Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:41, 31 August 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rape of males 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: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rape of males 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: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 12 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 of males. 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. Men's Issues Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues 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.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues 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. 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 High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance 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 Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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.

Copyright

I'm trying to remove as much as non-free copyrighted sources. I hope it won't violate the laws anymore. Okkisafire (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I must admit that my copyright-idea was totally wrong. I though that I must did the canging as little as I could, to regard my sources, but THAT was my big mistake, unfortunately. I just rewrite this article, please check it if I still left something that is not proper. For the grammatical errors, I'll check it later. Thank you :) Okkisafire (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: For anyone wanting to know what Okkisafire means, see this section where WhatamIdoing explained. Not much has changed about the article in a year, and it still has poor medical sources; not WP:MEDRS-compliant at all. Flyer22 (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Lately I understand about the "medical sources" means. Can I use journals as references? But not this month. I still have so many things to do. Okkisafire (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead needs to meet MOS standards

As it stands, the lead breaks MOS in several major ways:

• MOS:INTRO#Introductory text - In that is does not "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article".
• MOS:INTRO#Relative emphasis - In that it gives WP:UNDUE emphasis to male rape in the UK, yet section in "Prevalence" covers 6 countries from which other examples could have been given. To quote MOS, "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject" – male rape in the UK is no more important that in any other country in the world, therefore it should not be used as a singular example because this does not represent a worldwide view, particularly as anything related to anal sex differs per culture, religion and by law.
• The examples break the MOS:INTRO#Provide an accessible overview guideline which states: "Do not hint at startling facts without describing them." The UK percentages are quoted without sufficient background to explain their relevancy this early in the article, there is no context because the lead is very short and uninformative.
• MOS:INTRO#Relative emphasis - "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article" – the stated UK <3% and <5% figures are not mentioned in Male rape#United Kingdom, which would be a more appropriate place to account for these percentages, than in the lead in this disconnected manner.

The lead needs rewriting be someone who has contributed to this article and knows the sources well, it should be much longer based on the article's current length, it should be balanced and not given to undue examples from cherry-picked county data, per WP:NPOV. It needs to give a concise overview of the topic, rather than focusing on too many examples, to avoid clutter. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to do something about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

English grammar and sentence structure.

It appears that much of the work on the page was done by someone whose first language is not English. ex. "Proofed" vs. "Proven".

Too many of the mistakes to count.

Article needs to incorporate the realistic changes in the lady-on-male rape situation, introduced by the widespread availability of V blue pill.

The article should consider that, ever since the discovery and commercialization of Vialagra and similar sexual dysfunction drugs, it is now possible to introduce non-voluntary penile erection in males, something which was not possible previously. Methods of involuntary, non-erectyle ejaculation (via electric anal probe insertion or prostate hand massage) have long existed, but the hardness of member rod could not be achieved in a disinterested, disgusted male.

This change upset the landscape, as a determined, cruel woman or a group of women can now forcibly rape a man in the strictest sense. That is, lying in wait, knocking a man unconscious from behind and tying him to a bed spread-eagle, they could inject him IV with dissolved sildenaphil, whereupon his member will soon stiffen involuntarily, allowing the woman to impale herself vaginally and ride, achieving emission of semen via friction or by the use of an anal electric shock probe in the unfortunate male.

The only question is, if such cases count as forcible rape or attempted murder, considering the life-threatening dangers associated with improper use of "blue pill" material. 82.131.246.71 (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Women don't typically rape men by "lying in wait" and knocking them unconscious. And as for men doing such... Well, stranger rape is rare. With rape cases, it's not usually the case that a man is hiding in the bushes waiting for a woman to pass by so that he can attack her. But either way, the psychology of male and female rapists is quite different, just like the psychology of male and female serial killers is quite different. The case of a human female raping a human male is usually a drugging matter, a matter of sexually violating the man while he is asleep, statutory rape or child sexual abuse. Flyer22 (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, penile erection in men IS involuntary; a man can, and will, get an erection through non-sexual means, and is more than capable of getting an erection through stimulation he did not consent to.

"This change upset the landscape, as a determined, cruel woman or a group of women can now forcibly rape a man in the strictest sense."

They have been doing so in, for an example, South Africa, for quite some time now, and it has nothing to do with the availability of Viagra, or other medical advances; penile stimulation is more than enough to get an erection from healthy males.46.239.250.137 (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Incidence of female on male rape

I am about to make an edit to the ″female-on-male rape″ section which I think is fairly straightforward, but I want to explain my reasoning in some detail based on the vexed nature of the subject.

As I found it, the first paragraph of the subsection read: ″A study done by the CDC found that 1 in 20 men (5.3%) reported that they had been forced to penetrate someone else, usually a woman, had been the victim of an attempt to force penetration, or had been made to receive oral sex.″ Having read the references ( and ) I saw that the figure given was for ″sexual violence other than rape″ (my emphasis), and that the phrase ″usually a woman″ referred to a subset of the cited figure of 5.3%.

The aforementioned references are a fact-sheet and a news story based on a study by the CDC. The full report on the study - - is not hard to find, and does contain some information on the sex of the perpetrators (p. 24). I will momentarily be making an edit to reflect this. Rafaelgr (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope someone else can phrase it better than I did. Rafaelgr (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Rafaelgr, regarding the change you made, the content comes off as not belonging in that section since it is more about male-on-male rape. Flyer22 (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. I will have another go at the phrasing. Rafaelgr (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Rafaelgr, that wording is not much better if one takes statutory rape into account. And that section is also about statutory rape. So using "less common" wording would be more accurate than "extremely rare" wording. But, really, you should keep the WP:Editorializing guideline in mind. Flyer22 (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

What would you suggest? Rafaelgr (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Padenton: As I explained above, the reference you reverted to is not a newer study, it is a fact sheet summarizing the same study I referred to, which it may be worth your time reading if you are interested in the subject. I am sure it is possible to improve on my contribution, but I don't think reverting does so. Rafaelgr (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, could I ask what's wrong with this reference? It's been removed several times: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122802 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.11.48 (talk • contribs)

I removed it twice; by that, I mean where you added it to the Male rape article and to the Prison rape in the United States article. How does the source qualify as a WP:Reliable source or as a good source? Furthermore, you overgeneralize with your additions. This is one reason I addressed the article at WP:Med. But they care very little about this article. And it's likely that I will soon take this article of my WP:Watchlist; then you won't have to worry about me. Flyer22 (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Article needs some expansion

I think the article is very good but I think it could expand on the male experiences of Female-on-Male-rape such as if a man makes a statement that he has been sexually assaulted by a female, then, he is unlikely to be believed by the various authorities that are suppose to protect him. Added to this is since our media outlets are biased and will air and print a story of females attacked by males more often than males attacked by females (because it is the social norm and will attract more attention to their product (I.e. their newspaper, or T.V. programme)), then the politicians and the authorities that should provide support to him may not realize the necessity of appropriate law or the individual is most likely going to be ridiculed and mocked by his family and friends. For example, in a case in Co Offaly in Ireland in 2008, two young boys were raped by their mother but due to an absence of appropriate law in Ireland she could only be found guilty of incest and not rape (see here). This was because in the three laws that deal with sexual assault in Ireland (Irish Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981 (see here), the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990 (see here), and the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences Act) 2006) (see here) only man is perceived capable to possess a Mens Rea (guilty mind) in the Actus Reus (guilty act) of rape, while woman cannot. While Ireland has made attempts where the latter two Irish laws do have gender neutral terms, however, the former law (1981) still prevails in the area of rape. Please find a list of references that may help. Ps I would do it myself but i don't want step on anyone's toe, plus my inexperience on writing for wiki articles.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2580:2480:D5DD:9643:F7C1:B331 (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't agree with you that the article is very good; the article is a mess. Anyway, I collapsed your references so that they don't take up much of this section. Flyer22 (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Verification on U.S. male assault numbers

I'm looking for verification for this statement in the section Male_rape#United_States

• The Department of Justice's report (2008) leads to a conclusion that in the U.S. more men are raped than women.

The citation links to a Daily Mail story which includes this quote

• More men are raped in the U.S. than woman, according to figures that include sexual abuse in prisons. In 2008, it was estimated 216,000 inmates were sexually assaulted while serving time, according to the Department of Justice figures. That is compared to 90,479 rape cases outside of prison.

The prison rape numbers appear to come from this DOJ report, but that source doesn't say how many of those 216,600 estimated assaults were committed against men. The non-prison numbers appear to come from the rapes in the Uniform Crime Report for 2007, but that source only includes rapes reported to police. The Daily Mail doesn't exactly have the best reputation for fact-checking, and I can't find another source for this claim. Does anyone else have an alternative citation or some outside verification for it? Nblund (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be good to have solid attributable numbers. I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand,[REDACTED] prefers we use reliable secondary sources vs. primary sources, which the Daily Mail citation conforms to. On the other hand, it would be good know whether or not that 216,600 number is mostly men (which is plausible given the relative male/female prison populations). Where I net out, despite being a little on the fence about it, is that reliable secondary source conclusion is enough absent of other sources that say otherwise. It's a good catch that we should try to find something more concrete.Mattnad (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe the DOJ report is a primary source.

This essay on Potentially Unreliable Sources specifically mentions the Daily Mail as a source that typically is not reliable. Several comments on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard indicate a widely-held view that the Daily Mail is very rarely a good source -- particularly for this kind of material. The subhead in the Daily Mail story we're citing even contains a typographical error (it should be "women" not "woman"). They're claiming something is contained in a report that clearly isn't in that report, and I can't find any outside verification for it. I don't think the reliable sourcing policy says we should keep material until it is debunked, if it can't be verified, it should probably be removed. Nblund (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Venerability refers to whether or not they appear in reliable sources. What you're saying is the Daily Mail is not a reliable source. I think the best way to address this is to go to the reliable sources noticeboard and get other views on it.Mattnad (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

That seems extraneous, given that this paper appears to already be widely acknowledged to be unreliable, and that you're on the fence about it as well. I went ahead and posted a notice on the RS board, but, barring additional verification, I'm going to go ahead and remove it in the interim per WP:PROVEIT Nblund (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing it anyway. What do you make of this study. It addresses a long-time bias in how rape has been define by the government. Until recently, they didn't even track male rape, and only female victims were tabulated. In one statistic, when the researchers included "made to penetrate" as one of the questions, "The NISVS’s 12-month prevalence estimates of sexual victimization show that male victimization is underrepresented when victim penetration is the only form of nonconsensual sex included in the definition of rape. The number of women who have been raped (1,270,000) is nearly equivalent to the number of men who were “made to penetrate” (1,267,000)." (page 3).Mattnad (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Slate covered it too.Mattnad (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I think its fine to include this stuff, but a few caveats need to be made clear in the text:

1. Rightly or wrongly "made to penetrate" is not typically considered rape. It is treated as "sexual assault" under the CDC, UCR, or NCVS definitions. I understand there is an argument in favor of changing this, but, as it stands, its not how rape is defined by most of the data sources.

2. Even if "made to penetrate" is counted as rape, the rates are comparable only when looking at the estimate of 12 month prevalence, not lifetime prevalence. I don't know why that is, exactly, but the lifetime prevalence among women reported in the CDC numbers is less than a quarter of the "made to penetrate" (roughly 22 million women vs. 5.4 million men). Its a puzzling discrepancy.

I changed the wording of the section to reflect this. I also made a couple of edits to the caption for the graph. Its not really true to say that "male victims were ignored" in the past, they just weren't counted as being victims of rape. Nblund (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

That's fair. Your notes on the period of measurement also applies to the other articles (ie, Campus Sexual Assault). This has been one of my concerns about statistics without context from the beginning. Black box numbers without sources are often presented with no context/framing. That's why I was very careful to include the sources and the periods measured in the chart I added. Mattnad (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The other thing, is that for the purpose of this article, the description in the lede includes other kinds of sexual violence. Makes me wonder whether, like Campus Rape --> Campus Sexual Assault, a broader title is warranted.Mattnad (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

That text was added by Memills (talk · contribs) at the Rape by gender article. It made its way to the Male rape article some time a little after this article was created as a split of the topic of rape (since the topic of rape usually concerns the rape of females).

Nblund was right to cut that piece. The Daily Mail is repeatedly rejected as a WP:Reliable source here at Misplaced Pages anyway; see this archive on it at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and this archive on it at the WP:BLP noticeboard. I was going to complain about this edit by Mattnad, but Nblund took care of my main concern with that text. My other concern is giving WP:Undue weight to any study, especially one that has not been vetted by a review article; and I don't mean peer review (that is different). Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine will not providing "too much weight" to a study, but the note that the Journal article is based on US government research, and merely presented the data in one place. This is not the Daily Mail we're now discussing. Also, it's not news that that rape has traditionally been viewed as only a crime that affects women (i.e., UCR that would not permit any classification of rape against men). But I'm not sure where you're going with this given there are few studies that have even looked at the issue of assaults on men and particularly on incarcerated males. Are you suggesting we don't include more from the study? Do you have a better source that touches on the topic? A peer reviewed study that is also covered by a mainstream reliable source (Slate) seems pretty solid from a reliable sources point of view.Mattnad (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

While on the topic of what's acceptable in this article, Flyer22, you removed this text because "Oh, and that last study is about children and teens; removed." I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Do we not include mention of studies that measure male victim rates if they are under 18?Mattnad (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

We should not be using single studies, especially ones that have not been vetted by one or more review articles, to combat the established literature. In this case, it matters not that anyone considers the established literature to be biased toward female victims; what matters is WP:Due weight and not relying heavily on WP:Primary sources. Also see WP:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources and WP:BIASED#Biased or opinionated sources if you haven't already. I stated nothing about not using more from the aforementioned source you are clearly okay with using. But using it, or text attributed to it, inappropriately is a problem. Nblund fixed your text, and I noted it here at this talk page.

As for the text I removed in that link, I was right to remove all of it. How was I not right? The source that I cited as being about children and teens was used with the following text: "Studies suggesting that a majority of men convicted for raping women have a history of being victims of female perpetrated sexual abuse have recently been published. These studies suggest that a better understanding of female-on-male rape is necessary to understand why male-on-female rape occurs, and suggests that rape may operate as a cycle of violence whereby victims of rape go on to be perpetrators." Well, the source was clearly used to support part of that text, and was seemingly used to support the rest of it. The source is not strong enough for all of that material, and the text was WP:Editorializing. We should not be using sources that are specifically about children and teens to support male rape aspects in the broader sense (well, not unless the source specifically supports that); if a source is talking about child sexual abuse, then make that clear in the text by stating "child sexual abuse" or "child molestation"; don't simply state "sexual abuse." I've seen people (usually men) try to argue the existence of a larger number of female perpetrators (than what is usually reported) with regard to male rape based on child sexual abuse and/or statutory rape aspects. Well, thing is...the vast majority of female-on-male rape concerns child sexual abuse and/or statutory rape aspects, not women raping men (unless a teenager in a statutory rape case is considered a man because he is physically a man, but is not yet legally an adult). Flyer22 (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

As written, it was inaccurate, but often editors correct the language rather than excise it and the source completely. I haven't spent a lot of time on this article, but in the little I have, I've found two serious journal articles that address the topics of women who in fact sexual abuse men and minors, with some secondary source coverage of the same. I'm getting the feeling however that their findings may get push back from you under the "undue weight" argument if used more than one or two places with very limited text. However, when there's otherwise a nearly complete vacuum on the topic of male victimization by women, it's not undue to include something to fill it provided it conforms to WP:RS.

I think like articles that more address female victimization, this article should include the spectrum of assault which includes "molestation" which I think we can all agree is pretty horrific to the victims. There's two ways to do this: ensure the scope of the article include these items (which the lede does partially), and possibly change the article name to something like "Male Sexual Victimization". If we were to use "Male Sexual Assault" it's not clear who's the victim vs. perpetrator.Mattnad (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It sort of seems like this discussion is sprawling. I don't think we can coherently address a dispute about a 4 month old edit, a question about DUE Weight and a renaming proposal in the same thread. Perhaps we should put up an RfC for the renaming.

Its not really true that we have to include a study just because there is "otherwise a complete vacuum" on the topic. Misplaced Pages is not the place to RIGHT GREAT WRONGS I think its reasonable that some of the more obscure literature on male sexual victimization would get more coverage in this particular article than it might receive elsewhere, but most surveys still indicate that women are more likely than men to be victims of sexual violence. Some scientists (including the ones you cite) believe the existing conventional wisdom is wrong, and that's fine, but a minority opinion shouldn't be over-represented. Nblund (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Nblund. I agree with you and Mattnad that it's reasonable that some of the more obscure literature on male sexual victimization can get more coverage in this article than it might receive elsewhere. But like you, I feel that we need to be careful not to overrepresent the minority viewpoint. The WP:Neutral policy is clear that even in an article about a minority viewpoint, the majority viewpoint should be represented. And nowhere have I objected to this article covering child sexual abuse and/or statutory rape; it already covers that at some parts. I also edit child sexual abuse and statutory rape topics here at Misplaced Pages (as is clear from my user page). What I object to is using research about women having committed child sexual abuse and/or statutory rape to make it seem like the sources are talking about women raping men. And even in some of these statutory rape cases, the male victim and/or his family states that he is not a victim; this is usually in cases where the male is 16 or 17 (sometimes a month or so from being age 18) and he and the woman are a few years apart in age. We also know from studies that it's more common for male victims of statutory rape than for female victims of statutory rape to not see themselves as victims; this may be due to cultural attitudes and/or biology.

I obviously object to any WP:Editorializing of what the sources state. I removed the aforementioned text/source because I saw that it should be removed; I did not see a solid point in keeping the text and tweaking it, at least at that point in time when (as that edit's edit summary indicates) I was getting more and more frustrated with the WP:Advocacy taking place at this article, and lack of help to combat it.

As for the article title, I disagree that this article should be titled Male sexual victimization or Male sexual assault; for one, the term sexual victimization can include sexual objectification, sexual harassment, and, depending on the source, sexism. I know that sexual victimization currently redirects to the Sexual abuse article, and is commonly used interchangeably with sexual abuse, but it's a bit broader than how the term sexual abuse is usually used. And, as we know, the term sexual assault can be quite broad as well. I think we should keep this article limited to rape (male-on-male rape and female-on-male rape, including child sexual abuse and statutory rape). Flyer22 (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your views on keeping the article tighter. I've seen a lot of sprawl in the Capus Rape article because of this lack of focus and the inclusion of statistics that have very broad definitions, or no definitions at all and are just presented as a number. On Nblunds point that the majority of studies don't consider some forms of sexual violence against males as rape, that's true. Most studies don't even ask the question about men at at, and very few considered incarcerated males or females. That bias is being addressed a little now. Since the article definition includes "sexual violence" it permits inclusion of some crimes that are not not yet covered in this article adequately. I'll get around to expansion (with reliable sources) later this week. Mattnad (talk) 09:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Definition of rape

Regarding this edit:

This is already noted elsewhere on the page. It also seems like an editorial comment, and, it appears as though it is being (incorrectly) attributed to the CDC.

As a point of fact: the CDC is using the commonly accepted definition of rape. The National Crime Victimization Surveys and Uniform Crime Reports also do not define rape in a way that would count being "made to penetrate" another person as rape. (NCVS definition, UCR definition) Being "made to penetrate" would not count as rape under the definition used by any major study that I'm aware of. There's nothing unique about the CDC in this regard.

I understand that there are some voices who believe the commonly accepted definition of rape is unfair or under-counts male victims, but, right or wrong, that criticism shouldn't be presented as though its a widely accepted view. Perhaps it could be addressed in a separate subsection, attributed to reliable outside sources. Nblund (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for helping to clean up this article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

also agree. A subsection with context is much better given mainstream definitions tend to exclude some forms of sexual violence. Mattnad (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The new definition of rape presented in the NCVS link does not specify who is being penetrated, only that the penetration is forced. Ms. Mary P. Reese, from the FBI’s CJIS Division’s Crime Statistics Management Unit, confirmed being made to penetrate counts as rape by the FBI definition. Also, the Collins English Dictionary - Complete and Unabridge 2012 Digital Edition and The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary define rape in such a way that would include "being made to penetrate."

More importantly, all of you here are being extraordinarily disingenuous. You all know fully well that when people read that 93% of rape perpetrators were male, they will interpret that as "93% of those who forced a male into sexual intercourse were male." You are saliently and gleefully aiding in a deception. - The author of "this edit" 02:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by De2nis (talk • contribs)

The NCVS definition does specify that "forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender", I think you mean to say that the UCR doesn't specify. That's true, but reliable sources seem to read the UCR definition as stating that "made to penetrate" would not be included. For instance, This recent study (which is critical of the existing definition) states: Although the new definition reflects a more inclusive understanding of sexual victimization, it appears to still focus on the penetration of the victim, which excludes victims who were made to penetrate. This likely undercounts male victimization... (p. 21) I don't know what most people would assume, but the solution is to simply include a criticism section that discusses this complaint by citing reliable sources.

I don't think the blog post really constitutes a cite-able source, and its not clear whether this is an official statement by the FBI or an off-handed comment by an employee. The UCR training materials don't mention any "made to penetrate" scenarios, and if the UCR counts this as rape, its unique among national studies in that regard.Nblund (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Men's Issues articles
• Top-importance Men's Issues articles
• WikiProject Men's Issues 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
• High-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
• Mid-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