Talk:Non statutory female on male rape

message: I apologize if I came off as harsh in my talk page -- I was originally going to refer the article to wikipedia:AFD, but since the article is very young, and you seem to have invested quite a bit of time, it may seem a bit hasty. As it stands, the article isn't very encyclopedic, and my reasons for nominating it for deletion would be to call attention to it from a more experienced userbase capable of turning this article into something encyclopedic (beyond my capability, I assure you.) I am fairly certain that the resulting vote would be a Keep, since the article addresses a very interesting topic.  For now, keeping this article with the existing tags will have to do. Also note that I was originally planning to post this in your talk page, but it's probably better to get the article's talk page started. -Etafly 16:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fair enough. It is an interesting and pretty unique subject, and I hope others would help make it more encyclopedic. Where are votes taken place and how do I follow their status? -Lwc4life 18:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This page seems pretty redundant, it is all covered in the page Rape by gender and the editor has added similar pages on other wiki's that were quickly deleted because it was clear he had an obsession with the concept of female on male rape. On top of the the description in Rape By Gender is more descriptive than this. I say it should be deleted --Seth Turner 22:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you mean what I think, the other wiki (as opposed to wikiS) was about the entertainment aspects of this subject (per the goal of that wiki). You know, the same ones that got censored in here because Wikipedia is not a dedicated entertainment encyclopedia, which was why the other wiki was more suitable, even though neither way works with you. As for your personal opinions, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks -Raybnay 13:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *It didn't get censored. See: WP:NOT#CENSORED. I removed the section because it wasn't encyclopedic. It was in hope that the article would eventually gain focus on the actual topic, rather than serve as a repository of trivia for the rape enthusiast. I stated my reason below. If you have objections to its removal, please discuss it. -Etafly 13:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Deletion 

message: Bastique has deleted the entire section about Joyce McKinney due to two unrelated reasons.
His first reason was that she "was convicted of Kidnapping, not rape." But who says a court conviction is a requirement to be included in this page? After all, the whole point is that this situation raises a lot of questions about how society views it. You can also use this case to compare it to the more recent case, and thus showing how things changed over the years. Besides, it's not like there are many related stories that shine over Joyce's.
His second reason was "the source is a fictionalized account". What stands behind that statement, I have no idea. I mean, for all I know he may be right, but since he doesn't back up his statement, it's just as good as saying it was a real account. If it was the specific site I based it on originally, then just Google up her name and you'd find hundreds of sites (and dozens of newsgroup items) and this is even though it happened so far back as in 1978. For example, here it is in Slate. -Lwc4life 18:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Number of google hits does not equal a reliable source.  Slate.com is full of editorial contents, opinion pieces, and does not necessarily become reliable.  Please do not add potentially libelous material to an article about a living person unless there are substantial newspaper accounts, and if it is noteworthy.  Wikipedia is not a tabloid.  Cary Bass demandez 18:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What constitutes a reliable source? A site with a newspaper logo? Also keep in mind the more outdated stories are, the more chance you'd only find them in special archive sites. -Lwc4life 00:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  A newspaper.  Not an opinion peice.  Else every peice of opinionated crap out there counts a fact and gets included in articles.  Wikipedia is not an attack site.  Wikipedia is not a rag.  Please keep conjecture out of articles.  Cary Bass demandez 12:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know every newspaper in the world? Once it's neither a US brand name (like CNN) nor a local newspaper that you happen to know (if you don't live in the US), then you have no way to tell if it's a real newspaper. -Lwc4life 09:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The deletion of the Joyce McKinney story 

message: This article is in dire need of clean-up. It smacks of having a great deal of original research, lacks the formal tone needed for an encyclopedia article, has almost no sources for the most relevant data, lacks any information regarding the psychological ramifications of the act (as well as why reports of it might be rare), and has way too many pop media listing at the bottom. --Lendorien 19:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *When I tagged the page last month, I didn't know where to start. Thanks for breaking the ice -- I've reworked the first section, removing the instructional and needlessly detailed material, and a few unnecessary unsourced statements. It's still far from encyclopedic. This section, while still requiring technical attention, needs less emphasis. What should be emphasized, however, are the psychological aspects of this type of rape. In all honesty, the article still comes off (albeit less so than before) as a page dedicated to non statutory female on male rape fantasy. This will continue to be the case until the psychological effects are featured. To this end, some statistics would also help legitimize this article. -Etafly 00:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Your improvements are good ones. It's always hard to cut stuff out of an article. I know how it can help is someone breaks the ice. I'll try to cast around online for scholarly studies on the subject. There must be one or two around. This is not my forte as I just came from the cleanup list and it looked like something I could make an impact on, but I'll see what I can come up with. I'll list a couple relevant articles below.--Lendorien 20:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup needed

message: This seems to be the main focus (and possibly the purpose) of the article. Should this section even exist? Perhaps it should be mentioned in passing and a list should be linked externally at the bottom of the page. Its encyclopedic merit is highly suspect. -Etafly 01:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this section is kept, it should include references to the scenes between Jennifer Jason Leigh and Stephen Weber in "Single White Female" and between Paulina Porizkova and Thomas Janes in "Thursday."216.82.114.69 00:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably should add the oral sex imposed on Hugh Jackman, as a distraction when John Travolta is putting his hacking skills to the test, in "Swordfish."216.82.114.69 17:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *I'm electing to remove this section for reasons stated above. Unless the article has enough encyclopedic content on the topic, this section completely unbalances the article, effectively making it a repository of rape trivia (excuse that juxtaposition). If you want to, create a separate article, like "List of fictional female on male rapes." I'd probably list it for deletion, though. ;) -Etafly 08:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wanted to stress I had nothing to do with the re-added section. The anonymous user that re-added it also got the wrong link to the episode called "Ridicule". But I'm afraid to fix it and immediately get flamed again by the kind souls around here. -Lwc4life 18:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Popular Entertainment 

message: I have just remove this entire section. The source originally referred to  was a site reviewing a book that cited the study mentioned, not the study. Further, that review listed the elements as likely indicators that the victim would feel negatively about the experience, NOT elements that would increase the odds of reporting. In short, the section was based on a misreading of a site reviewing a book citing an article (rather than a reading of an article, as claimed).  Mdbrownmsw 12:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a little more complicated than claiming "the editor said 1+1=3 when it's 2!". The way it is now, you did not claim, but decided on your own that your interpretation must be the only correct one. Wikipedia is about consensus. You have every right to voice your opinion about mass removing something, but no right at all to enforce it like a self ruler. If you have think you have a point, claim it and then ask for a vote. -Raybnay 17:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elements that increase the odds of reporting 

message: This article should mention the possibility of females anal raping a man with a stick or some other object. --The monkeyhate 14:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your mission, then, is to find a reliable source directly stating that in relation to Non statutory female on male rape. Good luck. - Mdbrownmsw 17:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rape with a stick? 

message: The article refers to the anatomic difficulties of genital-to-genital rape of men by women, and goes on to say that the only techniques then available for rape of men by women are "generally...not pleasurable for the female, which takes away one of the motives for rape". In Nicholas Groth's typology of rapists, "opportunistic" rapists who are primarily motivated by sexual pleasure represent only a tiny minority of all rapists. Per the second of these links, nearly 75% of rapes are motivated by the needs to exert power over or cause physical pain to the victim. Given that, this article's emphasis on rape as a sexually-motivated crime seems unwarranted.
--warmfuzzygrrl 14:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misplaced Emphasis on Motives for Rape