (whether it's jokes or just department policy, it really doesn't matter) is a good indication that there may be something much more broadly wrong with the culture than just a "subculture of a subculture of a subculture of a subculture"Petey Plane (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it has nothing to do with the limited resources of the police force and everything to do with men and cops taking a casual view of rape. Good God. Burkean (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You've not read any personal accounts, then. Queexchthonic murmurings 19:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean anecdotal evidence. Well, as a matter of fact I have. There's no doubt that cops didn't take rape as seriously a long time ago, when women had less of a voice in society. I was using this thing called logic to conclude that just because some people have such a problem does not mean there is widespread woman hatred in western society. Perhaps one of the reasons for this attitude on kits or whatever has to do with the fact that cops don't take it seriously enough again today on account of the fact that it keeps happening less and less all the time in the west. Burkean (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It does have to do with the prioritization of how money is spent and the fact that the vast majority of the people making those decisions are men. Why should a victim have to pay for a resource that is integral in the investigative process?  Shouldn't something that can potentially correctly identify the assailent through DNA be one of the top spending priorities for a police department?... Good Dog! Petey Plane (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The number of women on the force and the number of women on the force in positions of genuine authority has grown considerably. The number or rapes has dropped considerably. And how can you assume that someone who reports a rape is a victim before the investigation has taken place? Because they have a right to be believed I suppose. In any case, as long as we have a bureaucratic, inefficient government funded police force and our tax dollars fund them, I can't see any reason why they shouldn't. Though I don't see how it proves sexism unless males who are sodomized don't have to pay for their rape kits. And I doubt any minors of sexual assault have to have their parents pay for a kit. And if they do, then that proves it isn't some conspiracy against women. And what is the excessive cost of these things that people are forced to pay? If it's some measly fund then you have even less of an argument. First it's the police are too overzealous, now it's they're too lazy. Still haven't shown why this indicates cultural acceptance for rape, which is what the damn article is about. Burkean (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contribution. We'll be sure to take your comment into consideration. CorruptUser (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I want to believe you. But if past is prologue on this site, then I really can't. I take you at your word and hope that your comment was not meant as sarcasm. Burkean (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is certain - David Gerard (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As the person who added that RAINN blurb all that time ago, I in no way meant to suggest that rape culture was completely nonexistent or any of the above issues without merit, only that, even in rape advocacy circles, there is some disagreement over how helpful or useful the term really is. It in no way invalidates the numerous substantiated claims made in the rest of page. Hentropy (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, read this and this, please, before claiming that the west is too enlightened for widespread rape culture.KrytenKoro (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How does an anecdotal story about a woman's trying experience in court after being assaulted, and one survey that shows a small percentage of men don't care about the law when they can get away with it, and others saying they would do wrong if there were no laws (something we already know would happen if we did have no laws) prove that rape is widespread in western society? And you do realize that college males are a small percentage of men don't you? That's assuming of course that the way these answers were extracted was honest, the way the data was gathered was thorough, that no coaching took place (which frequently happens with surveys of all kinds) and that these numbers hold for college men writ large. And having intense sexual desires that are so hard to cope with sometimes you feel like to want to rape someone, that does not make them evil people in case you were wondering. It is not a crime to have sexual desires that you did not ask for. The crime is in forcing those desires upon someone else against their will. What a nice little bit of college male hating and fear stoking. And only a fraction of them (a tenth for one question, less than a third for another) were saying these things. The fraction of males that said this which is a fraction of both males and college males is a fraction that's already a fraction of the number of men in the wider society. When we have large swaths of populations in the third world who are keen on stoning, death, torture, assault and all other kinds of great things for women. I guess from your vantage point, one woman being raped is a rape culture. And there's no arguing with absolutists like that. Burkean (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I never claimed that. When one of the leading rape advocacy organizations goes out of their way to mention that the (over)use of the term is counterproductive, I don't think it is unreasonable to point that out, however. Hentropy (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Awareness
Does educating women about the Rape Culture help warn women of the dangers of sextual penetration or does it promote misandry and androphobia? I have not heard anyone saying whether or not it applies to all men, or caution should be used to not exaggerate the violence of men and the vulnerability of women, or is it just natural for women to believe that all men support violence against women?--180.216.68.197 (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you read the same article I did, which is about educating people (men and women) about what actually constitutes consensual sex, and not treating rape, whether the rapist is a man or woman, as "just how things are done, no big deal". Which...it absolutely is, across the world. We still have plenty of ads in every country where the product is advertised as a tool for "conquering" your target. Rape in prison (where the victims are predominantly male!) is usually treated as a joke or a good thing, rather than as an appalling dereliction of duty on the part of the guards.
 * If you believe the statement "rape is NOT OK, make sure the other person consents" is misandric, then you have a very poor opinion of the moral potential of men. I choose to believe that it is possible for men (and women) to exist without raping other people like animals, so there's nothing misandric about the rape culture discussion that I can see.KrytenKoro (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are saying it's all across the world then you imply that all countries treat all women as less then human and as desposible equally.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Non-sequitur. Also 'desposable' isn't a word.81.145.153.190 (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well is there a line between First World Feminism and Third World Feminism or not?--180.216.68.197 (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, different places are different. GG bro.81.145.153.190 (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Remember that "Schrodinger's Rapist" is another way of saying that "all men are rapist" and that "all men are potential rapist" is another way of saying that all men are guaranteed to rape and the majority believe that all abusers are male and that all victims are female.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Remember that "Schrodinger's Rapist" is another way of saying that "all men are rapist"" Wrong. ""all men are potential rapist" is another way of saying that all men are guaranteed to rape" Wrong. Seriously, it looks like you have great difficulty with even simple concepts. The problems is not with rape culture or feminism. The problem is your own failure to understand either of those concepts. There's no shame in admitting it. There is shame is trying to fake understanding and coming out with nonsense like your previous edit. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You haven't replied to my all countries are the same to women comment. What is oppressive in one country is just as oppressive in another or at least in a different but equal way.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither will I, you just babble one load of nonsense after the other and almost never acknowledge what other people say. Bottom line: You don't understand the topics you're discussing, and despite plenty of effort by others are showing no signs of learning anything. You're just going to have to live with the fact that you're simply not equipped to have these kinds of discussions and move on. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I listened to Laci Green in her video "why I am a Feminist", she says that violence against women is expected in every country, so I can't tell the difference.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You wanna, uh, provide the quote from that video that you think somehow has any relation to the claims you've made in this section? This sounds like a complete non sequitor.KrytenKoro (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How is the treatment of women in the USA any better then Iran or Saudi Arabia? Remember the 1 in 5 women being raped implies a No Women's Land.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * At least rape victims in the USA have some chance of legal redress. In Saudi Arabia they're likely to be prosecuted for adultery or morals offences and there's no specific offence of rape. Annquin (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So what are we then, misandric or Islamophobic?--180.216.110.171 (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not all of society is corrupt, aka supports violence against women anymore then all men are rapist.--180.216.110.171 (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This the article is very gender orientated, I would like an argument on my opinion of my previous post.--180.216.108.175 (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a growing anxiety from reading this article, so please respond before I have another panic attack or generalize all American men as rapist.--180.216.96.172 (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll take the bait even though I assume you're a troll. The page says nothing of the sort in any format which you seem to be having difficulty understanding. The idea of 'rape culture' is that society permits or condones rape, and that rape is inaccurately portrayed. For example, the general idea that 'women cannot rape men.' This is false-Men are also victims of sexual assault, but due to percieved threats to masculinity, or societal pressures, will not report it. Everyone can recognize violent sexual assault by male on female as bad due to extensive coverage, but other forms are not as well covered, and the type of jokes that contribute to making it seem less horrifying also contribute to a general society that unconsciously condones some variations of sexual assault or harassment. Your entire series of 'points' are off-kilter and rambling, incoherent nonsense about Islamophobia, First-Third world feminism, etc, which has gone completely off topic from your initial question on if 'educating women on rape culture will cause women to believe all men are rapists', which was already discussed by the first responder and proven bullshit by anything more than a cursory reading of the section you have decided to either incorrectly interpret in such a ridiculous manner that I assume you read it and then ran headfirst into a wall repeatedly for three days, or decided to troll about in a lazy, stupid form. 99.112.205.219 (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The objectivity of this entry needs to be challenged
The way this article was written implicitly accepts that 'rape culture' is a fact of our (western) society, when in reality the concept is highly controversial and is disagreed upon by rational people. To presume that rape culture is a fact and needs to be fought against rather than treating it as a controversial subject is a mistake. See articles here, here, here, and here.

Many people are under the impression that this website attempts to be as objective and bias-free as possible. Stubs like this one call that into question. If you want to be honest about this subject then the organization of this page should be something like 'arguments for' and 'arguments against', rather than beginning the stub with the bias-laden language of Rape Culture is the ways in which a society trivializes, rationalizes, or even condones rape and other acts of sexual violence. To begin that way is to presume that society does in fact trivialize, rationalize or even condone rape, when it has not been established that such a thing is true. Many rational people firmly believe that this is a myth that should be vigorously challenged. The article doesn't get much better from there on out. It seems as if the people in charge of this page are propagating a radical feminist agenda and are more interested in bolstering their particular viewpoint than examining issues such as these in an honest and unbiased manner.&mdash; Unsigned, by: BennyOcean / talk / contribs
 * You may want to have a look at this page.--JorisEnter (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You may want to have a look at this page.--JorisEnter (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the valuable info, although I'm more interested in feedback regarding the substance of what I have to say than advice on formatting, but as someone new to the site I do appreciate it. --BennyOcean (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Clicking on the link provided the second bolded header is RationalWiki is not neutral point of view which has little to do with formatting. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Many people are under the impression that this website attempts to be as objective and bias-free as possible." Those people are mistaken, much like the OP. Petey Plane (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe the site can't be bias-free but a site with 'rational' in the name should at least attempt to have good reasons for the conclusions drawn here. Furthermore, both sides of an argument should be weighed honestly rather than one being dismissed out of hand. --BennyOcean (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

While visitor is wrong about RW being "bias-free", they're right that RW should make a stronger case for the existence of a rape culture. 15:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's 30 references to support it (plus theirs), more than RW has for a number of other articles (including a couple of front page articles), so it would be more helpful to have specific weaknesses or needs without coming across to me like an uncertainty tactic (which only has 3 references). Quantity is not as important as quality but there's more than enough to prove existence.  To what extent certainly can be in question.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Those 30 references can be picked apart one by one. Take for example the article in 'The Stranger' about Woody Allen:


 * "The damnably difficult thing about (rape accusations) is that you can’t presume that both are innocent at the same time. One of them must be saying something that is not true. But “he said, she said” doesn’t resolve to “let’s start by assume she’s lying,” except in a rape culture, and if you are presuming his innocence by presuming her mendacity, you are rape cultured."


 * In the case of every crime accusation, we are supposed to presume innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Everyone gets their day in court. Just because a man is accused does not mean he is guilty. The mistake being made by the 'rape culture' proponents is this: they equivocate between defending those accused of rape and defending the act of rape itself. To defend someone accused of rape (or any other crime) is not to defend the crime itself or to minimize the seriousness of the crime. On the contrary, the more serious the crime, the more vigorous the defense needs to be, given that the consequences of a conviction are so severe. To defend someone accused of murder is not to defend the act of murder, and the same logic should be used in cases of rape. This person supporting the false notion of 'rape culture' seems to believe that any time a man is accused of rape, he should be assumed guilty. I see nothing rational or fair about this. Those accused of a crime deserve a defense; it's wrong to find someone guilty in the court of public opinion and to brand them guilty of rape (or murder or whichever crime they've been accused of) before they have had a chance to defend them self. Given that false rape accusations do exist, behaving this way would result in countless innocent people having their lives ruined by these well-meaning but ultimately misguided social justice crusaders.


 * As far as this being an 'uncertainty tactic', nonsense. There is legitimate reason to challenge the mistaken ideas promoted by RC proponents. It's not anything like a creationist who says "Were you there? Prove it" in response to the evidence for evolution. The reasoning behind the false notion that we live in a rape culture is fundamentally flawed and should be challenged and corrected. --BennyOcean (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with FCP that this article needs to make a stronger case for the existence of rape culture. Furthermore, the section entitled "Jokes" appears to be fairly butthurt by any non-authoritarian standard. I support its removal from the article. Thirdly, the articles rape apology and rape culture have insane levels of overlap and ought to be marked for duplication. Even the summaries are close siblings. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, especially considering that when many people use the term 'rape culture' what they are really referring to is rape apology... people defending rape, rapists, or making rape seem less serious than it is. The Rape Culture stub could be shrunk down to a single paragraph that briefly describes what people mean when they use the term and a reference to the section on rape apology. Something like "Rape culture is a term used to describe the ways in which a society can trivialize, rationalize, or even condone rape and other acts of sexual violence. Rape culture includes a variety of issues from the way raped individuals are treated by police to the way rape is portrayed in fiction and by the media. For more information visit our article on rape apology ."


 * The second part of that intro needs serious scrutiny. Modern rape culture is steeped in institutionalized misogyny, having at its core cultural features of a society that is defining, politicizing, and ultimately controlling women's bodies. Rape culture, like all other aspects of culture, informs individual behaviors on many levels - often in ways the individual isn't even aware of. This is not a fair analysis of this issue, it's advocacy for a certain ideological position. This site, at its best, isn't about advocating for a radical feminist ideology or any other ideology. Anyway I'm new to the site so am actually pleased just to have my suggestions given consideration. Thanks for that.--BennyOcean (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Reasonable discussion is always not only accepted, but encouraged. I look forward to reading your contributions to this article Benny. B4Xiphos (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I vote for merging RC and RA. RC is about the kinds of ideas which lead to increased rates of rape among certain populations (eg, college kids). RA documents and picks apart these ideas, and would do well to have more ideas apart-ed.
 * I also support this merger, on the condition that RC becomes the redirect to RA, and RA is treated as the new main article for the entire topic. In matters where the viewpoints of RC and RA collide (or where RC claims are better explained in RA terms), RA should take precedent. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If the articles were merged (which I don't think is necessary), rape culture should be the primary article. Rape apology is one of its symptoms. 07:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Rape Culture' is rape apology rephrased as an aspect of culture. Any crime could be mischaracterized in this way. If we have murder within our culture, do we have murder culture? Just because X-crime exists within a culture that has 'crime-X' doesn't mean that we live in an 'X-crime culture'. The basic (unproven) notion is that rape apology runs so deep through society that it is an integral part of society. There is ample evidence to reject this assertion. RC could and should be devoted a section within the RA article. The idea to merge and redirect is a good one.--BennyOcean (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have the reverse view on the relationship between RA and RC. As I see it, RC is an attempt to explain RA. RA isn't an attempt to explain RC. That arguably makes RC a subcategory of RA, not the other way around. Emphasis on the word "attempt to explain", as we're at least 4 editors in this thread who (for various reasons, I'm sure) find the case that RC currently makes (for either existence, extent, or both) a little thin (which means precisely that, "a little thin", not anything much harsher). The case for RA, however, is very strong - indeed a proven fact and phenomenon, and an important issue at that. Now, to be clear, nobody is talking about overtly blanking out RC or the likes (though part of the reason behind this discussion is that the current text goes much too far with the concept). I think that, as BennyOcean suggests, RC should be a visible subsection of RA. But a subsection, none the less. And as FCP points out, they do overlap perfectly in terms of topic. There's arguments for a merger from a purely editorial viewpoint, in my opinion. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not merge them. They're different aspects and each article is quite long enough to stand alone - David Gerard (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I could also imagine not merging them on the basis that it might actually lend RC undue credibility to be treated that closely to the very real problem of RA. I'd settle for a critical re-write of the RC article in that case. We ought to bring this to a vote. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Rape culture is also a very real problem, your disbelief notwithstanding. I don't think we need to indulge rape culture denial any more than patriarchy denial or class system denial. 12:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, "indulge rape culture denialism"? Save some gunpowder for later, old timer. It's completely fair to observe the to this highly nuanced subset of a subset of feminist theory. As the TOW summary underscores, "There is disagreement over what defines a rape culture and as to whether any given societies meet the criteria to be considered a rape culture.". Besides, all the valid criticism needed to refute the current angle of the article comes from within established feminism. It's not like the suggestion is we take on MRA criticisms here. There is no denialism in highlighting the most important academic feminist views on the questionable suggestion of the existence of a "rape culture". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Weaseloid, you speak of 'rape culture denial' and 'patriarchy denial' using the same language someone might use about holocaust denial or climate change/science denial. Is that really fair? The holocaust and climate change are firmly established and accepted by the vast majority of scientists and historians. Patriarchy theory and the notion of 'rape culture' are not established fact in that same sense. These ideas have found widespread acceptance only within radical feminist circles and are not endorsed by academia or within society in general. They are, in other words, fringe ideas. It would be a mistake to treat controversial, fringe ideas such as these as if they were something other than what they are.--BennyOcean (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @Benny I'm going to comment on that personally by saying that I would most certainly argue that the existence of a historical patriarchy, against which feminists in every nation in the world still struggles (though clearly to a differing degree, compare Sweden to the Islamic State), is a completely proven and even obvious fact. I would also argue that it is always right to call real denialism denialism (thus not supporting a tone argument); however, I don't know why Weasel would suggest that what I've been arguing for above in this thread constitutes any form of denialism, and frankly, as a feminist I take offense at the suggestion. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As someone who is not a feminist, I certainly grant that there are patriarchal elements to many if not most societies in the world, and as you go back in time you encounter more obvious and undeniable patriarchal systems, for example tribes led by chieftains who were almost always male. But for the most part, this discussion is centered on the state of affairs in the modern, western world. From what I've seen, radical feminists use "the patriarchy" as a kind of all-purpose boogy-man, one which can be pointed to and blamed for all of society's ills. Maybe my problem is that many of the people who I've been exposed to speaking on this issue are the most extreme voices who blame literally every problem in the world on 'the patriarchy' and I just don't buy it. It strikes me as lazy thinking and a knee-jerk desire to blame men for every problem. Sure men suck but women suck too. Humans suck. Anyway I'm sure I have plenty to learn regarding this issue. I don't claim to be an expert, and it's slightly off-topic for this particular talk page so I'll stop there.--BennyOcean (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think our societies have been patriarchal in the past but aren't any more, there is some onus on you to identify when & how patriarchy ended. What you will find instead is that by various great & small cultural shifts elements of patriarchy within our cultures have been gradually eroded away, but many remnants of it linger on - often unacknowledged - in various aspects of culture.  Same goes for rape culture, unless you're going to maintain that marital rape, rape victim-blaming & shaming, rape cover-ups, rape fantasies, & sexual harassment, are things that are never & have never been tolerated or sanctioned within our societies & their cultural products.  19:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The word patriarchy refers to male rule. It was a system much more common in the past where men ran the show and women were little more than property. Women are no longer property and now have every right a man has under the law. It's worth repeating that I would center the discussion on western society and the United States specifically, because you can't discuss all cultures worldwide at once. There are certainly patriarchal societies still in place today, but to argue that modern western democracies are still fundamentally patriarchal is incorrect. There's also the problem of referring to it as "the patriarchy" as if it were some kind of firmly established institution, such as "the Republican party" or "the U.S. federal government". It is no such institution; rather, it is a principle that men are in charge this causes women to suffer.


 * The patriarchy stuff is a rather large tangent so I'll set that aside and focus only on rape culture for the sake of staying on topic and keeping it simple. I'll do my best to respond to the aspects of society raised by Weaseloid: "unless you're going to maintain that marital rape (etc.) have never been tolerated or sanctioned within our societies". I'll just take them one by one. Marital rape was tolerated, as was child-beating. It used to be considered normal for a man to whip his children when they get out of line, while now it's seen as abuse. Our ideas evolve over time and we have trended toward greater civility as we have progressed. Sexual assault was more common and more tolerated in the past, as was assault more generally. Rates of violent crime (including rape) have been decreasing for a long time and that looks to continue. This discussion isn't about what society was like many years ago but what it's like now. Victim-blaming & shaming is for the most part an aberration. The exception is when a woman is seen to be partially culpable in her own victimization, which is a touchy subject. Some want to pretend that a woman can never be partly responsible for being victimized, but it's hard to deny that there are things that can be done to greatly reduce your risk. For example excessive drinking opens a person up to a variety of ways of being victimized. For the sake of an example I'll make a confession: I used to consume alcohol in far greater quantities than is wise, especially while being in public. Being drunk in public opens you up to an array of possible problems, such as drunk driving, getting in fights, or being robbed or sexually assaulted. Alcohol (and certain other drugs) lower our inhibitions so that we'll be less likely to say no to things we would not normally do while sober. So one night out I was drunk and left my wallet on the bar when I went to the restroom and when I got back it was gone. Now you could say "don't teach people not to get shitface drunk, teach people not to steal from shitface drunk people" but the fact remains that I played a part in my own victimization that night, and when I told friends what happened that night, they made sure to let me know about it. Don't confuse me for saying that women are always to blame when they get raped. Sometimes there's nothing they could have done, but it's also smart to take precautions. Some of the "blaming and shaming" talk comes from the fact that after a woman has been victimized, well-meaning people can try to give advice to prevent the victim from having the same thing happen in the future. Rape cover-ups undoubtedly happen, but some percentage of all crimes are covered up and we have no way of knowing what percentage of rapes are covered up. And covered up by whom? The police? Schools? The best example I could think of would be something like the Catholic church, where we see a clear pattern of sexual abuse followed by cover-ups. I would suggest that this lends support to the idea of the Catholic priesthood being a 'rape culture' of sorts, as much as I dislike the term. They seem to have no problems abusing kids and covering it up and seem to see it as normal and acceptable. This cavalier attitude, however, is not true of society at large. Most people don't want to live anywhere near a rapist, so there is a strong incentive to hold them responsible and send them to prison. Your typical American cop doesn't have the same motive to cover up crimes that a member of the clergy might, unless the offender happened to be a cop which generally isn't the case. And if a cop did cover up the rape of a fellow-cop, that has less to do with the cops being pro-rape and more to do with the fact that they cover for each other no matter what the crime. So in that case it would be about loyalty to fellow 'brothers in arms' rather than a pro-rape attitude. Rape fantasies, really? Do you really want to police the fantasy lives of your fellow citizens? How would you do such a thing? By the way women and men engage in deviant sexual fantasies and this is not an indication that society would approve if all those deviant activities were happening in actuality. Also, people fantasize about all kinds of things. What kind of solution would you suggest? Are we policing thought crimes now? And as far as sexual harassment, one person's harassment is another person's flirting, and the distinction is inherently subjective and thus hard to regulate. I don't know where to draw the line. As an example, there's a married couple I used to know, the woman told me that when she first met her husband, he asked her out three or four times before she finally said yes. Eventually his persistence paid off. They ended up married with kids, happily ever after etc. My point is that sometimes persistence pays, "if at first you don't succeed" and all that. Was he harassing her? Maybe. Was it worth the risk for him to be seen as a pest? Absolutely.


 * What this question comes down to is does society approve of rape? From the first line in the article... the ways in which a society trivializes, rationalizes, or even condones rape and other acts of sexual violence. There are multiple problems with this. The first is that 'society' doesn't do anything. Society is an abstraction, it's a generalization about the actions of many individuals, but it is the individual which might trivialize, rationalize or condone rape. Weaseloid asked about "marital rape, rape victim-blaming & shaming, rape cover-ups, rape fantasies, & sexual harassment". I have no problem conceding that these things happen, and happened much more in the past, when the problem of sexual assault was much worse. But why would we make the logical leap from "this list of bad things happen" to "society approves of rape"? Many evil things happen in our society. Someone is dying of a drug overdose as we speak, and someone else is being shot to death in a gang dispute. Someone is dying in a drunk driving collision while someone else is kidnapping a child from their crib. Many people are cheating on their spouses. The list goes on. Just because you can provide a list of bad things that exist in society doesn't mean that society approves or promotes rape (or any other crime). It just means people do shitty things. The law is imperfect and the people who have written the laws are imperfect, but that doesn't mean that they have bad intentions or that they intend to allow crimes to go unpunished.--BennyOcean (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So, picking up a couple of your examples, do you also deny the existence of drug culture & gang culture? 10:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course not, but they are sub-cultures. The RC claim is being made about society or 'culture' as a whole. The Catholic priesthood is an example of a sub-culture where rape culture could be justifiably argued, as are men's prisons, but that can't be said of society at large.--BennyOcean (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "The RC claim" is being made about aspects of culture which (often subtly) encourage or excuse rape. Nobody is saying that everybody within society promotes rape all the time. As for the Catholic Church's child sex scandals & coverups, they're paralleled with similar cases in other conservative religious communities (Mormons, Orthodox Jews, Christian homeschool movement), with cases in secular organisations such as schools & orphanages, & with the many show business examples of rape allegations against celebrities being hushed up for decades. 12:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The claim being made is that American society is a rape culture. Can we find flaws with how the crime is handled by cops and in the courts? Probably. Can we find sub-cultures with unfortunate ideas about not just rape but women's rights in general? Sure. But the claim being made is not that there are subcultures within or aspects of society that have unfortunate ideas about women's rights. The claim being made is about society in general, U.S. society at large... and the idea that we live in a rape culture that trivializes, rationalizes and condones rape is not well supported by the evidence.
 * No, that's still a strawman. Rape culture isn't a binary thing that a society either "is" or is not. Rape culture is a theme which exists within societies & cultures to a greater or lesser extent, like patriarchy or racism. Since you mentioned other forms of violence earlier in this discussion, let's look at that. Violence is condemned by law & often (not always) by public opinion. But you'd have to be an idiot to claim that American culture never condones, normalises or glamourises violence. & You can't meaningfully describe violence within American society as a "subculture" when it's so pervasive within mainstream entertainment as well as in many people's attitudes & lives. Rape culture is the same thing but the forms it takes are usually less overt. 14:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm describing the concept as I understand it. "Rape culture is a theme which exists within societies"... why are we attaching the word 'culture' to the terrible crime of rape? What does it add? The basic idea is that some people or groups are more accepting of what most reasonable modern people consider to be sexual abuse. Maybe so. Some people are more accepting of a wide variety of deviant behaviors, but that doesn't mean that those people at the fringes of society should be defining our culture as a whole as some deviant culture that embraces rape as a norm. I see adding the word 'culture' to the crime of rape as highly (and intentionally) misleading. The intent is to portray this crime as something accepted and promoted by our culture... something that American society embraces. This is a highly unflattering as well as untrue portrayal of who we are as a people. If you want to talk about violence more generally rather than sticking specifically to sexual violence then sure, violence is incredibly common on screen. How many action movies have you seen where 100+ people are killed on screen? (almost always men) Probably quite a few. I've never seen 100 rapes in a movie. Sometimes rape is mentioned but rarely shown. It's really not a major feature of the cinematic experience... movie-goers just don't want to watch rapes. As an example, Sansa Stark was raped in an episode of Game of Thrones last year and it caused quite a stir. People are beaten and killed in various TV shows every day and no one bats an eye, but when a pretty young girl gets raped on screen there is an outcry. This should serve as a demonstration of how not accepting we are concerning sexual violence, particularly in comparison with nonsexual violence. But again, I hope you're not suggesting some kind of thought policing. We don't need to be trying to control peoples' fantasy lives. Just because people watch a movie where people are killed doesn't mean they want to go out killing people. Watching a movie like '300' doesn't mean a person is embracing 'murder culture' and in the same sense, watching an episode of 'Game of Thrones' doesn't mean that they are embracing 'rape culture' or 'murder culture' or 'incest culture' or any of the other deviant types of 'cultures' portrayed in that show.--BennyOcean (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm describing the concept as I understand it. And clearly you don't, and don't want to. I mean, there's a Wikipedia article with a ton of references on the term, it's an established term that means something, you're literally wasting your time trying to reinvent the term from first principles here. Your claim "The objectivity of this entry needs to be challenged" really means "I don't like the term and never mind I literally don't understand it", with the implication that your lack of understanding constitutes objectivity. There are a number of problems with this - David Gerard (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I've got a pretty good handle on it, and your criticism is coming off as more of an insult than anything. My complaint was that the entry on this page is unbalanced and it is. Just go back through the archive on this talk page and you'll have years and pages worth of people saying similar things to what I've said. I didn't realize at first that this has been a long-running theme here on this page, but it seems I'm far from the first to notice this problem.--BennyOcean (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "I think I've got a pretty good handle on it." You don't. Here are some dumb things you've said about Rape Culture and feminism in general in this discussion that demonstrate you don't have a "pretty good handle on it," rather that you've "listened to a lout of shoutyman videos on the internet about it"
 * "they equivocate between defending those accused of rape and defending the act of rape itself"
 * "This person supporting the false notion of 'rape culture' seems to believe that any time a man is accused of rape, he should be assumed guilty"
 * "These ideas have found widespread acceptance only within radical feminist circles and are not endorsed by academia or within society in general"
 * "radical feminists use "the patriarchy" as a kind of all-purpose boogy-man, one which can be pointed to and blamed for all of society's ills"
 * "The word patriarchy refers to male rule"
 * "The first is that 'society' doesn't do anything. Society is an abstraction"
 * "The claim being made is that American society is a rape culture."
 * "The basic idea is that some people or groups are more accepting of what most reasonable modern people consider to be sexual abuse."
 * And then there's you demonstrating rape culture:
 * "example excessive drinking opens a person up to a variety of ways of being victimized"
 * "Sometimes there's nothing they could have done, but it's also smart to take precautions."
 * It's not my job to educate you, so I won't, but you need to get educated. Hipocrite (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've read countless articles on a variety of news web pages and blogs, as well as watched a lot of videos and interacted on various forums. You can call my views dumb because you disagree with them, but I don't consider that any kind of refutation or rebuttal. I could go point-by-point but you've not given me much to work with. I'll tackle a few.
 * People making the claim about rape culture do in fact conflate defending the accused with defending rapists or the act of rape itself. Defending a person accused of a crime is not the same as promoting or condoning the crime itself. Everyone is deserving of a vigorous defense, even if they are accused of rape.
 * Proponents of rape culture do believe that men should be assumed guilty. Attitudes such as this one are very common in feminist circles. Regarding the 'Jackie' debacle at U-Va, Many people will be tempted to see this as a reminder that officials, reporters and the general public should hear both sides of the story and collect all the evidence before coming to a conclusion in rape cases. This is what we mean in America when we say someone is “innocent until proven guilty.” After all, look what happened to the Duke lacrosse players. In important ways, this is wrong. We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says. Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist. The woman (accuser) is to be believed and the man who stands accused is to be disbelieved by default, as a matter of course. Facts be damned. Innocent until proven guilty? No way.
 * RC has only found widespread acceptance among feminists. "The Patriarchy" is used as an all-purpose boogy-man. I've seen it blamed for not just all the problems of women but also the problems of men. "We have these gender roles because of the patriarchy... men are expected to be providers and women caregivers because of the patriarchy... war is because of the patriarchy... poverty... etc." I've literally seen all those things blamed on the patriarchy, which does in fact mean 'male rule'. If you don't believe me, look it up. Society, in the sense they are using it, is an abstraction. Society is made up of (in the case of the U.S.) 300+ million people. Each of them have different attitudes and actions. Do they all promote/endorse/support rape? Of course not, but according to feminists, enough of them support rape that they feel comfortable referring to our society as a rape culture.
 * Excessive drinking does open you up to being victimized. How could you even challenge that point? Did you catch that story about my wallet? Do you think I would have left it on the bar if I were sober? There are many unwise things that drunk people will do that sober people would not do, so it is the job of the intelligent, sober-minded person to not do something that will put them in harm's way. Getting shitface drunk in public is a foolish thing to do. If you disagree I don't really know what to say to drag you back to reality.
 * It is smart to take precautions. How can this be denied by any reasonable person? --If this is the best you can do I'm disappointed. --BennyOcean (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's go point-by-point through your repeated shoutyman talking points.
 * Conflation: That which can be asserted without evidence....
 * Believing accusers does not mean ignoring the legal right to be regarded as innocent in the public eye. See, for example, OJ Simpson, who is not guilty of killing his wife, though he killed his wife. We do not provide the accused the standard of "innocent in the public eye" to people accused of nearly any crime but rape, because rape culture.
 * Acceptance: That which can be asserted without evidence....
 * Precautions: Only in the case of rape is the victims failure to take precautions considered a defense against the crime, because rape culture. In the case of your wallet, if someone took it and used your cash and credit cards, there would be no doubt in the prosecutors mind that you had been robbed.
 * If this is the best you can do, I'm unsurprised. The shoutymen are stupid. You alledge you "read countless articles on a variety of news web pages and blogs, as well as watched a lot of videos and interacted on various forums." Let me provide you a hint - when you talk with people who agree with you on your shoutyman forums about people who don't agree with you and the later are not present, you can't presume to understand what the latter think. Hipocrite (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So, then, when people are accused of rape with little or no evidence presented, it should be dismissed, yes? Otherwise, your point about conflation is entirely meaningless. Burkean (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Shoutyman? Look smart ass, I'm trying to have a respectful discussion and you're being rude and dismissive. You can disagree without being a jerk. I'll briefly respond to a couple things you've brought up but I'm not having a long back & forth on this, especially if the rudeness continues. If you don't agree with my statement that RC proponents conflate 'defending rape' with 'defending those accused of rape', that's fine. I've seen many cases of feminists assuming that every man accused of rape is guilty. The woman is to be believed and the man is to be disbelieved. To defend him is to defend rape. It's *not all feminists* but it's a lot of them who act this way. If you need references I could dig the up I suppose.
 * "We do not provide the accused the standard of "innocent in the public eye" to people accused of nearly any crime but rape, because rape culture." I didn't say anything about the public eye, I talked about the courts. Everyone needs a defense. Every crime, the accused must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I made no special exception for rape. "because rape culture" my ass. Innocent until proven guilty is the law of the land, period.
 * RE: acceptance, if you think RC has found widespread acceptance outside of radical feminism you're seriously deluded. These fringe ideas have made some inroads into mainstream academia but at this moment in time it is not a widely accepted idea in the mainstream. I'm not sure how to prove the level of acceptance so we can just agree to disagree. I am of the firm opinion that this continues to be a fringe idea.
 * "Only in the case of rape is the victims failure to take precautions considered a defense against the crime". Horse shit. That was the whole point of my wallet example. "If someone took it and used your cash and credit cards, there would be no doubt in the prosecutors mind that you had been robbed." I was robbed. That's not the point. The point was that it was partly my fault because of my irresponsible behavior. If I had not been drunk I would not have been careless with my money. A person is responsible for the predictable consequences of one's actions. An intelligent adult should be able to predict the increased likelihood of negative outcomes when they get wasted in public. If you know that getting drunk increases the likelihood of bad things happening to you and you take the risk anyway, that's on you. I'm not talking about rape culture, I'm talking about personal responsibility for one's actions. Does it mean that a rapist is innocent? Of course not. The rapist is still an asshole and should be prosecuted and sent to prison. The guy who took the wallet was also guilty. The fact that I allowed it to happen doesn't make him or her less guilty, but it would be foolish to pretend that I played no part in my own victimization. Denying that I had made a mistake that created the opportunity for this victimization could lead me to being victimized again in the future. It's important to learn from one's mistakes so that they are not repeated.
 * "If this is the best you can do, I'm unsurprised. The shoutymen are stupid." This is a basic ad hominem. When you stoop to the level of insults, I really shouldn't even respond, but I did anyway because I'm a nice guy. You're welcome, asshole.--BennyOcean (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I see the TONE POLICE are here to tell me how I have to be nicer to you because reasons. I'm being "rude and dismissive," to you because you are being "rude and dismissive" to the facts, with your thought-for-thought identicality to the standard shoutyman video (which you regularly watch and like on youtube, don't deny, I have PROOF!). "I've seen many cases of feminists assuming that every man accused of rape is guilty" Show me one. You write "I didn't say anything about the public eye," but your example was a washington post article about the public eye. Did you read what you linked? (obviously not! You listened to a shoutyman video about it and listened and believed!) You write "I'm not sure how to prove the level of acceptance so we can just agree to disagree." But you already judged it as not accepted? How can you judge and not know how to judge? I judge by reading the relevant journals. You apparently judge from the shoutyman videos you have liked over and over on youtube. "The point was that it was partly my fault because of my irresponsible behavior." And that would have had no bearing on the punishment or the prosecution of the criminal, unlike in rape cases, because rape culture. You write "The rapist is still an asshole and should be prosecuted and sent to prison." But they aren't, because rape culture. "Asshole." This is a basic ad hominem. When you stoop to the level of insults, I really shouldn't even respond, but I did anyway because I'm a nice guy. You're welcome, asshole. Hipocrite (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Call it 'tone policing' if you like. You repeatedly referred to me as 'shoutyman' because you don't like my point of view. I'm just calling a spade a spade. You're being a jerk and I'm done talking to you.--BennyOcean (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * oh if only - David Gerard (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * JorisEnter (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Rape Culture Means That Society is corrupt
I like to ask why did my edits get taken down? Because I don't see the article as any different to without my post. I yet to see a statement to my objection to not all societ in my comment above of...

So what are we then, misandric or Islamophobic?

Not all of society is corrupt, aka supports violence against women anymore then all men are rapist.

This the article is very gender orientated, I would like an argument on my opinion of my previous post.

I have a growing anxiety from reading this article, so please respond before I have another panic attack or generalize all American men as rapist.--180.216.96.172 (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hipocrite (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I want an argument, not just a rejection.--180.216.96.172 (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Well respond, is society as a whole corrupt or only portions? Are all men rapist, or just individual men? Do all women slut shame or just individual religious fundamentalist?--101.179.151.222 (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Since this article covers "Not all men"...
...I'd just like to bring back the discussion surrounding making "Not all men" a separate article. The below is pasted from FCP's talkpage archive. Atleast me, Fuzzy and Gerard agreed to the suggestion. Any takers? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The paste
I think this is an ok idea.

Suggestion for a novel logic/rhetoric article
Hey, Fuzzy! I had an idea. Basically, I just googled for the "Not all men" expression, because wanted to know more about what it was supposed to mean. I used the following sources to try to get a clue about what it means;


 * http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rape_culture#Addressing_the_.22not_all_men.22_defense
 * http://time.com/79357/not-all-men-a-brief-history-of-every-dudes-favorite-argument/
 * http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/not-all-men
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NotAllMen
 * http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=not+all+men
 * https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-problem-with-saying-not-all-men-are-like-that-when-talking-about-sexual-harassment
 * https://www.reddit.com/r/AskWomen/comments/26ly14/can_someone_help_me_with_the_not_all_men_argument/

After having read through all those links (took a good 20 minutes), I've come to the conclusion that this expression is first of all both notable and missonal for us to have an article on. Further, the expression is inherently one of logic and rhetoric, which we are really good at covering. Thirdly, what is also clear is that the expression actually has two different uses! (Which also makes it vulnerable to equivocation).

The first use is summed up in the Quora link quite well, and entails the use: when someone tries to deflects a specific (often proven) example with a general blanket statement. E.g.;

...which is clearly fallacious.

The second use of the term, which is also fallacious, is instead: when someone tries to demand that a blatant overgeneralisation not be questioned. E.g;

...which is also clearly fallacious.

I find that this is something we should educate about - that is, about the fact that: contained within the "Not all men"-statement are two logically different (yet related) scenarios;
 * One in which specific examples, often with proof provided, are fallaciously washed away with solipsistic blanket statements which are essentially non sequitor to the issue at hand
 * One in which a claim-maker attempts to bully others into letting the claim-maker overgeneralize as much as he or she pleases (essentially trying to force other people to agree that the of the claim-maker be granted the status of a logically sound or even plausible statement - which it isn't).

I think that this is material sufficient for an article on this. I also think that the info (e.g. from the wikipedia article) about the history of the hashtags and the Isla Vista killings and all that ought to be separated from our description of this specific logical fallacy. That stuff could go in our Rape Culture article or some such, assuming we decide to port that into our article at all. Thoughts on this? All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: This comic is really funny and defines the first of the two different uses of "Not all men" which I outline above. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Not all X" is a variant of No true Scotsman, and is also seen from libertarians - could be a section in that - David Gerard (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, though I would still argue that it deserves its own article, considering the two-fold meanings (both of which may not tie fully into NTS), the search-friendly name, and the associations that exist to it. The petition I'm making here is still for its own article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Not all" would make a great article. It's not quite NTS. NTS says, "If X did Y, then X isn't really a Z". Not all men (NAM), for example, doesn't say that. NAM doesn't say that the men who DO do that aren't men. Rather, it says that the original statement was an overgeneralization. NAM says, "Although [X] did [Y], not [all X] do [Y]. Thus, the example of '[X] did [Y]' is irrelevant to the general behavior of [all X] towards [Y]." While this is logically true, it functions as a conversation-ender -- and usually the person who asserts that "[X] are such [Y]-doers" was trying to talk about the anecdote itself, not the general class of [X]. EG: "My BF just broke up with me. Men are such jerks." It is (usually) unlikely that the speaker is trying to talk about all [X]. 22:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * True. It's already on the to-do list as Not all X, fwiw - David Gerard (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So we're in agreement then, gents! And with the two separate established uses I've dug up, it'll be nuanced and make for great reading, methinks. :) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
I propose it written as "Not all" with sections for men and whatever else is prominent in this hashtag. 20:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As and when those sections actually exist - David Gerard (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Started. 18:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Gender roles being unwittingly promoted in the article.
An excerpt from the article:

"Rape culture flourishes in societies where teens are not taught how to talk about sex and about what they each want. Paired with the above, this leads to instances where neither party is quite sure what the other wants and can lead directly to rape. Contrast this with an ideal situation where women are taught as young girls that it is okay to say no or yes, but be clear, and where boys are taught to only accept a strong yes as a yes."

Assumptions this tells readers to make, according to the 'ideal' situation:

1. Women should be taught to be passive creatures that respond to sexual advances clearly, but only respond, not make advances of their own.

2. Men should be taught to always ask for consent but not worry about whether to give it. They don't need to worry about responding to sexual advances.

3. Lesbians don't exist, or at least don't need to be taught how to make sexual advances.

4. Men don't need to be taught how to respond to sexual advances from other men.

5. There are two sexes or genders in this world that matter, men and women. Nonbinaries don't need sex ed.

6. The cause of rape is largely to do with women "not being clear."

7. The cause of rape is largely to do with men "accepting a weak yes."

I'm sorry to be so harsh here, but this is so far from ideal that it is about as conducive to avoiding rape culture as Donald Trump is to draining the swamp.

If anything, a society where boys live under the explicit assumption that sex is something they will always ask for and never be asked for, and girls vice versa, would be more retrograde and rape-prone than modern society, where at least we can tolerate the level of equality that maybe sometimes, people don't fit cookie-cutter stereotypes of their biological sex. That women are not always the asked and men are not always the ones asking.

This article in particular should be a paragon of gender equality, but instead, parts of it look like something that was written by a person from before the notion of social gender equality even existed. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 73.25.110.186 / talk / contribs
 * We'll definitely take a look at it and rewrite to make it more clear. Thanks for the input. Please sign your name with four tildes as well. Vive Liberté! 13:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going to point out the same thing after reading it today. Perhaps it should be changed to something along the lines of; "Contrast this with the ideal situation where teenagers are taught that's it's okay to deny or accept sexual advances, but to be clear, and to only act upon enthusiastic approval by the other party." megalodon (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)