Talk:Rape/Archive 1

message: here is a link to an article Hmong Engagement Rape. I have lived where it was majority Hmong and I can vouch for them that this custom is pretty much extinct amongst the population living here (in the states) these days. It was a topic infrequently discussed however, as it was a striking example of cultural differences, and the moral dilemma's resulting from liberalism/diversity gone wild (you can read more on that in the article if you like). JackLynch 09:11, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmong engagement rape 

message: The general lawlessness after departure of the Russians and before the Taleban came in allowed rape and kidnapping of women/girls to happen on a mass basis. But it most certainly was not accepted practice for courting - though many more primitive minded gun-owning young men might have thought so.
One of the recurrent positive themes wrt Taleban was they "stopped the raping of the women". And a recurrent negative theme wrt to the new situation is exactly the above - the kidnapping and raping has again started,. Not that anyone wants them back, but the peace and danger-free times had something positive too.
Apart from this - yes there are romantic stories/poems/songs of girls escaping with their lovers from under the strict eyes of fathers and brothers. A consensual "running away" is certainly something featuring high in poetic literature (as it does the world over), but I simply do not know anyone who has done this.the practicalities are simply too difficult and the actual perception of a girl who has run away (rather than going a consensual route) and her lover is probably pretty low. Refdoc 08:34, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Afghanistan 

message: I removed the "other". To consider humans just one animal sepcies among many others is not NPOV.
Refdoc 19:58, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, yes it very much IS NPOV.  "To consider humans just one animal species among many" is a matter of biological FACT.  If humans aren't animals, what are they?  Plants?  Fungi?  Bacteria?  Humans are animals as the term "animal" is defined.  It's very much NOT NPOV to claim that humans are anything BUT an animal, as doing so requires a religious/philosophical position that exists far outside the limits of objective study.  I'm puting it back in, pending a scientific study showing that humans are actually an alien lifeform composed of anti-matter or something else that would make it NPOV to claim that humans aren't animals. --Corvun 11:47, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: animals

message: The section entitled "warning signs" looks somewhat subjective. Can we have a cite for this, or is it a general "nasty people == rapists" list? A lot of these look like personality disorder symptoms; again, cite please? -- Karada 09:59, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  warning signs 

message: This article seems severely lacking in information regarding the rape and sexual assault of men by women.  I'd offer to add some information myself, although unfortunately I don't think I could be NPOV enough due to some rather unpleasant past experiences.
As a starting point, however, I should note that contrary to common belief, a man can be forced into intercourse with a woman against his will.  Adrenaline and fondling can lead to sexual arousal even if the man is not consenting to the act (which often leads to extreme humiliation, in that the man feels guilty for allowing himself to become aroused). --Corvun 11:24, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female Rapists/Male Victims 

message: 81.153.93.93, I'm curious as to this edit -- and I should mention that this is the only part of your edits that I have any objection to.  You removed the quotes from "causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent", which I was under the impression was the actual name of the statute.  I guess my question is two-fold:
* Is it the actual name of the statute?
* If it is, what's the justification for removing the quotes?  (If it is not the name of the statute, then of course the edit makes perfect sense, so that it doesn't give the false impression that it is.)
-- Antaeus Feldspar 16:42, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  quoting of statute names? 

message: :According to FBI statistics, reporting in the January 11, 1993 edition of Newsweek by Kevin Krajik, at least 33% of men convicted for rape by 1993 were false accused.
I'm not sure how this got missed, but it's a very suspicious statistic, since it was introduced by 66.231.17.107 in this edit, where he/she also misinterpreted Dr. Kanin's statistic of a 41% false report rate in one particular community to mean 41% of all reports of rape.  I'm taking it out (it doesn't belong in Punishment anyways; it's probably because it was there that it was missed for so long) but if someone can actually look up the article referred to, it might have some interesting information.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:19, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspicious statistic 

message: OK, some context.  We had links at the end of the section on "Rape and sexual torture" to humiliation and Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse.  An anon (whose only contributions these were) changed the Abu Ghraib link to Human rights in Saddam's Iraq.  I kept his other change but reverted back to the Abu Ghraib link.
I thought I had made my reasoning clear in the edit summary of my change, but since Gbleem asks in his edit summary "why not put them both in?" (doing so himself) I'd like to answer.
Simply reinserting the Abu Ghraib link and keeping both was in fact the thing I was first tempted to do, not least because it would cause the fewest complaints.  But the logic that led me to revert was this:  the Abu Ghraib link should not have been removed.  The section is about the use of rape as an act of torture, particularly "as a means to 'soften' detainees for interrogation or to intimidate them into compliance."  That is in fact what the soldiers charged in the Abu Ghraib testified they thought their higher-ups meant for them to do -- to sexually abuse the detainees to make them more willing to give up information.  No matter what you believe the truth about Abu Ghraib is, whether you believe the superiors gave orders or not or just gave the "will no one rid me of the inconvenient dignity of these troublesome detainees" routine or whether you even think the whole "we were softening them up for interrogation" was just an excuse concocted to cover private amusements, the fact is that the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib is the most prominent and publicized association in recent times of rape and sexual assault committed specifically as an act of torture.
It should have only been removed if it was going to be replaced with a better example.  There may well be better examples than Abu Ghraib; the research I did trying to create a decent article for Custodial rape certainly indicates that the problem is endemic in certain countries.  And of course, Saddam's use of torture in Iraq, including rape, could hardly be denied except perhaps by Comical Ali.  Nevertheless, Saddam's regime was not notable for sexual torture the way that the prison at Abu Ghraib is notable for the sexual abuses visited upon its detainees.  Is it an example?  Yes.  Is it a better example?  No.  So should it have replaced the Abu Ghraib link?  No.  It is plain that substituting one link for the other was a way to repeat the often-expressed sentiment "everyone who keeps harping on how barbaric the abuses at Abu Ghraib were forgets that much worse was done by Saddam to his own people."  True or false, that sentiment is a red herring.  The section is not about who is better or who is worse, or whether two parties that both commit torture to get what they want can be compared to each other morally, or about how the scales balance when such a comparison is made.  The section is about rape and sexual torture.  If we make a link to Human rights in Saddam's Iraq because Saddam Hussein did torture his own people and because that torture included rape and sexual assault, then for consistency's sake we would be obligated to add all dictators whose tortures of their own people included sexual torture.  That's not feasible.  Would we even be considering singling out Saddam Hussein out of all torturing dictators to link to in this section, if someone hadn't brought him up to 'counter' Abu Ghraib?  If the answer is "No", that's also the answer to whether we should keep the link.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Why not put them both in?"