Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:22, 9 November 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rape article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 3 months

To-do list for Rape: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2008-05-29 There are no active tasks for this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rape article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Rape. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism High‑importance Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gender studies This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Rape is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 7, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted

Tip: #section links are case-sensitive on most browsers Links from this article with broken #section links : ] You can remove this template after fixing the problems | FAQ | Report a problem

UN Multi-country Study (informal edit suggestion)

Those with more knowledge of this article may want to introduce content based on the results of an extensive (>10,000 interviews) U.N. study in several Asian and Pacific countries:

• 10 Sept 2013 Report in The Lancet:

Jewkes, Rachel; et al. (2013). "Prevalence of and factors associated with non-partner rape perpetration: findings from the UN Multi-country Cross-sectional Study on Men and Violence in Asia and the Pacific". Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(13)70069-X. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help)

• Discussed more informally in The Washington Post:

Reese, Diana (September 11, 2013). "Violence against women widespread; U.N. study of six Asian countries examines why". The Washington Post.

Also, consider for inclusion in the article Rape statistics. — RCraig09 (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Citation 8

It's a dead link, and needs to be replaced. Spacenut42 (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

HIV Virgin myth

MrSativa writes "What's required as proof about a highly incendiary myth is research and sound surveys, not media statements by NGOs (including HRW). If Rachel Jewkes cannot find support for it, find someone who can" (edit summary 16:10, 30 September 2013). It appears that even Jewkes a) accepts that the myth exists and b) accepts that there have been cases in which it has been the principal motivation for rape: "The idea that having sex with a virgin cleanses you of AIDS does exist in South Africa and there have been reported cases of this as a motivating factor for child rape, but the predominant evidence suggests that this is infrequently the case," Dr Jewkes says. She quotes Mr Luke Lamprecht, the manager of the Teddy Bear Clinic in Johannesburg, which is the referral point for all child sex abuse cases in the metropolis. According to him, he has only seen one child rape case where the perpetrator believed the myth." Also, the criticism quoted in this article is merely a letter to the editor, not an academic study. Paul B (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Paul Barlow. Like I noted in this article's edit history during this dispute, I discussed this matter with Jmh649 (Doc James), and there are various scholarly sources confirming that the myth exists. Here are the latest edits concerning this matter, with one showing me having added two scholarly sources taken from the HIV/AIDS article (which also covers this topic):. Additionally, I've considered the aforemetioned criticism that MrSativa added to be WP:Undue weight. Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to add to this, I would dispute the relevance of the Jewkes/Epstein assertion that "this claim is predicated on racist assumptions about the amorality of African men." If you believe that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS your actions are hardly "amoral". Trying to cure AIDS, however misguided ones' ideas about it may be, is surely morally defensible. However, Jewkes apparently considers it to be perfectly acceptable to say that "much of this violence at women and girls might be explained by sex inequalities, a culture of male sexual entitlement, and the climate of relative impunity for rape." Apparently, saying there is a culture of male sexual entitlement and impunity does not impute "amorality" to African men, and nor do assertions that Cape Town gangs are "notoriously brutal". Her position seems to be fundamentally confused and her knee-jerk claims of "racist assumptions" are founded on nothing more than assertion. If this were an academic study of such assumptions, it might be legitimate, but it's only a letter to the editor. Paul B (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

And here are the latest edits concerning this matter:. As seen there, MrSativa changed his wording; the main problem is that he is still casting doubt on the fact that the myth exists. The lesser problem, at least a problem to me and you, Paul, is that he is still adding that criticism text; that's an interesting analysis you've given on it. Rather than at all asserting that the act of a male having sex with a female virgin by consensual means in order to cure HIV/AIDS is amoral (whether she knows that he has HIV/AIDS or not), they are arguing that a male raping a woman and especially a girl (in some cases, girls as young as infants) to cure HIV/AIDS is what is amoral; I personally can't argue with that. But I do understand your point on that matter (whether you mean one of those actions or both). Either way, MrSativa needs to stop WP:Edit warring, WP:Editorializing, and rather discuss these matters if he insists on his text being in that section (which he clearly does). He also needs to realize that waiting until he is outside of the WP:3RR time frame and then reverting again is still a blockable offense. Flyer22 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I would say raping woman to cure AIDS is immoral, not just amoral. So is raping a woman due to a sense of "sexual entitlement" or because you can get away with it, which are motivations Jewes apparently thinks do not imply "amorality" at all! But of course this is a marginal issue. There are numerous sources which clearly state as fact that this myth exists, and Jewkes herself is one of those sources. The only point of contention is Jewkes and her co-writers take the view that this is a very rare motivation for rape and/or child abuse, while other commentators think it plays a more significant role. If MrSativa can find a reliable source asserting that the Virgin-myth is itself a myth, then and only then can we add that claim. And, yes, you are right that repeated reverts against consensus and against sources will ultimately lead to sanctions even without violations of 3RR. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The question is not whether the myth exists in anyone's mind. If one person believed it, you could say that 'the myth exists'. But if that person never acted on it, it could have no impact on HIV infection, or child rape.

So the question is one of quantification. How many people believe this myth, and does it have a numerical impact on HIV infection or child abuse. The original text was that it was widespread, 'in many parts of Africa', and that 'many girls' are raped because of it.

So far I have seen no study or survey prove how widespread this myth is, only anecdotal statements.

The real problem is that none of the links that illustrate the presence of the childrape myth (currently 54, 55, 56, and 57) actually lead to research. I would think we can all agree that it is irrelevant whether the child rape myth exists in western observers' minds, don't you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSativa (talk • contribs) 19:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as we are concerned the only question is whether the sources are reliable or not. It is not for us to say that their research is not good enough, unless other researchers have reached that conclusion. I'm not quite sure what kind of "survey" you would expect to prove how widespread the idea is. This is the "Rape" article, so the story is only relevant to the issue of rape as such. Clearly, as has been mentioned, consensual sex of an infected man with with a virgin would be equally likely to faciliate the spread of the disease, but that's not relevant to this article. Your edits tried to add claims, unsupported by any sources, that the very existence of this myth is disputable. And yet it is not disputed by anyone. The only dispute concerns its effect on rape and/or child sex abuse (defined as a form of rape). Obviously the real answer is that we can't say for certain, but that several sources state that the effect is significant. Jewkes et al say it is insignificant, but do not deny that examples exist. Paul B (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Re-reading your comments, I see a kind of blurring of two quite separate claims. The first is the myth that sex with a virgin cures AIDS. You then seem to coflate this with a supposed "child rape myth" that "exists in western observers' minds", referring presumably to the "myth" created (supposedly by 'Westerners') that the virgin-sex belief causes child-rape. The problem with your edits was that you were focussed on disputing the existence of the first myth, the existence of which is not disputed at all. The second alleged myth is a separate issue. It may be true that the virgin-sex belief has not led to a significant increase in child-rape, but we would need good sources to justify this assertion (at the moment all we have are letters to the editor, which themselves offer nothing but anecdotal evidence). But we do have solid sources saying that it either is - or is believed to be - a causal factor. What matters is that we represent the sources correctly. Paul B (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to Paul B's latest comments. I'm back in this section to simply document this latest edit here on this talk page because it completes the latest edits on this matter worth noting and will therefore help serve this section when it's archived. Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Some, often unidentified, aid industry organisations claim that around 60% of combatants in Congo are HIV-infected. However, these selfinterested claims contrast starkly with the very low HIV infection rate in the DRC, recorded by the best scientific information we have, which is the DHS survey, which measures 1.3% HIV prevalence nationwide."

That must be removed. "Selfinterested claims" is POV and unencyclopedic. It also gives WP:UNDUE to that issue, and it also contains WP:OR. 2A02:2F0A:504F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1AE3 (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That's another of MrSativa's recent POV additions . It should be possible to provide updates and corrections without making judgemental comments about the self-interest of the so-called "aid industry". Incidentally, the 2005 source refers to up to 60% of "combatants" (soldiers in the Congan civil war of the time), not to the population as a whole. There is a reference to a 1/16 HIV rate in Rwanda (but that's not linked to rape). I've no idea whether a 60% infection rate in soldiers in 2005 could map onto a 1.3% infection rate in the population as a whole in 2007. It depends on how many rapes occurred, the rate of infection, and a host of other factors. The original source is journalistic, and I guess they chose the most exaggerated infection figure they could source, for the usual journalistic reasons of hype, but still, we can't just conclude it's utter rubbish because we can't directly connect the 60% in "combatants" to the 1.3% in the population. This also assumes that the 2007 source is reliable. Interestingly the HIV/AIDS in Africa article has a 2011 World Bank source that states there is no reliable information from Congo. Paul B (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"This also assumes that the 2007 source is reliable." The 2007 DHS survey covered over 10,000 people, statistically representative of the general population, and funded by USAID. It is the most reliable source of statistical information about the DRC, second possibly to any population census. You can say 'The World Bank says', but what is their source? You take the assumption that less statistically comprehensive sources are more reliable. For your information, the EDS-RDC was carried out on over 14,000 subjects, by the DRC Ministry of Planning, and funded by USAID. If you find a better source, please let me know, because I will use it in future, instead of the over 10,000 samples strong DHS survey. http://www.measuredhs.com/Who-We-Are/News-Room/First-ever-Demographic-and-Health-Survey-in-DRC-reveals-low-HIV-prevalence-high-fertility.cfm). MrSativa (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Try reading. I did not say it was unreliable. The source is in fact used. I pointed out that there seems to be some uncertainly in a major institution, which might justify looking into the matter futher, if possible. Paul B (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Etymology of Rape

This article cites an incorrect etymology for the word 'rape' with the meaning of 'forced sexual intercourse'. The etymology cited is for the other English word 'rape', a type of seed often called 'rapeseed': http://en.wikipedia.org/Rapeseed. See the difference between "rape (n.1)" and "rape (n.2): http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=rape&searchmode=none I think this oversight is in urgent need of correcting. 122.108.159.229 (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for pointing that out. Someone called User:The Gnome created that bizarre section in August . Rather embarrassing. Obviously it comes from rapere. Content changes like this sometimes gets "lost" when more controversial changes are quickly made after an edit. Paul B (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Place with NO rape

I think it would be interesting to include the article, "It's only A Penis," by Christine Helliwell. Her article describes a place in Gerai, Indonesia, where rape is non-existent. Her article reveals ways in which we may socially condone and create an atmosphere in which rape may occur.

Julia63718 (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

unreliable source: The United States Department of Justice's definition

The source being used is unreliable because reliable sources must adhere to WP-NPOV. This source does not adhere to WP-NPOV because the United States Department of Justice's definition of rape is as follows: "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim". This definition is biased since it focuses on the penetrator thus obviously skewing the statistics toward male offenders.

The statistics are further more unreliable because the definition of rape in the US justice department before 2012 was "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will" further skewing statistics towards male offenders. Pass a Method talk 19:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverted (and again here, though I didn't mean to revert using a tool, WP:Twinkle or otherwise). We don't remove sources because of what we personally perceive as bias. It is well known how rape has been and is usually defined, as the article makes clear. Many rape statistics in the past and in the future will report rape that exact way because that is how rape is widely defined. In many cases, it is still defined only as vaginal penetration by the penis. And, actually, until 2012, the United States Department of Justice defined rape as "The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will." They broadened the definition to include "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." because, like the article states, "The definition, which had remained unchanged since 1927, was considered outdated and narrow. The updated definition includes any gender of victim and perpetrator, not just women being raped by men, recognizes that rape with an object can be as traumatic as penile/vaginal rape, includes instances in which the victim is unable to give consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity, and recognizes that a victim can be incapacitated and thus unable to consent because of ingestion of drugs or alcohol. However, the definition does not change federal or state criminal codes or impact charging and prosecution on the federal, state or local level; it rather means that rape will be more accurately reported nationwide."

Nowhere does that definition state that the rapist has to be male. And, in fact, it was clearly partly broadened to give space to female perpetrators. But either way, we follow what the sources state...with WP:Due weight. WP:Due weight makes clear (when scrolling down to the Balancing aspects and Giving "equal validity" subsections), there should not be an attempt to give "equal validity" to things that are not on equal footing with regard to coverage among sources. And like the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS essay states, "Misplaced Pages is a popular site and appears high in the search engine rankings. You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. ... On Misplaced Pages, you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals, or get that to happen first. Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought or original research. 'Misplaced Pages is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed.'"

On a side note: I would hope that you are not openly WP:HOUNDING me. It's easy to see where that will lead. Flyer22 (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I also broadened the heading of this section using "The United States Department of Justice's definition" so that it is clear what this discussion is about. Flyer22 (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the updated version in 2012 is broader, but its focus on the penetrator means it still goes againt WP:BIASED which states "Biased sources should be used limited and with utmost caution". Furthermore, the statistics include pre-2012 rapes. Pass a Method talk 20:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

If you did not read all of what I stated above, then you need to read it again and process exactly what I mean by it. We go by what WP:Reliable sources state...with WP:Due weight; the vast majority of sources, not just the United States Department of Justice's definition, define rape as sexual penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth, or as only sexual penetration of the vagina. To use your argument of WP:Biased would be to state that this article is biased because it does not give as much weight to non-penetrative sex acts...despite the fact that rape is hardly ever defined by non-penetrative sex acts. The "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim" definition should not be taken to mean that a woman using a man's penis to penetrate her vagina, anus or mouth is excluded from the definition. After all, the article makes a point of stating: "The updated definition includes any gender of victim and perpetrator, not just women being raped by men." There is no reason to think that only male-on-female, male-on-male and female-on-female activity is included. And your having reverted again is pure silliness, and simply more of the WP:Edit warring that you are known for. Flyer22 (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

But the report dates from 1999 though - not post-2012 rape incidents. Pass a Method talk 21:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

And the sentence makes clear that the source is from 1999. Furthermore, the Definitions section and the Statistics section makes clear how rape used to be commonly defined and how it is currently commonly defined. As for the partial revert you made, in what way do you consider excluding the "with 99% of the offenders being male" part to be an improvement? That is a key aspect of that statistic. That stated, I would prefer a significantly more updated statistic than that one in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm still considering whether its an improvement or not. But the 99% statistic is clearly unacceptable. Even the US D of J admits the pre-2012 stats were too narrow. Why would we use such narrow stats in the lede? Makes no sense. Pass a Method talk 21:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No, your misrepresentation of that source is not an improvement. And, no, the 99% statistic is not clearly unacceptable. You speak of "narrow," but again, rape is often still defined that way. And as this article makes clear, some sources consider limiting rape to only vaginal, anal and oral sexual penetration to be narrow as well. But you know what? WP:Due weight and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS tell us what to do in such cases; the WP:Advocacy type of editing that you often engage in, such as in this case, is the exact opposite of how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. And so I reverted you twice because of that WP:Advocacy and misapplication of our WP:Reliable sources guideline. As for that statistic being in the lead, I already stated, "I would prefer a significantly more updated statistic than that one in the lead."

I was just told via email that you got an outside opinion on this. ‎Dougweller was not the one who emailed me, but thanks, Dougweller. Flyer22 (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The suggestion that the US BJS source is unreliable would not get very far at WP:RSN, and in fact the rationale provided (that the source fails NPOV) shows advocacy that should not occur at Misplaced Pages.

It appears that the current situation is that "91% of U.S. rape victims are female and 9% are male" has been restored to the lead, while "with 99% of the offenders being male" has been removed. My inclination is to revert that removal as unjustified, but it could be argued that the information needs to be in the article per WP:LEAD (while now, it's just in the linked sub-article at "Statistics"...not sure about that). Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Feminism articles
• High-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• High-importance sociology articles
• C-Class psychology articles
• High-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• C-Class Gender studies articles
• Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• C-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Top-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• C-Class law articles
• Top-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• High-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages