Talk:Rape apology/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 29 August 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Umm

Umm, the term "rape apologist" as used by feminists is not limited to anti-abortionists. This page seems to be describing a particular (and vile) myth, not the existing term/behaviour. Move? Merge into "Republican War on Women", Pro-life or some related page?--ZooGuard (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

"Invariably" men?

Plenty of women on this list for example, or are they not "legitimate" women? (see what I did there?) Anyway, such a clarification comes across as not only needless but highly spiteful. "Invariably right-wing fucktards" may have some basis in fact, and remarking that a lot of this originates with male pundits and assorted mouthpieces is worth putting in there, but "invariably men" may as well be replaced with "all men are bastards" for what it's worth. ^postate 17:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, ADK, this is a selection of people who posted that BF wanted to highlight. I could show you all 5 of the Huff Po talking pages I commented on, and every one in agreement is male, not female. I have zero evidence either way, but I'm pretty much of the mind that it really is largely men who hold such a position. Also, supporting this idiot cause they don't know what he said, or what he meant to say is not the same as being a "rape appologist". just saying...GodotIz a sekret Kristian 18:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The current version of the article, while better than the original variant, is still crap. The "rape apologist" thing should be merged in the Rape culture article, and there should be a separate Rape pregnancy article documenting and debunking that myth. Apparently, it has been used as an argument since the Middle Ages. :(

WfG, what would you call Phyllis Schlafly (hint: marital rape)? "Predominantly" is not the same as "invariably". Hyperbolic word choices like that are... unwise (this sentence was longer, but I couldn't quite express what I meant).--ZooGuard (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There will always be some people who are outside the "norm" if you will. but I think by and large, the whole "appologitst" (If such a thing exists), the people who run around saying most women are lying, and saying that there are far fewer rapes than are reported, and saying that only forcable rape is really rape - I do think this is "largely" men. there will always be exceptions, but i do think one can generalize without breaking the "steroytype" rules. That is, if one women and 99 men think this way, I really think we are safe saying "most" or even "invariably". Just saying... again, i didn't change it, i just argued teh point.--GodotIz a sekret Kristian 18:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(EC)Hyperbolic word choices are problematic because it's difficult to predict how an someone will interpret it. I take "invariably" to mean without much variation. "Invariably, creationists object to evolution" works because you can play with the "evolution" part of it a bit, "invariably, creationists object to some aspects of evolution" is inaccurate but inarticulate from the perspective of hyperbole. "Invariably men..." doesn't have that free swing about what "men" means so a few counter examples destroys the "invariably". Anyway, that's going off topic and into rhetoric, so, whatever. Anyway, on the topic, I say the article could stand alone, but it needs some extension. The section on false allegations of rape could be very interesting to write up, not just because of the statistics but how it can be used emotively despite being a rare thing (it speaks to our sense of justice, for example, when people are falsely accused of a crime). ^bomination 18:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take a lot of this on, cause I've been reading tons in the last 2 days. But I am so angry, so lashing, I'm not sure it wouldn't be a round out hack job. ;-) That's why I've avoided editing these pages. My gut right now just wants to say "men fucking suck. go the fuck away you rapist men". not really all that balanced or "rational wiki" of me. ;-) GodotIz a sekret Kristian 18:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to make a hack job, I'm sure others will be happy to temper it for you. ^narchist 08:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Many people believe Julian Assange has been set up by American agents, Julian Assange is right to fear US prosecution if he is extradited to the USA he could face life in prison or even the death penalty for treason for exposing corrupt governments. Assange asylum bid driven by fear of life sentence or death penalty in US I personally wouldn't oppose his extradition provided the Swedish government undertook not to extradite him to a third country. Why haven't they done this? If he is guilty he should at most spend months or a few years in prison. Further Assange suffered severe anxiety during the past year when he feared the good part of his could effectively be over. I believe this anxiety paid for part or all of any crime he may have committed. I have much more sympathy for Assange than for most men accused of rape. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Assange's situation is being debated elsewhere. The only relevance to this article is the disturbing things that some commentators have said in response to it, like George Galloway's condonement of sleep-rape. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

rape apologetics

is probably the best title for the article. --"Shut up, Brx." 20:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

"Rape apology" is the more common term. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I just figured it would be like Christian apologetics--"Shut up, Brx." 21:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Tom Smith's "bizarre analogy"

It is only bizarre if taken out of context, as is par for the course with politicians' statements. In context, he was discussing his anti-abortion views and had been asked, if his daughter had got pregnant from rape, how he would ask her to carry the unwanted child to term. The "similarity" was that he had actually asked his daughter to carry an unwanted child to term, albeit not one conceived by rape. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Even in context it's pretty bizarre & insensitive. A family coping with an unwanted pregnancy isn't analogous to a family coping with the full aftermath of a rape. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

True, the two situations are only similar in that there is an unwanted pregnancy in each case; however, if you are answering a question specifically about unwanted pregnancies, that is similar enough that the comparison is not wholly out of left field. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Heinlein quote

I see that a more senior editor/sysop has twice removed the Heinlein quote that I put in, without any discussion. I didn't put the quote in to say anything about Bobby Heinlein, but because it's a succinct summary of what a big part of this article is trying to say. If one goal of literature is to capture some of the big sentiments and ideas of its time, and if one of the big ideas of our time is that women may be used by men as they see fit (which I would argue is one of the two or three big ideas at the heart of so-called "Western civilization," judging by the way we behave), then the quote is totally germane.I would like to see it back in the article. JubalHarshaw (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Dialogue from a novel actually makes a great quote. Better writers than we, see the same thing, and make comments, and show the irony, hipocrasy, and out right stupidity of our society. --GodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 15:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The line in question comes from a female character trying to persuade a powerful naif not to disappear people. Hyperbolic, inflammatory, and waay out of context. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The quote should be attributed to the character, from the novel, by the author. Quoting it just to Heinlein without character context is misleading. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

male rape

I know I'm not the best writer here, I'm also not the worst. If you are going to be changing style, Listenerx, it would help if you didn't hack things up so badly they no longer mean what they were intended to mean. The snark, the comparatives, matter - men are told they cannot be raped, cause it's sissy. Saying it's a prisioner's fault is just like saying it's a woman's fault. If you don't think it's funny (and it probably isn't, again, I am not ADK, or AD) then reword it, don't just white wash it into "now there is rape in prision".--GodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 15:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Um, this is a Wiki; to quote the text appearing right below this edit box, "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."

As to why I changed it, it seemed to me that the section was actually about prison rape; that was what all the citations and the majority of the text discussed, at any rate, with no discussion of how the rape of men outside of prison is being defended. And I did leave in a sentence about how the victims of prison rape were being implicitly blamed; I thought the explicit comparison with blaming women was a little redundant, seeing as how woman-blaming had just been discussed, but that would have been easy enough to add back. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I restored my version of the section, with the "short skirted women" snark retained this time. If you can rustle up a few citations to substantiate your claims that rape of men outside prison is being defended in any serious way, I suggest putting it in a new subsection within the "It's not rape if..." section instead. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

LOL. i don't care about it being "mercilessly edited". Compared to many of you, I write like shit. I cared that in your changes, you stripped the meaning of the section, making it about prison, not the real world, where real men (often gay, but not necessarily) face exactly the same thing women do (if not much worse) when they find themselves the victims of rape. A man on campus said he was raped (by a woman) while drunk. he was asked "if he liked it", and since "he's a guy, what's the problem". Seems to me that's 100% "rape apology". --GodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 12:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If I think the meaning of a section needs changing, I will change it. The mere fact that I did so is not grounds for reversion; you have to have reasons why I should not have changed it. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

And I will revert it. I think it should be as it was. seems to me teh "i will change it" and "you must have reasons" is a matter of arrogance, no? on all sidesGodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 00:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it is a consequence of no particular editor owning the article. In your comments so far you have done little more than summarize the changes I made and then say, "Don't do that."

That said, I am fine with the sections as they currently stand, now that some more rape-apology-specific material has been added to the "men as victims" section. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

As they are currently, those two sections don't seem to fit into the article very well, since they're mostly about guestimated stats on rapes of prisoners/men being endemic & underreported, not about statements or beliefs which condone rape, like the rest of the article. I suggest moving these sections to either the rape or rape culture page, unless there are good examples of people of saying "prison rape doesn't matter" or "male rape victims shouldn't speak out" which could be added here. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"Prison rape doesn't matter". JubalHarshaw (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

There are quite a few feminist pages that attempt to show why those stats aren't "really relevant" because they are in prison, and it doesn't count. And any conversation with a male rape victim will show that we really do have this other issue. originally, i included the section because of "white man's guilt" on the female side. I keep hearing from men that we assume rape is always about women, and realized we'd done that, one more time, in this article. GodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 18:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC) edit - http://forge-forward.org/wp-content/docs/Female-perpetrators-and-male-victims-why-they-are-invisible_mjw.pdfGodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 18:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, but that stuff needs to be brought out in the article. I still think the stats etc. would be better placed in the other rape-related articles, with this one just focusing on the apologetics which justify or trivialise these rapes. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Rape against gay and transgendered individuals in prison

That should be included. Here's an okay reference. Actually, we should have an article on prison rape on its own. The link I put in the article from the National Prison Rape Elimination Coalition has a wealth of information--"Shut up, Brx." 11:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Where's Ron Paul fit?

"honest rape" - David Gerard (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

New section? Evil fascist^{oh noez} 13:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Something to include?

I remember reading this somewhere, but I don't remember where. Maybe someone could help. I remember reading that in some countries (Brazil, maybe?) the wording of their rape laws makes it so that, legally, it is only rape if it is a penis in a vagina, and anything else is either sexual assault or not illegal. --Token Conservative (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Is sexual assault not rape?--"Shut up, Brx." 17:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

rape is certainly sexual assault, but sexual assault need not be rape. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a dog/poodle thing Brx--Token Conservative (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I just think, that from a crime perspective, isn't prosecuting rape as sexual assault good enough? It's not like people convicted of sexual assault just get slapped on the wrist--"Shut up, Brx." 19:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, "sexual assault" in the public mind means unwanted groping, while "rape" brings up images of violence. Not to mention, calling a rape "sexual assault" seems like downgrading the crime (rather like calling rape "unwanted sex"). And finally, there's usually a difference in punishment between rape and sexual assault.--Token Conservative (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I see it now--"Shut up, Brx." 19:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Long boring bit

Just quoting a BoN edit for the sake of completeness:

---

I do not know anything about these American Legislative deliberations however for a so called “rational” Wiki Page, the idea that “more forcible rape” is "a semantic distinction which may not mean very much to rape victims” but that “rape is rape” is anything other than a tautology is interesting.

I’m not so sure you are being rational.

In Britain the term “Rape” refers specifically to three different kinds of non-consensual penetration.

The expression “forcible rape” is not a legal term used in Britain and I do not see that it is particularly useful but, taking the word “forcible” to mean its ordinary English definition I expect the term "forcible rape" this would refer to that subsection of rape in which the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator used, or is alleged to have used, physical force to coerce the victim or alleged victim into sex (as opposed to, for example, the threat of violence).

Rather than getting all outraged it might be better if you subjected your politicians to a forensic examination of what they mean by particular terms.

Once you have done this then you can start attacking their position from a position of knowledge and you stand a good chance of preventing the law going through.

Ryan’s plan starts from the premise that abortion should be restricted. If you don’t think it should be restricted at all, or if you don’t think it should be restricted any more than currently, then you are not going to support his plan.

However if you do want to restrict rape but you don’t want to prevent rape victims from having abortions to abort the child of their rapist then you have to find a way for the justice system to determine who should, and who shouldn’t, be allowed/prevented from having an abortion.

Then there are questions to be asked:

a) On whom is the burden of proof to be placed if a person claims to have been raped and wishes to have an abortion? b) What should that Burden be (balance of probabilities, beyond reasonable doubt etc.)? c) How (if at all) are you going to prevent women from making a false claim of rape in order to get an abortion? d) How are you going to prevent any knock on (bad) effects on the criminal justice system? e.g.

d1) The harm to men falsely accused? d2) The harm to women who will now be more likely to be accused of lying, looking for an excuse to get an abortion? d3) The harmful effect in terms of increased lack of trust in rape convictions and in the criminal justice system more broadly?

All in all these objections to Paul Ryan’s proposal are pretty solid.

One option would be to allow abortions only following a conviction for rape. However this would present three potential objections to this:

1) These abortions would be later than they otherwise might have been 2) The length of the trial might make it no longer possible for the woman to have an abortion (either legally or because of her own moral objections, say if she had a specific moral objection to late abortions) 3) This would lead to a lot of rape victims being unable to have abortions (because the nature of the criminal justice system is that it is designed to err on the side of acquittal) 4) There may be a risk of more miscarriages of justice and more actually guilty rapists being found not guilty.

Another option would be to only allow abortions if the rape is reported before the victim realised she was pregnant. This would still cause problems to do with victims not being believed, and an increase in false reports.

All in all the proposal to limit abortion only to those accused of rape don’t really stand up to scrutiny.

So (from the point of view of somone who does think that abortion is wrong) and who recognises that the vast vast majority (say 99%) of abortions are of those conceived through consensual sex, this is a difficult area.

You are forced to say either: "Yes abortion is wrong but I don’t think the criminal justice system is the best way to address it and would allow early stage abortion” OR "Yes I would like to ban abortion, even for Rape victims. I accept that this means forcing women to have children which they have no choice but to have.”

The first unarguably risks the killing of large numbers of the unborn, the second is an unarguable reduction in liberty.

Many people will take the first of these options and then find themselves dragged reluctantly into something which might be termed a “pro-choice” position, despite their having considerable moral reservations about abortion.

In the United States however such people are generally condemned by both sides of the abortion debate as “fence sitters", with the result that they are excluded from politics. This has wider consequences for American Political discourse.

---

^moral 16:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Criticism by an anonymous user

Article is heavily biased towards social doctrine, beginning with accepting the redefinition of "apology" within the term to actually mean "justification". And ending by entirely failing to mention any proper objective argument that acknowledges or at least points to the possible validity of both sides, to the degree to which validity can be found and rationally argued for or not. It fails to tackle the complex social issues and moral issues involved. It fails to argue from a viewpoint of logic, causality and inevitable relativity of rule-sets. Instead, a stereotype of irrational hatred and prejudice is described as if it were the truth. 09:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)~

Please start new sections at the bottom of the talk page, unless you're adding to an existing discussion. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 09:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

And to address what you've said: "apology" has long had two related meanings; we're just working with the less common one. There is no validity to any argument that rape is acceptable, period. I'm normally one to advise listening to the other side but anyone who defends rapists has no sympathy whatsoever from me. (Unless they're defending someone accused of rape and their defense is that the person was wrongly accused.) Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 09:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what "causality and inevitable relativity of rule-sets" is supposed to mean. Are you saying that the rules of what constitutes rape are relative? In that different countries have different laws regarding it, sure. But that doesn't change the inherent immorality of non-consensual sex. If that isn't what you meant than I simply cannot understand that phrase. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 09:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologetics - David Gerard (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

"Should have crossed her legs"

The reason why I wanted to edit this article today (but got carried away with cleanup): [1] I'm still not sure if it should be added here or in rape culture.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Prison Rape

That section near the bottom seems to take it for granted that there's an epidemic of prison rape. It does happen, but the actual numbers are lower than most people think. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svpjri1112.pdf --ShorinBJ (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

That section was based on the 2009 report. Feel free to update it.--"Shut up, Brx." 12:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

in rhetoric

I have asked User:David Gerard why my additions (the use of 'rape aplogist' as an ad-hominem, question-begging, name-calling debate tactic) have been reverted. PaulMurrayCbr (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably because it looks kindof creepy. Redefining rape to exonnerate rapists is generally held to be an example of rape culture. Maybe there may be cases where the exact definition of rape could be called into question, but without any examples cited this wording looked heavily suspect. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Copied from elsewhere: "Begging the question certainly doesn't apply because rape apology has nothing to do with any specific influence and more about the sweeping dismissal of the entire class of crime. So even if any particular incident in question is not rape, particularly galling, insulting, mindless, or dismissive comments regarding it would almost surely be still classed as rape apology." ^pathetic 16:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Forcible rape

'Rape apologists frequently refer only to "forcible" rape when condemning rape or proposing legislation relating to rapes and their consequences. This explicitly excludes statutory rape, which is the only legitimate reason that the term "forcible rape" even exists. It implicitly excludes rapes committed with date-rape drugs, along with many marital rapes and those committed by people the victim knew, because those rapes are apparently less rape-y than the stranger-in-an-alley scenario, which is statistically less common.'

I think you misunderstand. If someone says no, but the sexual act is carried out without the use of force, threats, etc. to overcome the victim, then it's sometimes considered a lesser offense. Basically this means situations in which the victim is capable of successfully resisting without suffering harm, but chooses not to. See also Talk:Rape#Use_of_force_as_an_element_of_rape.

In some jurisdictions, this lesser offense would not be called "rape". I'm not sure if such semantic disputes are properly considered "rape apology". That would be like if someone wanted to expand the definition of "robbery" to also include shoplifting, and someone else argued "that's not robbery". That would not be robbery apology. Landmartian (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Purported link between under-reporting and false reporting

Strangely, when people say there are a lot of false rape accusations, the response is often "that's not true; actually, rape is under-reported." This seems like a non-sequitur. I think TBTRO put it best: "A false accusation culture doesn't require that actual victims of abuse ever report anything. Therefore whether actual victims 'never say a word' is completely irrelevant to the existence of a false accusation culture."

If we were trying to draw a conclusion about how many rapes occur, then yes, it would be helpful to take into account (a) how many rape accusations are made, (b) how much under-reporting of rape occurs, and (c) how much false reporting of rape occurs. The formula would then be x = a + b - c. But the argument that people are making is more like saying that since b is high, c must be low. I see no reason to believe there is such an inverse relationship. Landmartian (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it the argument goes

• Rape isn't a prevalent as the figures suggest. Why, lots of those so called rapes are false accusations.
• Actually, it's more prevalent than the figures suggest. Under-reporting is a far bigger factor than false reporting.

So, if you're talking about the "true" figures for rape then under-reporting is a factor that negates (and possibly overwhelms) false reporting. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the key part of that is "if you're talking about the 'true' figures for rape". Sometimes people bring the statistics concerning under-reporting of actual rape into unrelated discussions of false reporting, as though the fact that actual rapes are under-reported means that we shouldn't worry about false reports. Actually, both are a problem. It's bad when the boy cries wolf when there's no wolf, but it's also bad when the boy doesn't cry wolf when there actually is a wolf. However, it would be foolish to say "it's not true that the boy cries wolf when there's no wolf; actually the boy often doesn't cry wolf when there really is a wolf." It's possible that the boy makes both errors. Just because he has a propensity to refrain from crying wolf when there's a wolf doesn't mean he won't falsely cry wolf at other times. Landmartian (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course the big answer is that study after study has found that false rape reports are on par with false accusations of other crimes. Cops who deal with rape cases learn to intuit that over their careers. It's not an epidemic that MRAs pretend it is. Like all perjury, it shouldn't be tolerated, but those who bring it up almost always do as red herring. Ikanreed (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if the research methodology is reliable? Suppose someone reports a rape, and charges aren't brought, or the accused is acquitted, because there's not enough evidence. How does anyone know whether that was a false rape accusation or if the rape happened but couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

There are also other venues in which false rape accusations can be made besides the criminal courts; for example in university disciplinary proceedings or in civil court proceedings (e.g. divorce or restraining order cases). In civil court, the defendant has no right to a government-funded defense attorney, and only a preponderance of the evidence is necessary to prove the case. The accuser may also have more of a motive to make a false accusation there, because there's a possibility of getting money, control of the home, custody of the kids, etc. out of the situation. I haven't seen any studies so far on how common false rape accusations are in these non-criminal settings.

In a case in which there was consensual sex, or if the accuser claimed that the rape happened a long time ago (so that there was no possibility for a rape kit), it seems like it would usually be hard to prove that a rape allegation were false, unless the accuser recanted. Landmartian (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I think if these "extrajudicial punishments" are a big deal, the burden of proof would be on you to show their frequency. I'm not arguing observation against hypothetical. Ikanreed (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

There are epistemological problems here. Basically it's a situation in which accurate studies would probably be hard to come by, so anecdotal evidence has to be relied upon. The way that works is that if you hear from a lot of friends that they got falsely accused, or see a lot of posted reports of false accusations on the Internet, then you get the impression that false accusations might be widespread. There's not really much else to go on. The problem with that is that some people are louder than others about sharing their anecdotes everywhere, so that distorts the impression one gets about how common stuff is.

These studies have their limitations. Suppose they take a survey, and a bunch of people say they were raped but didn't report it. How do we actually know they were raped? Their memory and interpretations might not be reliable. There are people who tell a story of what happened and are told, "What happened to you was rape." Then they come to believe that they were raped. But "rape" is an interpretation of events, rather than a scientifically observable phenomenon, and there are a lot of gray areas of somewhat rapey stuff that might or might not cross the line, depending on interpretation.

As an example, I once knew a prostitute who considered it rape if she had sex with someone who then left without paying. In her mind, obtaining sex by fraud was equivalent to obtaining it by force. I guess if she'd responded to the survey, she would've called that an unreported rape. The statistics will vary depending on how broadly the respondents want to define rape. Landmartian (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You're not making the case you need to make, which is observational and empirical, not anecdotal and hypothetical. That studies have limitations is no reason to resort to conjecture and bullshit. Ikanreed (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This is basically how politics works, though. Constituents with personal axes to grind, based on their own experiences or those of people they know, tell their legislators to change laws, and the legislation becomes the result of anecdotes. The federal government currently says that there is a lack of scientific evidence that cannabis has a safe and effective medical use. Maybe there haven't been enough studies to prove it to the satisfaction of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, but that hasn't stopped the voters in various states from taking action based on anecdotes. It would be hard to get much done if we could only act based on facts that had been proven by rigorous studies. For one thing, in order to fund a study, someone has to allocate money, and therefore it's hard to prove anything in that way unless one is wealthy or politically connected. Landmartian (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Not to be an anti-postmodernist subjective-experience-denying asshole, but seriously? You're gonna make the "You can't know anything, man" argument? That's always the bottom card in the reality denying argument deck. Shouldn't you save it for later? Ikanreed (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It's kind of like in A Christmas Story when Schwartz created a slight breach of etiquette by skipping the triple dare and going right for the throat. Landmartian (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with OP. The argument there are false negatives does not prove that there are not false positives. Such an argument is a logical and statistical fallacy, and thus detracts from the overall theme of the article. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed section

I think that it would help to have a paragraph explicitly stating that teaching people to take some precautions, and telling them to make their best efforts to avoid putting themselves in a position where they are more likely to be raped, is explicitly not rape apology. For instance, the article here is about the perils of alcohol consumption and why there's an aversion to telling women, who for biological reasons require much less alcohol to get drunk, to be careful about moderating their drinking. It resulted in a speaking engagement for the author being canceled, and the university in question told her that she was somehow being apologetic for rape. There is a fairly substantial amount of misplaced indignation (links in the mentioned article and elsewhere) about telling people that preventing rape starts with looking out for themselves, mostly resting on the grounds that it's somehow "victim-blaming". It seems like a pointer here, similar to the point about biological determinism, is warranted. Opinions requested. 24.186.49.177 (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Such advice reinforces a double standard where women are expected to behave in certain ways & men are not. It also encourages victim-blaming attitudes: the more you push the message that women shouldn't get drunk because they'll be raped, the more likely courts & juries are to take that view when dealing with a rape case that involved alcohol. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, the article stresses the importance of getting the point across to both men and women, but there didn't seem to be any pushback towards telling men not to get drunk and set themselves up for raping someone. Also, the fact that it takes women (and lighter people, for that matter) less alcohol to become intoxicated is a double standard of nature and not one we can pretend doesn't exist; it has to be said at some point. The medical community has different guidelines for alcohol consumption for men and women because, for better or worse, it's a fact of biology; they didn't do it for shits and giggles, or to make it more difficult for rape victims to make their case. There are other relevant points as well, but I'll hold off for now. If you haven't read the article, it's worth a look. It makes a compelling case for why no one should be binge drinking, but points out that colleges are only emphasizing this point to men when both men and women would benefit from not doing so. Failing to see how that's victim-blaming. And in any event, this is one specific example of the broader point above. 24.186.49.177 (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

but there didn't seem to be any pushback towards telling men not to get drunk and set themselves up for raping someone. Have you really never heard the phrase "not all men" whenever such a thing is broached? I appreciate your point, but functionally what you're describing does in fact tend to go hand-in-hand with rape apology - David Gerard (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that was a bad thing; obviously men need to learn that lesson (as a man myself it greatly upset me to see my roommates and their friends get so drunk they'd vomit, I was the one who would hang on to peoples' keys at such events; as an autistic I figured the last thing I needed to do was get drunk and further impair my already limited social skills, and since I never wanted a girlfriend there was no incentive there either). The point is that people (both men and women) need to be smarter about drinking, both to prevent themselves from becoming an abuser and to prevent themselves from becoming more vulnerable to victimization. That's gender-neutral, but it's again a simple biological reality that it takes far less alcohol before women (among other populations) reach the point where it's influencing their decision-making. I know it's a difficult balance, which is why I didn't just add it myself; striking balance was never my strong point in writing. 24.186.49.177 (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, the emphasis is that both men and women need to stay in a frame of mind where they are in control of their decision making, and that they are always responsible for their actions. If you are raped then it is by definition not your action, so this is not in any way attempting to shift the burden onto the victim. In some cases (as in the case of alcohol consumption) this will require men and women to adhere to different standards, but there should be a hard line between simple biological facts (which there is no way to work around) and socially-created expectations of behavior for each gender (which we as a society need to be working towards eliminating). And on another note, I found the quote from Duke's dean on rape rather horrifying interesting regarding the way consent works... see here. I think that might be worth adding into the male rape section somewhere. 24.186.49.177 (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

In the general conversation about rape, your point is a reasonable point to make, albeit very very carefully. But, for this article, I don't think it fits. This article is talking about attitudes/arguments that minimize or diminish the prevalence or significance of rape. Your point is more about preventive or risk-reduction measures. It's a different kind of point. MarmotHead (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

If you can think of a better place do point me in the right direction, although I think that this article should at least contain some link to it. The problem alluded to in the article I linked to at the start is that people have conflated that with being apologetic for rape, which is making it more difficult to have a reasonable conversation about the subject. Otherwise yeah, I think the broader point could very well fit somewhere else. 24.186.49.177 (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Basically it isn't possible these days to oppose the feminist doctrine on rape, or even seem to be opposing it, without being accused of being a misogynistic rape apologist. Landmartian (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

While some comments on the matter from individual people who self-identify as feminists are certainly frightening, I'm unaware of any specific "feminist doctrine" regarding this matter; or, frankly, for any other. 24.186.49.177 (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)