From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Good job Mei. Your edits are really good. Researcher (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh thanks. ^_______^ I just grabbed some sources from wikipedia. -- Mei (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

types of rape?[edit]

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this title. A rape is a rape; there are not really different "types" of rape. I'm not sure what would be better though. It just feels - really wierd.--Pink mowse.pngGodot Warning, chocolate will make your clothes shrink 23:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

women v. victim[edit]

I kept writing 'women' as i changed this article, but I tried to remember that it's "victim" as not all victims are women. Please if you see "women" somewhere, change it? thanks - godot.--Pink mowse.pngGodot Warning, chocolate will make your clothes shrink 01:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, using a word according to its correct meaning can be difficult after it has been subjected to attempts to make it a synonym of "false consciousness." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 01:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Nods.gif ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

American right-wingers' attitudes toward rape v. Politicization of rape in the US[edit]

Definitely the latter, which describes a process. The former is a blanket accusation with an implicit assumption that all right-wingers share a particular attitude on the question of rape. B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 04:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the "implicit assumption" part, but if the section header is not changed, it would be apropos to add to the section a very long list, about the length of the New York telephone directory, of how the issue has been politicized on the other side of the spectrum, as with the "Take Back the Night" marches. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Why am I not surprised that you would have a problem with Take Back the Night? B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 04:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I have no particular issue with the "Take Back the Night" marches (aside from the loony views of some of their organizers, but that is sort of a fringe concern); but one cannot deny that they make a political issue out of rape, according to the old saying, "The personal is political." It is not the politicization that is the problem in that section, but the attempted relaxation of rape laws. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I changed the header to "Rape and the Tea Party;" I also put a fact-tag on the bullet point about Rick Perry (it is usually the legislature that makes things legal...) Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ayn Rand / fictionalised rape romances[edit]

Dunno if relevant or on-mission, but is it worth noting that Howard Roark raped Dominique Francon, who later married him? Or is fiction a valid source? I only ask because Randroids appear to love the romance between the two characters (At one point, I even idealized the characters, until I read the book a second time). -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the rapey romances of Ayn Rand go on the Ayn Rand page. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The Comedian raped Silk Spectre and she fucking loved it. Is that relevant? Which reminds me, "rape fantasy" possibly either needs to be explored here or the BDSM page. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 02:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, she didn't love it, she simply justified it post-hoc. However, point made and understood. I would say "rape fantasy" belongs on BDSM (possibly linked to from the "See also" on "Rape", or under a "Not the same as" section), as it is still a consensual activity. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Correction: The Comedian attempted to rape Silk Spectre, but was stopped. They later had consensual sex. All of this is explored and commented on in the Watchmen comic book. Mcc1789 (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I think fiction which implicitly endorses rape should be covered somewhere, either in rape culture or rape apology. I know a few examples from film (Straw Dogs, High Plains Drifter, etc.) ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Rape and religion[edit]

I'd like to add a section about the laws regarding rape when it comes to religion eg. the old testament teachings as well as rape in Islam and how the victim is often blamed.--Sammygirl (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Go right ahead. Surprised there isn't anything like that already. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 05:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Some interesting stuff on the subject - from the looks of it, it's not rape, it's just catching a woman and having sex with her without her consent. Scarlet A.pngmoral 14:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
This will never happen, cause they make their money off tourism, but Egypt still has laws on its book that while a man might be convicted too, a woman who is raped and reports it, will be convicted of illicit sex, and will be emprisioned for 4 - 5 months, to prove she is pregnant or not. If she is pregnant, then the rapist can marry her. Old old norse culture (and i'm sure many others) had the same tradition. wanna marry a girl but she hates you? just rape her!Pink mowse.pngGodotEn live 15:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The Talmud has slightly different views, including a prohibition from spousal rape, a husband's obligation to ensure that the wife is sexually satisfied, and some rather specific references to how and how frequently such acts should be performed. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I knew that was the case in teh "i'd heard that once". if you know specfics please add them! Pink mowse.pngGodotDear god, fucking grow up 21:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Rape rates probably about to skyrocket in the US[edit]

Because the Justice Department is going to re-tool how the word is defined. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 16:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

When the definition has "the carnal knowledge of a female" in it, it damn well needs an update. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 16:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Word. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 16:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
So this whole time, the only people officially being raped were women? Ok, I'll stop whining about discrimination now.  !Pink mowse.pngGodotDear god, fucking grow up 16:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Rape and evolution[edit]

As a former protégé of Thornhill I take issue with our presentation of the idea. Rather than turn it into a war of citations how about we just don't include it in this article and if people really want to dissect it we can do a separate piece on it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it can and should be put here. I'm just not sure what you are looking for, cause i don't see a section "evolution and rape".Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 18:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Well I removed the paragraph that was there before. The issue is that if their is disagreement between editors on this point the section is likely to bloom disproportionate to what it should be in this article. That is why I suggested that if people really want to dissect it we should have an article just for this research. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Gotcha. I edited it, to say something, but not the tone it was before. If you're still bothered, then we can dump it and make it (later) into a new article.nevermind Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 20:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
You saying that someone has considered some pop-evo-pysch of rape? Fucking priceless. Scarlet A.pngsshole 20:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I am generally agnostic on a lot of evo-psych stuff, I have been back and forth on it many times. I have worked under a lot of the big names in the field though, and I don't think the ideas can be dismissed as easily as a lot of people seem want to do. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
You are right that this is likely to go far beyond this one page. One of my biggest problems with this idea that rape is evo and not cultural is that we simply do not see it in many (so called) primitive cultures. Rape is almost unheard of in most tribal cultures, where survival is more critical, and where we do not see strong patriarchal patters. Once patriarchy comes, rape comes. There is example after example of this happening in American Indian tribes where rape was not a problem until power shifted to a male focal culture. That wasn't taken into account at all in Nat History of Rape. Nor was the fact that sex is not about procreation in society, and hasn't been for what we call "modern" humans, since our sex drive is as much a pairing drive. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 20:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Unless, perhaps, you make a suitable argument for patriarchy being of evolutionary advantage and so rape is a side effect. But it is a crime - well, we consider it to be one - and so trying to give evolutionary origins to it is like trying to give evolutionary origins to murder, theft, fraud and so on. Indeed, most of our moral instinct is explained in evo-psych terms as these acts not being beneficial to us. Scarlet A.pngpostate 20:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with your assessment of rape prevalence in tribal/hunter-gather societies. What data are you drawing on? Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Rape victims suffer less emotional distress when they are subjected to more violence[edit]

WTF?? Trust me, rape is rape. you are not less emotional when you are beaten the fuck up. You are not less emotional when it's your boyfriend or lover. You are not less emotional when you have a knife at your throat. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 20:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I also have a pretty huge problem with the "contentions', as they are very one sided. "consider' that some species rape. Equally or more do not. so why is that not "considered". Men are raped. Why is that not considered. Wives who you can and are already copulating with are raped. that's hardly spreading your seed. Mostly women of child bearing years are raped - how is this a factor? Infants are raped, old people are raped. "mostly" is pretty shoddy a place to make a primary contention.Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 20:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep in mind that they are not merely asserting these things de novo but rather drawing on research that actually attempted to look at "distress measures." There is data to support their claims, and there are people that say that data is flawed, and people who say the criticism is flawed, and around and around it goes. But they are not merely asserting things, they do draw on research. To really do their hypothesis justice though you have to understand the whole argument that evolutionary psychology makes.
In brief, evo psych presents itself as studying behaviour as a bell curve. When I as TAing the Daly Wilson ev psych class I would talk about the "I know a guy stories." If I stand up and say that cigarettes cause lung cancer someone can always respond with an "I know a guy story" on either end, such as "I know a guy that smoked 2 packs a day and never had cancer," or "I know a guy that got lung cancer and never smoked." But these counter examples are not evidence against the casual relationship between smoking and cancer because that relationship takes place as a percent increase in risk. The same sort of argument is presented in evo psych. Individuals are individuals and subject to all the random little perturbation that makes behaviour unpredictable. Evolution does not work on an individual level. So examining behaviour at an individual level does not reveal much about potential evolutionary pressures or adaptations. You have to look at populations, and behaviours across a curve.
Thornhill and Palmer do not attempt to explain all acts of sexual violence. But rather ask under what conditions would rape be most likely to be under selective pressure, and does rape generally show this pattern. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea how to even begin responding to this. I'm an expert in religion, not pop-psychology, but this is nonsensical as a person who's spent the greater part of her adulthood first being counseled then "counseling" (not a therapist, just leader in survivor groups) rape victims. And it makes no sense that being beaten up makes a rape more "acceptable" to the rape victim. Nor the other way around, really. I can't even imagine any victim saying or thinking that it was somehow "better" to be beaten. my mind is just blown at that contention. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 21:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
But we can't use our personal experiences as the primary arbitrator of reality. I am not saying that Thornhill and Palmer has nailed this or anything. Like I said further up, I am agnostic on it, and tend to shift back and forth about what I think. However, it is not something that is easily dismissable. There is actual research and data collection that has been done to try and examine these issues. That research is peer-reviewed, published, and has met "replication and extension" as time has gone on. Now there is also criticism of the research, and some of that is very valid and pertinent and some of it is much hand wringing and waving. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I just finished "natural history of rape", and now i'm even more dubious than i was from teh reviews. Trent, you said "do not use personal examples, yet a many of their sources for their premises and "reasons" are based on individual reports of how women reacted at being raped. One specific example that stands out is the rape of a woman by an ape. The authors used that one example as *evidence* for the idea that men see rape as repugnant only because it is something that fucks with their ability to procreate. Not even a sense of "owing" a woman, or her being "clean" (which i would have argued from a historical/religious perspective". And further, that women see rape as offensive cause they cannot choose their reproductive partner. Their discussions of "women should wear more" is archaic, not evidenciary. There is no evidence that men rape more or less if women are naked, or are wearing a burka, and they don't cite to any sources other than their own feelings about how dressing effects rapists. Again, i realize my background is in Native Religions and not anthropology or psychology or any true science, but nothing here is making me stand up and say "this makes sense" especially in light of evo biologists who have come out against the work in this book. I also find it odd that no one else is really doing work on this that backs it up. I'm not saying the scholarship is shoddy, but I personally am dubious of many of the premises they assert before they begin the statistical research. It reads, to me, like a virtual "scientific reason we should blame the victim, and not blame our animal instincts". And yes, I do admit I read commentaries about rape quite personally, and that is a bias.Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 05:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
None of that though is at the heart of the hypothesis. The book was a pop-science piece and anecdotes and "practical advise" (whether good or bad) is part of the package when writing such a book. The real gist of this comes down to structure of the hypothesis, the reasoning behind it, and the supposed predictions and data that back it up. If you want to argue fairly and convincingly against the hypothesis you can hit it in several ways. One by showing that rape or its cascading effects would never be under evolutionary pressure, two by showing that the claimed predictions of an evolutionary model are faulty or that different predictions would be made, or three showing that the data collected either is faulty or does not back up the predictions. The arguments pro and con depend greatly on what part of the paradigm you want to argue against. The first point gets into the whole argument of the validity of evolutionary psychology, adaptationism, selection pressure, etc. Stuff that we were talking a bit about on the saloon bar with spandrels and exadpatation. The second is more specific, some of the major predictions we have talked about such as distress measures, or "preference" for reproductive age women, etc. The final we haven't really gotten into looking at the actual experiments such as the Carlson work in the early 90s.
Again, I am not saying I buy the hypothesis, but I also don't think it can be dismissed as lightly as everyone here seems to be trying to do. Where this argument succeeds or fails is in the data collection and predictions of the model not on the strength or weakness of anecdotes from either side. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Scorpion flies[edit]

Let me take a step back. Thornhill is entomologist at heart really. His interest in rape started with his work on Scorpion flies. I took a whole course from him just looking at mating strategies of scorpion flies both male and female so there is a lot of material there. But just to summarize to some of the most salient points, scorpion fly males seem to come in two primary phenotypes. The larger phenotype attempts to woo females through the gifts or prey and other displays. Females seem to prefer this males and they are the ones often chosen to copulate with. There is another phenotype that is much smaller, and tries to initiate copulation through forced mating and stealth. It even has several physical characteristics that aid it forcing copulation. This seems a rather classic example of bi-modal sexual selection, of evolution and adaptation. Is it wrong to think about this scenario in an evolutionary frame work? Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to Trent on Thornhill and Palmer[edit]

You say Thornhill and Palmer's (hereafter T&P) hypothesis cannot be "dismissed...lightly," but I beg to differ. Let me start by saying that my bias is clearly against T&P and I think the book is largely a hack job. I will give a brief overview of the overwhelming amounts of empirical evidence against T&P as well as some theoretical problems. A fatal flaw in both their by-product hypothesis (favored by P, if I remember correctly) and adaptive hypothesis (favored by T) is their reliance on Buss's "sexual strategies theory" (SST). The key piece of evidence in favor of SST that has been cited over and over is Buss (1989). T&P's presentation of Buss (1989) overlooks the limitations of the study that Buss himself notes in regard to sampling. There are also a number of problems with both the study itself and the line of thinking that has gone into similar research. The data analysis itself has been critiqued numerous times (e.g., Eagly and Wood 1999, 2002, Marlowe 2004, Buller 2005). In fact, Buller (2005) devotes an entire chapter to a re-analysis of the data (see here for a quick summary). Furthermore, SST, as well as later and earlier work in this vein, is theoretically flawed. Buss cites Bateman's Principles and Trivers' modification to it with regard to parental investment. This has not been shown to apply to humans (Brown, Laland, and Mulder 2009). Furthermore, it contradicts the ethnographic record and makes unwarranted assumptions about human pre-history, mixing Bateman with the discredited anthropological "Man the Hunter" model. Much rides on the assumption here that status of males is conferred by "resources," but this doesn't apply when women are providing for the majority of the caloric intake (see Lee and Heywood 1999 for an overview of "Man the Hunter"). Furthermore, projecting this misconception back into the archaeological record is a baseless assertion and has been discredited within these fields for quite some time (Conkey and Spector 1984, see Kuhn and Stiner 2006 for a plausible hypothesis that gendered division of labor did not even exist until the Upper Paleolithic). I can comment less confidently on other research used in the book, such as the sociological research on rape, but T&P's "responses" have failed to impress me. They mainly hack away at their critics' "ignorance" of evolutionary theory (probably justified in some cases), but largely elide challenges on statistical and empirical grounds (e.g., Travis 2003). I also find comparisons with scorpion flies to be irrelevant to humans, especially in the anthropomorphized way T&P use it. Apparently, this work, though a side issue IMO, has also been criticized (e.g., Kock, Engels, Fritsche, and Sauer 2008). Their use of the naturalistic fallacy is disingenuous when they use it as an escape hatch or means to handwave away ethical criticism, then go on to give policy prescription (see Sloan Wilson, Dietrich, and Clark 2003). I won't get into the political or polemical inflections of the work any further, though. The whole thing is a house of cards, the kind of work that treads the blurry line between science and pseudoscience. I'm sure I can come up with many more problems with a re-read, but the premises have holes big enough to drive a truck through anyway. In short, this is bad science in the first degree. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, Brownmiller claims she was quote-mined. I'm not familiar with her work, but that is another criticism that I haven't seen addressed. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that Brownmiller herself could figure in the examples of just-so-stories, "But, nevertheless, we cannot work around the fact that in terms of human anatomy the possibility of forcible intercourse incontrovertibly exists. This single factor may have been sufficient to have caused the creation of a male ideology of rape. When men discovered that they could rape, they proceeded to do it. Later, much later, under certain circumstances they even came to consider rape a crime. [...] For if the first rape was an unexpected battle founded on the first woman's refusal, the second rape was indubitably planned. Indeed, one of the earliest forms of male bonding must have been the gang rape of one woman by a band of marauding men. This accomplished, rape became not only a male prerogative, but man's basic weapon of force against woman, the principal agent of his will and her fear. [...] Man's discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to prehistoric times, along with the use of fire and the first crude stone axe. From prehistoric times to the present, I believe, rape has played a critical function. It is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear." From her own site. It's interesting to note that this idea isn't incompatible with the rape-as-an-adaptation hypothesis; one could argue that such social control increased human males' fitness or produced more enduring groups/tribes, and you have both theories blended nicely. Still, you'd have all the problems regarding the actual biological feasibility of rape as an adaptation, and of positing rape as a universal social-control tool. Perhaps rape-as-adaptation itself is even less troublesome, if we're willing to accept the notion that socio/psychopathy may be an "adaptive strategy", it could often be just a result of the typical lack of empathy, and even seen as a "tool" or "weapon", but more likely limited to their personal relationships, rather than a society-wide thing. Ironically I think it would actually make both ideas begin to look more reasonable, getting rid of the "universalism" and the strict adaptationism.

CDC study[edit]

"A 2011 study by the Center for Disease Control estimated that 18% of women in the U.S. have experienced some form of rape in their lifetime, with 12% forcibly raped, 5% experiencing an unsuccessful attempt at forcible rape, and 8% at some point having sex while intoxicated, this being defined as "rape" for the purposes of the study."

None of these numbers add up to 18%... — Unsigned, by: Longnameislonger / talk / contribs

Because some women fall into multiple categories. Omar (gibber) 15:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, there's nothing there, or even in the report, that says that they're treating these categories as mutually exclusive. Scarlet A.pngbomination 15:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

8% at some point having sex while intoxicated, this being defined as "rape" for the purposes of the study — that kind of definition makes no sense. There are many cases where a woman has sex while intoxicated and she would not consider herself to have been raped, nor would most other people either. First time I ever had sex with my current girlfriend, we were both quite intoxicated — I've never thought to ask her if that was "rape", because it just seems too dumb a question — if it was, would she have moved in with me and stayed with me for the last 2+ years? (((Zack Martin))) 22:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the main aspects of "consenting adults" is that one cannot give consent while intoxicated. What "intoxicated" means, however, is another question. You and your sweetie sharing a bottle of wine is not the same as she was unconscious/unable to say no/etc. etc. Also, people move in with and marry their abusers all the time, so that has no bearing on the issue at hand. Maybe you're an abusive and controlling person. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 22:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
By law, whether you are married or single, into sex or hate sex, you cannot give consent if you are intoxicated. For anything, but the way, but including sex. it is rape,legally. and in that context, the numbers are like 100%. But having done the research on this, the CDC case specifically means unwated sex where alcohol was involved. generally, what is commonly known on campuses as "passed out cold, gang bangs" ;-)Pink mowse.pngGodot On a perdu le contrôle 22:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)(edit con)
Do they actually call it that? Fuck, I must have gone to a mega-posh and upper-crust university to have missed out on all that fun... Scarlet A.pngmoral 22:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
NO, i have no idea what they call it.  ;-) My best friend was a victim of exactly that. She was a total slut (and I, the geek side kick that never got me none), and i do mean it with every bit of prudeness there. slep with anyoen who would pay attention to her. But she had been at a party, doign what she did - passed out, and everyone had another go, as it were. It's more common than you woudl think. but i wonder WHY. it cannot be fun to do someone who is passed out. Anyhow, the CDC does specifically mean women who had no intention of having sex prior to being drunk. just to clarify. Pink mowse.pngGodot On a perdu le contrôle 22:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Just so long as we're not counting the ones who intend to pass out and play village bike. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 23:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Suppose two people are both highly intoxicated, but still conscious, and each wants to have sex with the other, so they do. So it is not unwilling for either party, but according to the principle "you cannot give consent if you are intoxicated" it is non-consensual therefore rape. But the question then is, if they are both equally drunk, and if the initiative was mutual, who raped who? Or did each of them rape the other? (((Zack Martin))) 03:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That study, like most others of its type, was based on the methodology developed by Mary Koss in the 1980s. This methodology has come under some criticism because, the critics say, it includes as rape victims large numbers of people who had sex while a little tipsy and regretted it in the morning. The disconnect between what most people would consider "rape" and what legally constitutes rape is unfortunate, but is probably necessary to avoid giving carte blanche to get people drunk and diddle them while they are passed out. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Putting aside next morning regret, one has to consider the possibility that someone could be prosecuted for rape even though the alleged "victim" felt that they consented, didn't regret it at all, and doesn't want the prosecution to proceed, but it goes ahead anyway because someone nonetheless considers the consent to be invalid. Consider here the Canadian Supreme Court case R. v. J.A.Wikipedia (the actual factual background to that case is much more complicated than what I've described, but my admittedly simplistic scenario could nonetheless happen under that court ruling.) (((Zack Martin))) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
It was my understanding that the victim actually had to press charges for a prosecution to proceed. That was certainly the case in R. v. J.A. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
She did, but then she tried to withdraw them and they refused. It is my understanding that there is no legal requirement for a victim to press charges in order for a prosecution to take place. In criminal law, the case is between the Government and the perpetrator, not between victim and perpetrator, and the Government is under no legal obligation to follow the victim's wishes in prosecuting or not prosecuting. Of course, as a practical matter, prosecuting without the free cooperation of the victim will very often be impossible, due to a lack of evidence other than their testimony - but one can conceive of possible circumstances in which other evidence exists such that the victim's cooperation is not required (e.g. if the sexual act was videotaped). (((Zack Martin))) 05:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, I keep remembering the old "joke" about how a woman walks into a police station saying she may have been raped. "When did you realise you might have been raped?" the officer asks "This morning, when the cheque bounced." Indeed, I think some judges have thrown out rape accusations based on the fact that "being drunk doesn't mean you were raped" - but that definition is almost certainly needed to help bring those cases to light so it can actually be looked at properly. If you were allowed to give consent under the influence, it would cause a lot more problems. Just for an example, tattoo artists won't tattoo drunk people because they can't get consent (the old comedy routine of "waking up" with a tattoo doesn't really happen in reality). If you could give consent under the influence, then it would absolve all tattoo artists and body-modders of their responsibility to ensure their customers actually want what they're getting, as its permanent. That's a non-sex example, but its analogous to most situations where informed consent is required, as drugs can impair judgement, it can easily remove the "informed" aspect. But it's only with hindsight can be really assess the level of consent given with any degree of accuracy. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 09:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
In your tattoo parlour example, the person wanting the tattoo may be blind drunk, but the tattoo artist is sober. What about sex between two people who are both horrendously drunk? If neither can give informed consent, are they raping each other? (((Zack Martin))) 09:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
That is why you analyse it in hindsight to find out if someone was acting wrongly, but don't preclude it as a crime "by definition". Scarlet A.pngmoral 09:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Which I haven't done - I certainly agree that sex with someone who is intoxicated can be rape, it all depends the totality of the circumstances. The problem I find is there are very many people (I'm not saying you are one of them) who want to draw up simplistic rules in an area where doing so is impossible. (((Zack Martin))) 09:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Male rape[edit]

Does anyone think we should have a section on rape of men? That is a crime that is given far less attention by society than it deserves, and even justified by the media. Until fairly recently, it wasn't even considered a crime by the FBI. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure. TOW has has sections on the various permutations of rape, we could do something similar. As long as it's well sourced and doesn't come off as a men's activist rant, it would be a good addition. It may even warrant its own article, as there are many that don't consider it possible, or even a crime at all--"Shut up, Brx." 01:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
"TOW"? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
He means Wikipedia. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I thought we did have a section on that, unless I'm getting confused with WP's entry. Certainly more important than a one-sentence "section" that says rape occasionally happens at rock gigs. Scarlet A.pngtheist 16:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, if you google "rape and rock concerts" what is returned is a list of benefit gigs for a variety of, for example, rape crisis centres. I see no evidence that rock concerts have any correlation to rapes. Bad Faith (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It's actually a more important part of this article than you might think, for a reason such as this: my first reaction was "well men only get raped by their male partners or in prison". I googled, and found that a significant number of men feel "used" during sex. I put it in quotes cause most of us, my self included, would NEVER think it's rape. Men always want it, right? man and woman are hot and bothered, man says no, but is clearly hard, woman climbs on. That's not rape, rigth? But when you read the stories, men often feel "ashamed", "not what I wanted", "suddenly, without warning i was inside of her" (think "suddenly he was inside of me. it sounds worse, but is it?). So from someone who 1 hour ago said "why do we need something other than what we have about gay rape or prision rape', I think it's an important thing to write. and my gut still says "it's not the same". but it IS the same. --Green mowse.pngGodot 18:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It's an issue. Reigning culture often casts males as desirous of sex under all conditions (providing it is a girl and sufficently hot, of course... -_-) and refusing sex is often seen as weak or unmanly. It's far more common to hear men (and I use this term for culture's image of men, not for the actual demographic, that would be a gross generalization) complaining that their girlfriends refuse to put out or fail to satisfy their manly man sex urges than to hear how a guy just wants to take it easy and spend some time together but his girlfriend demands too much sex... unless it's played for comedy, and is often a shot at the poor poor man and his 'fire-breathing whore girlfriend,' which is yet another caricature invented to take pot-shots at. It's a case where dominant culture casting males as more powerful and sexual actually backfires and can take away their comfort in saying no. Pretty big discussion date in my feminism seminar last semester. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRgoing galt: the literal crazy train 18:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
and then you have teh "climaxing" issue. BUT HE CLIMAXED, he clearly wanted it. I've heard that used on women, to. biologcial processes do not mean you "wanted it". it means your willy is being pulled on at the right rate to trick the body into responding. doesn't have anything to do with the mind. Green mowse.pngGodot 18:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
There's a whole trope dedicated to it (in fact, I think it's a very good resource for this topic). As the Cracked quote says "Obviously if you're watching a scene with a woman tied to a bed while a man forces sex on her, the final act of that movie will involve said man getting shot in the face by Bruce Willis. If, on the other hand, it's a man being tied down and forced into sex by a pretty lady, well, you're watching a wacky romantic comedy." Scarlet A.pnggnostic 18:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I would argue that climax CAN have to do with the mind (I know plenty of people that can get off without being directly stimulated, especially during BDSM activities) but it doesn't have to and in cases of rape it certainly does not. But yes, I agree: there's a lot of not so much woo but bad cultural misconceptions that can and should be debunked here. Why do we not have a Sex Myth section or even just a Feminism section for articles about this stuff? I would argue that myths of this caliber can be more dangerous than some pseudosciences because they are very very widely assumed as true and followed rather than being propagated by a community of believers.±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRfree guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain! 18:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Sadly, such an article takes like research, and such. But i think we are suggesting that there is enough here for an actual article on male rape, with a linked tie in "not all rape happens to women" or something, on this page? Green mowse.pngGodot 18:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Rightly or wrongly, an erection (of an adult man) is usually interpreted as sexual consent. Of course, a man may feel coerced or pressured into sex, and that may be considered a sexual offence, but I don't think it's usually classed as rape per se (correct me if I'm wrong). There's also this situation (a woman humping a man in his sleep); presented here as comedy, but it's not impossible & would certainly be a sexual violation (I see it no reason not to consider rape). €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

At the very lease, a section should be dedicated to this vastly underlooked issue. Whether or not there is enough data for an entire article is debatable. It most certainly is possible; see the article I linked to that has a real-life example where the victim is mocked by law enforcement officials and the press, while the perpetrator I have heard has even been celebrated in some circles. Mr. Anon (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Rape and the Occupy Movement.[edit]

I have removed the section. Here is my reason for doing so. Rape will often occur when men and women are jammed in close quarters for any period of time: Occupy is by no means remarkable for such occurrences. We could just as easily have sections titled "rape and Woodstock 99," or "rape and that party in the frat house on State Street last weekend." Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 23:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"Rape and what I did last night" AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 23:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, that would make it about Occ.Mov and not rape. (ps. bad bad ace). --Green mowse.pngGodotL'important c'est d'aimer 23:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
whilst I fully understand your point I believe that accusations of rape were used to try to discredit the OCW movement. Indeed, one of the links was about this very point. See, for example, this. Bad Faith (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Which is fine, but thematically, it's not about rape it's about occupy. Might be a good section there, "Media lies about occupy", type things.--Green mowse.pngGodotL'important c'est d'aimer 00:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, in an article about rape, stuff on Occupy is not important. In an article about Occupy is a different thing entirely. Confuddling priorities like that is just a sign of propaganda. Scarlet A.pngtheist 22:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that accusations of rape were used to try to discredit the OCW movement As I expressed in one of my edits, I found the section absolutely ridiculous. It tried to argue that the opponents' points were invalid, because they would apply to any semi-anarchic movement, but presumably the opponents would have objected to any other semi-anarchic movement as well. Also, one has to ask whether Occupy's message is so incredibly important, and the Occupations such an exclusively effective manner of expressing it, that "well, that's just the price you have to pay" is an appropriate response to rape. Seems a bit callous to me. "Media lies about occupy", type things An argument is not a "lie" simply because you don't agree with it05:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Section should be moved to OWS page, it's more applicable there. I also agree with the above poster. Rape incidents (and basically any other criminal activity or anything that looked too hippy-ish) were used in an attempt to discredit OWS, but circling the wagons because of this is just rank hypocrisy. ("Well, rape is okay if it's for a good cause!") Or you can just click here for a more eloquent version of my point. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
"Well, rape is okay if it's for a good cause!" sounds like something a youtube celeb would say prior to being spit-roasted by Rebecca Watson and PZ Myers and triggering a DEFCON 1 level drama. Scarlet A.pngmoral 09:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This article reads oddly[edit]

I felt like I was reading an internet forum post, filled with lots of uncited opinions, instead of a formal article inside an encyclopedia. It needs some major cleanup to bring it up to the professional level. ---- (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Rationalwiki is not an encyclopedia Evil fascistoh noez 01:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Just odd wording[edit]

Just want to point out the odd wording here:

These, taken together, lead many people, specifically men, to believe that they have license to perform acts of rape.

Now, if you're going to use "specifically" like that, then you need to reduce a potentially wide group to a smaller group. E.g., we say "this situation affects minorities, specifically black women", not "this situations affects black women, specifically minorities". So, this is trying to say that the set of "people who believe they have a liceses to perform acts of rape" is actually larger than the set of "men", which is 50% of the population - and therefore all men believe "they have a liceses to perform acts of rape" because they're included in that set. Obviously, this isn't the case. Normally, I'd just go ahead and change this but I felt it may be worth pointing out. Scarlet A.pngnarchistModerator 15:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Claim by tumblr user[edit]

I came across a claim on tumblr today that said that the gender statistics for rape are more or less even: How accurate is this? Mr. Anon (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Not very, according to the rest of that thing. SophieWilderModerator 09:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Woops I read that wrongly. Looking at the CDC statistics, if we assume that every "made to penetrate" is a woman forcing a man to penetrate her, then men are indeed as likely to be raped as women. (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
That's a stupid assumption. Instead of doing weirdo assumption-driven, definition-stretching, statistical abuse, why not look at page 1 of the report, (page 11 of the PDF you linked to), bottom right hand corner, and tell me how 18.3% of women is "more or less even" with 1.4% of men. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 13:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
You haven't bothered to read the Tumblr post or the CDC report. Rape is defined by the CDC as the act of being forcibly penetrated. By their definition, a man forcibly penetrating a woman is rape, a man being forcibly anally penetrated is rape, a man being forced to penetrate someone else is NOT rape.
By my definition, being forced to penetrate someone IS rape. For arguments sake, let's call it non-consensual sex.
On the 2nd page of the report, you will find that 4.8% of men have reported that they were forced to penetrate someone over their lifetime. This means the lifetime prevalence of non-consensual sex for males is somewhere between 4.8% and 6.2%. If you only read the first two pages, this is significantly less than the 18.1% of women who have been forcibly penetrated.
However if you look at the annual statistics (the best reflection of society at the present time) you will find that 1,270,000 women experienced non-consensual sex and 1,267,000 men experienced non-consensual sex. Similarly 2,600,000 women experienced unwanted sexual contact and 2,565,000 men experienced unwanted sexual contact. The only difference in statistics is in sexual coercion (psychological rather than physical force), and even then the difference is only 25%.
Care to explain to me what part of that is statistical abuse? (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Are these statistics including or discounting prison rape, which overwhelmingly is male on male? Mr. Anon (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
You telling me that if a woman ties a man down and forces him to have sex with her, the CDC doesn't count that as rape? What's wrong with people? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 01:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
However the prevalence of prison rape is 1.91% (meta-analysis), up to 4% by some studies on a smaller population. While it would skew the statistics, it wouldn't account for them all.
Plus a majority of jail rape is penetrating sex, the bulk of male non-consensual sex according to the CDC is "made to penetrate".
And yes, by the CDC definition being tied down and forced to penetrate someone is not rape. (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay I just read over the relevant part of the PDF, and they do count that as a form of sexual violence, they just don't use that particular word. That actually makes me feel better; I thought they were treating such violence as some sort of "lesser" crime. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 01:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that many states do not consider "rape" a crime applicable to female perpetrators on male victims, skewing federal statistics. As a result forced penetration is considered sexual assault, but often not "rape" for the purposes of minimum sentencing. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Was I raped?[edit]

I am a man. I used to be in a relationship with a woman who was violent, abusive, and seriously mentally ill. She would attack me physically; mostly she didn't hit me, but she'd jump on top of me, try to hold me on the ground, tickle me against my will even when I told her to stop, if I tried to leave she would block the door then chase me down the street and try to tackle me to the ground. (I am not very fit, she was fitter than me, so at times she could outrun me.) If I tried to defend myself against her physical attacks, she threatened to file domestic violence charges. This most often happened at night. Then I would leave, and she would say she was sorry, beg me to come back, etc., and be the sucker for punishment that I was, I would come back. She wasn't like this every night, only some; after a while, I learned some things that would set her off. One would be refusing her sexual advances. If she wanted sex and I didn't feel like it, often a violent outburst would result. So on, I can't remember exactly how many occasions, but at least one and probably more than one, I had sex with her, even though I really didn't want to, because I was afraid of triggering another violent outburst of hers by refusing. Does this mean she raped me? I don't think I freely consented, because I didn't want to do it but only did it out of fear of her domestic violence. Hear me roar (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like a question for a cop or an attorney, not for a random chat board on the internet. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 14:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Assuming that you are conveying the facts correctly, yes, it looks like you were in an abusive relationship, and you were the victim of a martial/relationship rape at least once. Whether this falls under the legal definition of rape or sexual assault in your jurisdiction though is an entirely different question, unfortunately.
And, to paraphrase PSaL, is there any particular reason for asking this here?--ZooGuard (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I feel the article totally ignores the unique challenges that male victims of rape, especially male victims with female perpetrators, face in society. People ignore that scenario completely, or say it is so "rare" it can be ignored. A lot of "feminists" especially are guilty of this. They claim to care about victims, but they only do when the circumstances fit their ideological presuppositions (i.e. men as perpetrators, women as victims). Hear me roar (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Anecdotal evidence suggests that some, at least, rape survivor support groups and feminist groups have don't really know how to handle male victims of rape and sexual abuse. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Any bias against anecdotal evidence that I may have aside, this was an interesting read. The question is, does the problem illustrated in the article demand more intersectionality from society? And if so, is RationalWiki really the right place to start with that? Without statistical significance to back it up, I'm afraid that I can't say 'yay, completely worth our time to be considerate towards that', but I can't find it in my heart to say 'nay, you are not statistically significant' currently. Nullahnung (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The disempowering effect of expanding the definition of rape[edit]

People seem to think that it empowers people to have the definition of rape expanded, since they can seek the help of the government to combat exploitation. But I wonder if this could also be disempowering.

Suppose, for example, a law is passed that says that if you have one beer, you're unable to consent to sex. Then suppose a woman has a beer, has sex, and later says that the guy raped her. Yes, she's now been empowered to get a guy locked up who has sex with her under those circumstances. She's been empowered to have sex with a guy without taking any personal responsibility for that decision, as long as she's had a beer.

But she's been disempowered in that now, if that happens to her, she may consider herself a victim. She may think to herself, "I have no ability to stop a guy from having sex with me after I've had a beer, since that's rape, i.e. sex that happens against the victim's will." In other words, she tells herself that she's helpless to stop it, and therefore she feels less powerful, and more vulnerable to being victimized than she might have felt, if the definition of rape were narrower.

Taking personal responsibility can be empowering. To say, "I could have prevented this, but I made a bad decision" leaves open the possibility of learning from it and taking effective action unilaterally to prevent it from happening again. Otherwise, one has to lean on the government for protection. The government isn't very helpful in stopping rape and probably never will be, so that reliance will leave victims feeling perpetually unsafe and frustrated.

Victim-blaming works against organizing for political reform, since it shifts blame away from the government and those who control it. But it works in favor of getting people to take action on their own to prevent their becoming victims. Landmartian (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

What the fuck? Who are you even arguing against here? WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Probably the text they added to the article before leaving this on the talk page.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't notice that. Whut does "strong whiff of dried plant stalks" mean? WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
A strong whiff of straw.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
What is the strawman argument in question? Anyway, I expounded on the benefits of victim-blaming here. Landmartian (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, have you ever even talked to a rape victim? (I kind of hope not, given how you would like to "empower" them by blaming them for their assault.) WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I've talked to rape victims. Haven't we all, given how many rape victims are out there? Anyway, what I said above didn't come out very eloquently but my point is basically that in a lot of scenarios, there's more than one person contributing to the situation. RAINN says, "While you can never completely protect yourself from sexual assault, there are some things you can do to help reduce your risk of being assaulted." I was at a presentation at which a police officer was telling women how to avoid rape, and she said to act confident, look like you know exactly where you're going, have your car keys in your hand, etc. The whole point of her giving that advice is that if you behave in certain ways, it'll be less likely you'll get assaulted.
So, what if someone doesn't follow that advice, and gets raped, when they wouldn't have, if they'd followed the advice? They can say, "My behavior had nothing to do with this rape, and therefore there is nothing I can change in my behavior to make a future rape less likely". That to me seems disempowering, because they're saying "I'm helpless" unless they're going to find some alternative way of combating sexual assault (e.g. becoming an anti-rape activist who actually comes up with policies that are effective at stopping rape). Or they can say, "My behavior may have contributed to making the rape more likely. Therefore, let me change my behavior." If changing the behavior is effective at stopping rape, then thinking that way and acting on it can be empowering (in that it makes them powerful to stop rape).
Of course there's the counter-argument, "We shouldn't have to change our behavior; we should live in safe communities where police work has eradicated rape, and men should also be taught to refrain from rape." By that logic, schoolchildren shouldn't learn karate to try to stop bullies; instead, the teachers should keep an eye out for bullying, and people should be taught not to bully. Unfortunately, there's always some blind spot at any given moment where the teachers aren't watching (giving the bullies an opportunity to get in a few punches), and some kids will always bully even when they're told it's wrong, inconsiderate, etc.
I probably should have introduced those thoughts about empowerment with reference to bullying rather than rape, since rape is a more politicized and emotionally charged topic. For example, feminists haven't gotten involved as much in talking about bullying, and tried to establish an orthodoxy of opinions about it, from which deviation would make on a misogynist.
For example, if you tell a child, "Don't let them bully you; stick up for yourself!" no one will say that you're blaming the victim. But if you tell someone, "Take measures to make it less likely you'll get raped" then you're blaming the victim.
The definition of "bullying" is also getting expanded lately, to include for instance talking trash about someone online. That too might be disempowering. Bullying is normally behavior that involves someone using physical force to block your path, or steal your lunch money, or give you a wedgie, or whatever. It's intrusive; you can't ignore it. Talking trash on the Internet, on the other hand, is behavior that you can ignore by blocking the person or whatever. But by calling that "bullying" we're possibly making kids think of it as something they're helpless to ignore.
Any way of thinking that makes people think they're helpless, when in fact there is something they could have done to improve their situation, tends to be disempowering. That's the point I was trying to make. Landmartian (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Bullying hasn't been just "physical acts" for a long time now, and the attitude of "just ignore the words" is dangerous and leads fast to suicide, so stop that bullshit. Now. --Miekal 18:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
What's the alternative to saying "just ignore the words"? Punish people for what they post to Facebook? Usually what happens when free speech is infringed like that is that the rules end up getting used against the victims. E.g., a bullying victim will post "Joe is a bully" and Joe will report the bullying victim and get him in trouble for bullying him by writing that. One of the few tools the victim had with which to fight back and raise awareness of the problem was his words, and then that freedom gets taken away too. Landmartian (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence for that? WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
See for example Nancy E. Willard's Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: "The disinhibited environment of the Internet and other technologies appears to allow the targets of bullying more freedom to retaliate against their aggressors. A target of bullying at school who is physically smaller than the bully may feel more comfortable engaging in online retaliation, especially anonymous retaliation, than in-person retaliation. Also, in an online environment, the target does not have to face a group of supporting friends who might be surrounding the bully at school. . . . Unfortunately, students who retaliate against bullies online can be mistakenly perceived as the source of the problem. This can be especially true under circumstances where the original victimization left no tangible evidence, but the cyberbullying did. . . . It is also important for counselors, psychologists, and administrators responding to a report of cyberbullying to recognize that the student who is engaging in cyberbullying may be seeking to retaliate against a bully or use the Internet as a vehicle to gain sufficient social power over an in-school bully to get the face-to-face bullying to stop. Counselors and psychologists or administrators who receive reports of cyberbullying are likely to receive at least two different kinds of material: 'Put down' material created by a higher social status bully (power bully), either an aggressive bully or a social climber bully, who is targeting a lower status target. 'Get-back-at' material created by a lower social status target (a retaliator) attempting to turn the tables on a higher social status bully." Landmartian (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Can't tell if rape apologist or just MRA...BlackProg (talk) 6:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
So your evidence is just someone else saying the same things as you. No actual examples. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course specific examples can't be used in the literature when kids are involved, due to their privacy rights. I don't consider myself an MRA for the same reason I don't consider myself a feminist: because, while the definition of these terms makes these movements sound pretty innocuous and even beneficial, they aren't actually doing much to help men and women at this time. In fact, their efforts are mostly counterproductive. With regard to being a rape apologist, I guess if you define rape broadly enough, I'm a rape apologist. But that goes for any term. If someone defines being a "murder apologist" so broadly that support for abortion counts as being a murder apologist, then they would probably consider a lot of RationalWikians murder apologists. These are just propaganda terms used to smear opponents. Landmartian (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
So what kinds of rape do you think are OK? WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
@Landmartian, when people accuse you of being a rape apologist you generally need to back away for a second and look at what you're saying, not double down on it--Miekal 18:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
For example, the kind of rape where a person says "yes" of their own free will but isn't enthusiastic enough about it, I would consider okay. I'm sure also at Conservapedia people would say to abortion rights supporters, "when people accuse you of being a murder apologist you generally need to back away for a second and look at what you're saying, not double down on it". Like all ad hominem arguments, it's a way of distracting from the arguments by focusing on the proponent. Landmartian (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
So if i Coerce a person into saying yes, it's not rape?--Miekal 18:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
An ad hominem argument is when you criticise an argument based on the person making it, not when you criticise a person based on the argument they're making. Why do you think it's OK to have sex with somebody who isn't enthusiastic about it? ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

"A few states in the US"[edit]

"A few states in the US, a handful of countries in Western civilization, and most Middle Eastern, African, and Asian countries make legal distinctions between rapes that happen when force or violence is involved, and other types of rape, including ones where the threats are psychological or emotional." Is it really only a few states in the U.S.?

Maine, for instance, makes a distinction between the less serious crime of "Unlawful sexual contact", in which "The other person has not expressly or impliedly acquiesced in the sexual contact", and the more serious crime of "gross sexual assault" in which "The other person submits as a result of compulsion", compulsion being "the use of physical force, a threat to use physical force or a combination thereof that makes a person unable to physically repel the actor or produces in that person a reasonable fear that death, serious bodily injury or kidnapping might be imminently inflicted upon that person or another human being."

New Hampshire laws says "A person is guilty of the felony of aggravated felonious sexual assault if such person engages in sexual penetration with another person under any of the following circumstances: (a) When the actor overcomes the victim through the actual application of physical force, physical violence or superior physical strength."

Florida law says "A person 18 years of age or older who commits sexual battery upon a person 18 years of age or older without that person’s consent, under any of the circumstances listed in paragraph (e), commits a felony of the first degree"; those circumstances include stuff like "The offender coerces the victim to submit by threatening to use force or violence likely to cause serious personal injury on the victim, and the victim reasonably believes that the offender has the present ability to execute the threat."

California law says "Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances . . . Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another."

New York has a similar law.

Pennsylvania has a similar law.

It might not be only a few states. It might be several. I haven't checked all fifty, though. Landmartian (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of force as an element of rape[edit]

A family member of mine says that when she was in college, she said no to a guy, and he had sex with her anyway. She says that she actually kinda wanted to have sex with him, but was worried about getting pregnant. She admitted that she could've stopped him if she'd really wanted to.

That's seems like the kind of case that would be considered rape under the FBI's definition but wouldn't be considered rape under military law or other federal law or under a lot of state laws. Consent was lacking, but it wasn't done by force because she had the upper hand with regard to that. She had the ability to successfully resist, but chose not to. Possibly that was because of the ambivalence she felt. She doesn't seem to be all that traumatized by what happened, but maybe that also has something to do with the fact it happened several decades ago, and the feared consequence (pregnancy) didn't happen.

I wonder what the philosophy behind these laws is, that makes it a more serious crime if the rape is accomplished by force. My guess is that it's because people figure the harm from rape is partly because (1) it happens against the person's will, which means the sex was contrary to their interests; (2) the person feels powerless to stop it; and (3) the rapist who uses force terrorizes potential victims in general.

In the case of sex that the person could've stopped from happening, probably they felt some ambivalence or apathy about it, or they would've made more of an effort to resist. Therefore, (1) it's only somewhat against their will, as opposed to completely against their will; and/or they're only slightly bothered or inconvenienced by the unwanted sex, as opposed to greatly bothered or inconvenienced by it. This means that the harm to the person's interests from the sex is probably less than in other cases. Also, (2) if the person has power to stop it, that means that the sense of violation and frustration at powerlessness is probably less. The person takes some personal responsibility for not having put forth an effort that would've successfully stopped the rapist. Because they perceive themselves to have control over the situation, there's less likely to be the same feelings of distress, although on the other hand they might feel some extra psychological pain from self-blame, regret, etc. that they wouldn't have felt if they'd put all the blame on the other person. Lastly, (3) the kind of assailant who tends to be more of a terror to the community is probably the kind whose victims lacked the ability to fight him off. If a potential victim knows "I can successfully prevent rape by fighting him off" that tends to be an antidote to fear.

That's my hypothesis, anyway. Hope I didn't offend anybody. Landmartian (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a lot of words to justify the fact somebody still had sex with somebody after they said no. No Resistance doesn't matter, whether you might wanna doesn't matter, whether you only dont wanna cause you might get pregnant doesnt matter, all that does matter is you said no and they still said yes. --Miekal 21:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
There's a difference between justifying and acknowledging gradations of offense severity. For example, recognizing a difference between grand and petty larceny doesn't mean that petty larceny is being justified. A lot of state laws recognize the use of force as an aggravating factor in sexual assault (sexual assault being non-consensual sexual contact). So the question is, what was the philosophy of the law, and why is it changing, and should it change? I'm sure there are answers somewhere.. Landmartian (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a difference between "I might wanna have sex with you, but i said no and you still had sex with me anyways" and "i said no and you still had sex with me anyways". The key factor is and always will be that person said no. IT doesn't matter if force was used or not. if you cannot understand this, then i don't understand you.--Miekal 21:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
It's still not very clear what you (Landmartian) are asking & does read rather like you're saying that having sex with somebody who doesn't really want it but doesn't actively resist isn't that bad (same goes for your edit to the article). If the point you're making is just this: "I wonder what the philosophy behind these laws is, that makes it a more serious crime if the rape is accomplished by force" - then the "philosophy" is the same as with any other violent crime: the more violence involved, the more severe the crime is considered. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
It also occurs to me that maybe some people who don't resist simply lack assertiveness. Perhaps they are as strongly opposed to what's happening as someone who did resist, but they're more shy about offering resistance.
I think there's a larger, more general question here to address, which is what makes one crime more severe than another, and what makes one crime deserving of harsher punishment than another? That involves getting into sentencing theories such as retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation. Are violent rapists more dangerous than other kinds of sexual assailants, which would justify a harsher sentence in order to incapacitate them from committing other crimes? Does punishing violent rape more harshly deter people from committing a particularly harmful kind of rape?
At this point, we leave the realm of philosophy somewhat to enter the field of science, because then questions arise such as whether there's evidence that violent rape is more harmful, or that these offenders are more dangerous, or that the harsher punishments are an effective deterrent. What factors contribute to trauma and other harms from rape, and do different kinds of rapes have varying degrees of those traumatogenic factors? This is the kind of analysis that goes into drafting sentencing guidelines and other public policies (e.g. statutory maximums). Landmartian (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Where is this going? WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
In a million different directions, since it's an open-ended inquiry. If you follow it far enough, it'll eventually return to philosophy, though. Landmartian (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I know this is an old discussion, but....There is a legal doctrine called Last Clear Chance. Like, if you're driving and your passenger grabs the wheel and yanks it to the side, then lets go, and you just sit there and do nothing even though you have time to correct your course, the ensuing accident is your fault. Though I hesitate to say how it applies to sexual consent, partly because I am not an attorney. --ShorinBJ (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Rape as moral panic:Birth of a Nation[edit]

I recently removed the category moral panic from cyber bullying, arguing it's a sufficiently common occurrence, as demonstrated by Gamergate. Isn't the fear of rape the single most common moral panic? Rape is the crime accused of random black men as propagated in the American south following the American civil war, and in films like Birth of a Nation. Fear of marauding armies of rapists created fear of Native Americans and Aboriginal Australians, and pretty much every single war in history up until Vietnam when military rapes of the enemy dramatically decreased and the rape of female soldiers in ones own army rose. The penis stealing accused of witches was presumably a form of rape fear, unless castration is something other than sexual violence aka rape. Any thoughts? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Flattering aspects of rape, and the bad boy mystique[edit]

This article notes that part of why so many women find rape fantasies appealing is because of the concept of being so unbelievably desirable that a guy would take them at any cost. I wonder if that applies to real-life rapes at all, and helps mitigate or counter-balance some of the psychological pain of rape? As a side note, I wonder if these fantasies have something to do with the "bad boy" mystique, in that rape is one more way in which a guy shows a willingness to play by his own rules rather than by anyone else's. Rather than erring on the side of boring predictability, he would tend to do what he wants even at great risk, which they might find exciting. Landmartian (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Jesus H Christ. Please just stop. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I can actually argue this case using decent references and without encouraging rape. The boddice ripper is a romance sub genre.[1] And yes, romance novels can affect peoples view on sex.[2] The romance genre, including the boddice rippers, are mostly written for and by women.[3]31-57 percent of women in one peer reviewed psychological study reported rape fantasies.[4]Presumably this study only used women above a certain age, and science will never ask children if they have rape fantasies, because that's illegal, unlike all the other psychological experiments that were subjected to children.[5]keep in mind a teenage girl watching twilight and writing fan fiction about it, is probably legally imagining statuary rape regardless of whether or not her fantasy involves force; even if that same fantasy held by a woman over 18 would not be a rape fantasy.

Fantasy rape is like the name suggests, a fantasy, where you are in complete control, just pretending not to always be in control; unlike real rape where you are not in control. A controlled sexual fantasy of powerlessness takes away the guilt conditioned by sexually repressive societies like Victorian England or Mormon America.

There also exist dominatrices that don't want monetary payment; I've yet to find a good source on how common a fantasy femdom is for men and women though, or how many amateur dominatrices do it just for love and not as a job. Here's one dominatrix's account of her job doing fantasy phone sex and how under-reported fetishes probably are[6]. Does anyone have a more scientific study on dominatrices? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Children under 14 and statutory rape[edit]

This article says that when someone has sex with children under 14, they're charged under "child molestation" statutes. I don't think that's true; I think most of the state laws don't call it "child molestation" but have a clause defining sex with those children as rape in the same rape statute that criminalizes forcible rape of adults. Usually the statute also establishes increased penalties for that kind of rape. The term "child molestation" is more of a colloquial term rather than a legal term.

When the sex is with an older teenager who is still below whatever age they need to be in order for adults to legally have sex with them, it's often not called "statutory rape" but simply "carnal knowledge" of an underage person. Landmartian (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


'Rape' really doesn't belong in the 'series on sexuality'. I have removed it.--Umichcynic (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph about associating rape with theory of evolution[edit]

Hello, i once added (though without conveying the idea very clearly) the a paragraph about how some people (anti-evolutionists, as you can guess) associate rape with evolution: i've seen plenty of images (made by such "creationists") where it is claimed that this scientific theory teaches people that they should rape to spread their seed, but no article about this particular and popular misleading argument, that uses both argument from adverse consequences / appeal to emotion and violates Hume's Law (Is/Ought problem). (i think though i overdid it with the last few phrases another flaw in that argument: about how raping someone won't ensure your genes will pass on - arresting the rapist and throwing them in jail where they cannot "mate", and should a female victim unfortunately get pregnant, the possibility of abortion) Should we add this article in some page? Imadmagician (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The image about rape prevention[edit]

lol just lol. Do you seriously think people aren't aware that it's not a good thing to rape someone? Look at the LAW, it forbids rape. So why on earth would anyone succeptible to reason rape someone? And this is on a website set up to promote "critical thinking".

That sounds straight-forward, until you try to ask people what qualifies as rape, and watch as it gets defined out of existence.
That's because people have the misconception that rape is only of the "stranger danger" physical force and violence type, when it really boils down to lack of consent or inability to. Also rape occurs more commonly between family and friends than they do between strangers. That's the focus behind "teach men not to rape", it's just a more clickbaity incendiary version of "teach men what consent means". Withoutaname (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
It's only rape when a white woman who hasn't been engaged in any leisure activities, wearing clothes that cannot be considered enticing in any way, is surprised and violently attacked at a isolated, but not too isolated place by an ugly man of inferior social standing that she has never met before, she resists unsuccessfully, penetration takes place, she immediately seeks the police afterwards and manages to get a report filed before too much time passes after the assault. Maybe. I might be missing a few conditionals.

Presumably you're blind to the rather obvious satire in these rape prevention tips. Suggestions like "don't put drugs in people's drinks", "remember not to assault them", "consider telling them you plan to assault them" and the one about the whistle are clearly more than a little sarcastic, but making a serious point. Read the list again more thoughtfully & you'll see that every one of these tips parallels advice conventionally given to women about avoiding rape (don't accept drinks from strangers, don't walk alone at night, carry a rape alarm, etc). The point is that society puts the onus on (potential) victims not to get raped rather than on (potential) rapists not to rape, & this is something that needs to change. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

But, until society is composed only of people who act only out of good intentions, women should wear clothing that doesn't restrict movement and check drinks in case they get spiked or w/e. That is just common sense. It's the same advice to any person in any place where there might be crime.-- (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)