This article was nominated for deletion on 18 November 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dream Focus 00:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The official websites of the United States government are a good source of information for this article. I copied a chunk of the article from the main rape article, it able to grow from there. Dream Focus 10:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I found this article in the Huffington Post. [1] It mentions different stories of rape victims denied insurance, for having a preexisting condition, which wouldn't be covered.
“ | A 38-year-old woman in Ithaca, N.Y., said she was raped last year and then penalized by insurers because in giving her medical history she mentioned an assault she suffered in college 17 years earlier. The woman, Kimberly Fallon, told a nurse about the previous attack and months later, her doctor's office sent her a bill for treatment. She said she was informed by a nurse and, later, the hospital's billing department that her health insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield, not only had declined payment for the rape exam, but also would not pay for therapy or medication for trauma because she "had been raped before." | ” |
I'm thinking this is something that should be fitted in the article somehow. How the victim is treated by the legal system, the medical community, the media, and society itself. Comments? Dream Focus 21:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I searched around a bit, but I'm having trouble finding things. I went through Google, then Google news, then Google books. Hard to find something mixed in with the vast number of results. Does anyone know of any books published documenting how the media has portrayed rape over time? How it went from being portrayed as a joke(Black Sheep Squadron episode where they warn the new girl about a drug the guys try to put in a girl's drink to rape her, they laughing, "oh those guys", as though it was no big deal), downplaying the severity of the crime(rape victim recovers, no emotional damage), to the serious crime that it is. I created an article about the All in the Family episode Edith's 50th Birthday (All in the Family) awhile back, it one of the first shows on television that portrayed rape. Dream Focus 09:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
After the AfD has finished, and if the page survives, it should be moved to Rape in the United States. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 11:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Or maybe Sexual violence in the United States in keeping with other articles. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) -
I have come across a stack of pages relating to the article and placed them in the "See also" section. Given that these articles exist I am now convinced that we should move the page to Sexual violence in the United States. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 02:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
This statistic is included in the article:
However upon visiting the cite that statistic is immediately followed by:
Those 2 don't exactly match up... Sammichraptor ( talk) 23:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that the article contains a claim that "a significant number of rapes reported to the police do not advance to prosecution" but the article to which this claim is linked has no such claim within it. Snarky Boy ( talk) 17:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The sexual assault statistics may have no place in this article, as the survey appears to be self-reported and rape is a subset of the broader term sexual assault. 108.39.73.94 ( talk) 22:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Under VAWA 2005, states are required to ensure that a victim receives access to a forensic examination free of charge regardless of whether the victim chooses to report a sexual assault (for any reason) to law enforcement or cooperate with the criminal justice system. All states must comply with the VAWA 2005 requirement regarding forensic examination in order to be eligible to receive STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program (STOP Program) funds. Under 42 U.S.C. § 3796gg-4, a State is not entitled to funds under the STOP Program unless the State or another governmental entity "incurs the full out-of- pocket cost of forensic medical exams . . . for victims of sexual assault." This means that, if no other governmental entity or insurance carrier pays for the exam, states are required to pay for forensic exams if they wish to receive STOP Program funds. The goal of this provision is to ensure that the victim is not required to pay for the exam. The effect of the VAWA 2005 forensic examination requirement is to allow victims time to decide whether to pursue their case. A sexual assault is a traumatic event. Some victims are unable to decide whether they want to cooperate with law enforcement in the immediate aftermath of a sexual assault. Because forensic evidence can be lost as time progresses, such victims should be encouraged to have the evidence collected as soon as possible without deciding to initiate a report. This provision ensures victims receive timely medical treatment. [3] Sammichraptor ( talk) 23:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Criminal Punishment
I am thinking this section should be modified to address sexual assault and the law in the several states instead of just Federal punishment. Federal jurisdiction and prosecutions are so minor in comparison to the States. It would make more sense (to me) to have a general address of sexual assault law and punishment in the States vs. an extensive section addressing the relatively minor Federal role.
Legal Commmuntiy
What are we looking to include in this section? Sammichraptor ( talk) 20:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Concerning my edits [6]. The article mentions insurance companies do this, and even gives examples of some by name. For libel reasons, you can't mention them by name in this article. As for the second tag, it does mention in several places that they didn't pay for things, claiming it wasn't necessary. Just search for the word "necessary", and read what is said throughout the news story, not just the first one you hit. Dream Focus 18:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
This is from the article:
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, the adjusted per-capita victimization rate of rape has declined from about 2.4 per 1000 people (age 12 and above) in 1980 to about 0.4 per 1000 people, a decline of about 85%.
This is from Internet pornography:
...pornography had been traded over the Internet since the 1980s...
By itself, these observations would be original research. Just curious, does anyone knows if this correlation has been studied? AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 05:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
http://www.aardvarc.org/dv/gay.shtml might be of interest to those working on this article. The lack of information on lesbian abuse and rape in particular can cause one to believe it doesn't happen. So anything that helps remind people and/or point them to good sources of information on the topic might be helpful... Hobit ( talk) 07:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Posters should be careful to not use the term gay as a gender neutral term. It's guys. Use of the term as gender neutral is non-standard and colloquial. Check out the terminology list for the Kent State University LGBTQ center on this. By the way, LGBT would be just GBT if the term gay were truly gender neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godofredo29 ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
"The U.S. Department of Justice compiles statistics on crime by race, but only between and among people categorized as black or white. There were 111,490 white and 36,620 black victims of rape or sexual assault reported in 2005. Out of the 111,490 cases involving white victims, 44.5% (49,613) had white offenders and 33.6% (37,461) had black offenders, while the 36,620 black victims had a figure of 100% black offenders, with a 0.0% estimation for any other race based on ten or fewer sample cases.[62] Some types of rape are excluded from official reports altogether"
This does NOT belong here, it belongs on stormfront, not on wikipedia, those statistics are completely biased and they make no sense because according to the same statistics, in the following year there was a large number of black women raped by white men and a completely different number of white women raped by black men, these statistics were posted by David Dukes on his site and they have been spread on nazi forums ever since, it's completely biased as it only mentions the statistics for 2005 and ignores all other statistics, I didn't know wikipedia was a nazi site?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.61.152.142 ( talk) 05:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Although I wouldn't put it as strongly the stats are in a very specific sense unreliable and should either be qualified as such or removed. Regarding the figure that in 100% of the cases were the victim was black, the perpetrator was also black table 42. in the document linked in footnote 8 states that these "estimate[s] [are] based on 10 or fewer sample cases". The sample size is statistically insignificant and the whole thing should never have appeared in the document in the first place. Secondly the numbers reported there are also calculated on the basis of cases were rape or sexual assault was only threatened. Personally I'd I'd like to see the line deleted even though it is based on an official document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troglodyt123 ( talk • contribs) 15:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
"Are racially charged rape statistics spread on nazi forums allowed on wikipedia?", says anonymous
If racially charged stories about slavery spread on Black Supremacist forums are allowed on Wikipedia, rape statistics must be allowed. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. You don't like the statistics, that's YOUR problem. Bluebye ( talk) 23:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
On a side note, it is my belief that the FBI did some statistic-cleansing on politically incorrect material showing white men rarely rape blacks. Bluebye ( talk) 23:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Quick search showed that 27% of rapists are black while only 12.3% of whole population is. Why isn't this fact part of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.121.66.251 ( talk) 09:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
That study used that has these stats is a smallish study in Detroit. It's not reflective other other statistics I've seen. For the time being I've put the National Victimization Survey as a source. Furthermore, the study the (old) Stats which I've copied below come from was not designed as a survey of rape, but of rape under certain conditions.
Steady dating partner 21.6% Casual friend 16.5% Ex-boyfriend 12.2% Acquaintance 10.8% Close friend 10.1% Casual date 10.1% Husband 7.2% Stranger 2%
If anyone has an objection, please argue it out here. Hvatum ( talk) 06:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the following statement by DreamFocus: "We could say: Because of the very small number of people involved in these surveys, the results change greatly year by year. And then instead of wasting time publishing any stats, which will contradict all those the year before, or say something insanely stupid like 100% of black women raped were raped only by black men, we could just not publish any stats at all. Dream Focus 20:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)"
Dream Focus, how do you know it's insanely stupid? Do you know any black women raped by a white? Need I remind you of the Duke University Lacrosse Team NON-rape case? Bluebye ( talk) 23:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm removing the definition of rape that is provided at the top of page. The link given does not exist. And what is listed is NOT the legal definition of rape in any US state. If someone feels forced to have sex through "psychological coercion" it isn't legally rape. If someone says: "If you don't have sex with me I'll break up will you." or "If you loved me you'd have sex with me." They're being coercive and arguably a jerk -- but they're not anywhere near being guilty of rape. Here is the language from the California Penal Code: (which you can read online here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=261-269) "Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another."
Also, including "attempted rape" in the definition of rape makes no sense. Attempted murder and murder are two different crimes -- and so are rape and attempted rape.
But the bottom line is that the current definition is unsourced. [Or, more accurately gives a source that doesn't currently exist and I doubt ever did.]
So the following has been removed.
The United States Justice Department defines rape as[2]
"Rape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape."
Hoping To Help ( talk) 07:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
To someone familiar with USDOJ statistics on rape it is obviously baseless to claim that:
"According to the RAINN about 3.3% of rapes in the US are black-on-white and 3.4% are white-on-black."(Reference 10)
"Fact: In 93% of assaults, the rapist and victim are of the same race. In 3.3% of sexual assault cases, black men did rape white women, while in 3.4% of the cases, white men raped black women."
CCASA provides NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE for it's claim. If needed I will take the time to prove it's bogus with DOJ statistics Bluebye ( talk) 01:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Update: I've contacted CCASA and they completely disown the RAINN document. It has been scrubbed from their website but is still floating around in cyberspace, much to their chagrin. Bluebye ( talk) 23:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I updated the definition of rape to properly indicate where the definition was sourced from and what it's applied to. Ismarc ( talk) 05:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The definition of rape was incorrect by stating that the victim has to be the one penetrated. Rape can happen where the victim can be the one penetrating a mouth, vagina or anus without his or her consent due to being underage, being forced to do so, being drugged, being threatened to do so, etc.
Patrick.N.L (
talk) 04:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to add some of the stats from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nisvs/ too. Admittedly they're only from 2010 but more recent than some of the other stats added. I've got it marked on my to-do list (which is sadly growing longer and not shorter). Any objections? Legios ( talk) 09:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The UNODC data are not a meaningful comparison between different countries because they do not make any attempt to address different definitions of rape used in different countries or the differing rates of underreporting and false allegations in different countries. To simply say that rape in "grossly underreported" in the United States in the context of a comparison with the rest of the world is overly simplistic and highly misleading, since underreporting of rape is believed to be problem worldwide. See also my comments on the talk page for Rape statistics. DGAgainstDV ( talk) 00:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Can either of you provide an academic source that backs up anything you are saying? Its not your job to decide what data the public sees. Period. The Huffington Post characterized the study as "grossly underreported". Please work with me to come with a better phrasing, than simply deleting 3 unquestionably good references. 178.170.111.84 ( talk) 00:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok I added the direct study with quote. 178.170.111.84 ( talk) 18:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
First off the 2013 academic book published by academic publisher Routledge, "Handbook on the Study of Multiple Perpetrator Rape" does not refer to the 2008 National Crime Victimization Survey anywhere in the book. Secondly, where is this 6.8% number coming from? I don't see it. 178.170.111.84 ( talk) 20:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is the be all end all. It is literally called the "Handbook on the Study of Multiple Perpetrator Rape". Moreover the National Research Council indicated that your source is unreliable. 178.170.111.84 ( talk) 23:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Saw an article recently claiming more men than women where raped in america.
Looked it up and basically this becomes true once you include prision stats. aka an extra 216,000 rapes against men.
Here's a newspaper report with the main points in an easy to read format.
and here's a link to the origional authors work (with links to stats on the page).
If anyone would feel comfortable putting this in as I do feel this is relevant, but not personally sure how to fit it onto this page. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
90.204.99.69 (
talk) 09:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate that different studies can find different breakdowns of rates by age, race, etc. But what's very challenging in this article is that the sections typically lead with a different source when discussing rates or breakdowns by type / demographics / etc. And then we have different and inconsistent sets of different views, in random order with random rebuttals. This lack of structure and uniformity is very confusing and poor editorial work. There's no way in the current article for a reader to follow a thread from the macro view of the crime, to the breakdowns by type, race, age etc.
I'm OK with having varying estimates since some studies can be narrower or broader in how they assess the crime. Some older studies can provide historical context, but it would be good to lead with the latest rates possible.
Here's a proposal.
If we think this is reasonable, I'm willing to expend some time on it. Mattnad ( talk) 19:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The lead of this article needs to be rewritten; it should not begin with a statement such as, "Nearly 90,000 people reported being raped in the United States in 2008" because it is already dated and will only continue to become ever more dated. Why list facts about rape in 2008 in particular? FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 10:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, as I've started to look into some of the numbers and their sources, a couple of things pop up:
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Rape in the United States. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I am a student at the University of Chicago Law School taking a course on feminist economics. I am interested in expanding the scope of this article to include a subsection on rape in Indian country. In order to provide greater perspective on rape in the United States, I propose the following changes:
I am very interested in receiving feedback on my proposed changes. I have added a list of potential references to my user page and welcome any suggestions for additional sources. Medleya ( talk) 16:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
"Both the NCVS and UCR are believed to significantly under-count the number of rapes and sexual assaults that occur. [13]" Believed by whom? Wouldn't it be better to say who it is that believes that the NCVS may be under-counting rapes and sexual assault? (The answer, of course, is given by the citation.) It is odd here not to mention here that the methodology of the CDC study has also been criticized (links are trivial to find).
It is also odd that the findings of NCVS are preceded by "According to the National Crime Victimization Survey...", whereas it is stated baldly that "A 2010 study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control found that around 1 in 5 women...". It is the difference in the wordings that is worth noting here. In the end, either both studies "found" facts (apparently incompatible with each other) or both simply state figures (giving which percentage of respondents answered "yes" to different sorts of questions).
On another note - it would be best to have directly comparable figures coming from NCVS, UCR and CDC. I do not know whether they can be accurately drawn from data available in the studies. What we have in the article allows the reader to come up with crude estimates (multiply 0.04 or 0.24 by female life expectancy, and multiply by approximately 2) but nothing more than that. Should we at least have rates of victimization stated further up than they are now, in the "Statistics" section, so that readers can make the comparison easily? Feketekave ( talk) 20:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Katya72918:
That statical figures quoted is cherry picked.If you are going to include,include the whole thing,otherwise it's misleading and racist. Post a response. Katya72918 ( talk) 16:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree Katya72918 that it is cherry-picked. There's no reason we should have stats from a subsample of the NCVS and not other sources. Moreover, the NCVS measures perceived race (which is why Hispanic is not included). EvergreenFir (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Then mention it explicitely. Whites,Blacks are also perceived races.Study just asked the victims ,white ,black or others.They didn't give them a hispanic option to tick. Katya72918 ( talk) 17:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi
XeCyranium, you just
removed a material supported by
this book – "Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood, and Privilege on Campus", Peggy Reeves Sanday (p.9) – : "We know that rape is common in the united states, which is in all likelihood one of the most rape-prone societies in the world."
How would you rephrase this so that it's not 'vague'?
Mhhossein
talk 05:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Well my concern is mostly that with attribution it's something of a weak claim, just "somebody said this is probably the case" instead of a definite "this is the case". Given it's by an expert I guess it'd be fine to be included with attribution if you think it's good I just object to the noncommittal language of it only being "likely" when it seems like a question with a definite statistical answer. But I definitely don't know if it belongs in the lead before being mentioned in the body. XeCyranium ( talk) 07:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LizzieB2327 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by LizzieB2327 ( talk) 21:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
At Template_talk:Rape_in_the_United_States#Addition_of_links_that_are_not_with_the_United_States_scope there is a discussion about a template used in this article. Third-perspective input is welcome. MartinPoulter ( talk) 21:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 18 November 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dream Focus 00:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The official websites of the United States government are a good source of information for this article. I copied a chunk of the article from the main rape article, it able to grow from there. Dream Focus 10:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I found this article in the Huffington Post. [1] It mentions different stories of rape victims denied insurance, for having a preexisting condition, which wouldn't be covered.
“ | A 38-year-old woman in Ithaca, N.Y., said she was raped last year and then penalized by insurers because in giving her medical history she mentioned an assault she suffered in college 17 years earlier. The woman, Kimberly Fallon, told a nurse about the previous attack and months later, her doctor's office sent her a bill for treatment. She said she was informed by a nurse and, later, the hospital's billing department that her health insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield, not only had declined payment for the rape exam, but also would not pay for therapy or medication for trauma because she "had been raped before." | ” |
I'm thinking this is something that should be fitted in the article somehow. How the victim is treated by the legal system, the medical community, the media, and society itself. Comments? Dream Focus 21:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I searched around a bit, but I'm having trouble finding things. I went through Google, then Google news, then Google books. Hard to find something mixed in with the vast number of results. Does anyone know of any books published documenting how the media has portrayed rape over time? How it went from being portrayed as a joke(Black Sheep Squadron episode where they warn the new girl about a drug the guys try to put in a girl's drink to rape her, they laughing, "oh those guys", as though it was no big deal), downplaying the severity of the crime(rape victim recovers, no emotional damage), to the serious crime that it is. I created an article about the All in the Family episode Edith's 50th Birthday (All in the Family) awhile back, it one of the first shows on television that portrayed rape. Dream Focus 09:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
After the AfD has finished, and if the page survives, it should be moved to Rape in the United States. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 11:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Or maybe Sexual violence in the United States in keeping with other articles. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) -
I have come across a stack of pages relating to the article and placed them in the "See also" section. Given that these articles exist I am now convinced that we should move the page to Sexual violence in the United States. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 02:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
This statistic is included in the article:
However upon visiting the cite that statistic is immediately followed by:
Those 2 don't exactly match up... Sammichraptor ( talk) 23:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that the article contains a claim that "a significant number of rapes reported to the police do not advance to prosecution" but the article to which this claim is linked has no such claim within it. Snarky Boy ( talk) 17:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The sexual assault statistics may have no place in this article, as the survey appears to be self-reported and rape is a subset of the broader term sexual assault. 108.39.73.94 ( talk) 22:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Under VAWA 2005, states are required to ensure that a victim receives access to a forensic examination free of charge regardless of whether the victim chooses to report a sexual assault (for any reason) to law enforcement or cooperate with the criminal justice system. All states must comply with the VAWA 2005 requirement regarding forensic examination in order to be eligible to receive STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program (STOP Program) funds. Under 42 U.S.C. § 3796gg-4, a State is not entitled to funds under the STOP Program unless the State or another governmental entity "incurs the full out-of- pocket cost of forensic medical exams . . . for victims of sexual assault." This means that, if no other governmental entity or insurance carrier pays for the exam, states are required to pay for forensic exams if they wish to receive STOP Program funds. The goal of this provision is to ensure that the victim is not required to pay for the exam. The effect of the VAWA 2005 forensic examination requirement is to allow victims time to decide whether to pursue their case. A sexual assault is a traumatic event. Some victims are unable to decide whether they want to cooperate with law enforcement in the immediate aftermath of a sexual assault. Because forensic evidence can be lost as time progresses, such victims should be encouraged to have the evidence collected as soon as possible without deciding to initiate a report. This provision ensures victims receive timely medical treatment. [3] Sammichraptor ( talk) 23:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Criminal Punishment
I am thinking this section should be modified to address sexual assault and the law in the several states instead of just Federal punishment. Federal jurisdiction and prosecutions are so minor in comparison to the States. It would make more sense (to me) to have a general address of sexual assault law and punishment in the States vs. an extensive section addressing the relatively minor Federal role.
Legal Commmuntiy
What are we looking to include in this section? Sammichraptor ( talk) 20:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Concerning my edits [6]. The article mentions insurance companies do this, and even gives examples of some by name. For libel reasons, you can't mention them by name in this article. As for the second tag, it does mention in several places that they didn't pay for things, claiming it wasn't necessary. Just search for the word "necessary", and read what is said throughout the news story, not just the first one you hit. Dream Focus 18:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
This is from the article:
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, the adjusted per-capita victimization rate of rape has declined from about 2.4 per 1000 people (age 12 and above) in 1980 to about 0.4 per 1000 people, a decline of about 85%.
This is from Internet pornography:
...pornography had been traded over the Internet since the 1980s...
By itself, these observations would be original research. Just curious, does anyone knows if this correlation has been studied? AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 05:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
http://www.aardvarc.org/dv/gay.shtml might be of interest to those working on this article. The lack of information on lesbian abuse and rape in particular can cause one to believe it doesn't happen. So anything that helps remind people and/or point them to good sources of information on the topic might be helpful... Hobit ( talk) 07:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Posters should be careful to not use the term gay as a gender neutral term. It's guys. Use of the term as gender neutral is non-standard and colloquial. Check out the terminology list for the Kent State University LGBTQ center on this. By the way, LGBT would be just GBT if the term gay were truly gender neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godofredo29 ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
"The U.S. Department of Justice compiles statistics on crime by race, but only between and among people categorized as black or white. There were 111,490 white and 36,620 black victims of rape or sexual assault reported in 2005. Out of the 111,490 cases involving white victims, 44.5% (49,613) had white offenders and 33.6% (37,461) had black offenders, while the 36,620 black victims had a figure of 100% black offenders, with a 0.0% estimation for any other race based on ten or fewer sample cases.[62] Some types of rape are excluded from official reports altogether"
This does NOT belong here, it belongs on stormfront, not on wikipedia, those statistics are completely biased and they make no sense because according to the same statistics, in the following year there was a large number of black women raped by white men and a completely different number of white women raped by black men, these statistics were posted by David Dukes on his site and they have been spread on nazi forums ever since, it's completely biased as it only mentions the statistics for 2005 and ignores all other statistics, I didn't know wikipedia was a nazi site?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.61.152.142 ( talk) 05:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Although I wouldn't put it as strongly the stats are in a very specific sense unreliable and should either be qualified as such or removed. Regarding the figure that in 100% of the cases were the victim was black, the perpetrator was also black table 42. in the document linked in footnote 8 states that these "estimate[s] [are] based on 10 or fewer sample cases". The sample size is statistically insignificant and the whole thing should never have appeared in the document in the first place. Secondly the numbers reported there are also calculated on the basis of cases were rape or sexual assault was only threatened. Personally I'd I'd like to see the line deleted even though it is based on an official document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troglodyt123 ( talk • contribs) 15:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
"Are racially charged rape statistics spread on nazi forums allowed on wikipedia?", says anonymous
If racially charged stories about slavery spread on Black Supremacist forums are allowed on Wikipedia, rape statistics must be allowed. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. You don't like the statistics, that's YOUR problem. Bluebye ( talk) 23:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
On a side note, it is my belief that the FBI did some statistic-cleansing on politically incorrect material showing white men rarely rape blacks. Bluebye ( talk) 23:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Quick search showed that 27% of rapists are black while only 12.3% of whole population is. Why isn't this fact part of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.121.66.251 ( talk) 09:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
That study used that has these stats is a smallish study in Detroit. It's not reflective other other statistics I've seen. For the time being I've put the National Victimization Survey as a source. Furthermore, the study the (old) Stats which I've copied below come from was not designed as a survey of rape, but of rape under certain conditions.
Steady dating partner 21.6% Casual friend 16.5% Ex-boyfriend 12.2% Acquaintance 10.8% Close friend 10.1% Casual date 10.1% Husband 7.2% Stranger 2%
If anyone has an objection, please argue it out here. Hvatum ( talk) 06:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the following statement by DreamFocus: "We could say: Because of the very small number of people involved in these surveys, the results change greatly year by year. And then instead of wasting time publishing any stats, which will contradict all those the year before, or say something insanely stupid like 100% of black women raped were raped only by black men, we could just not publish any stats at all. Dream Focus 20:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)"
Dream Focus, how do you know it's insanely stupid? Do you know any black women raped by a white? Need I remind you of the Duke University Lacrosse Team NON-rape case? Bluebye ( talk) 23:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm removing the definition of rape that is provided at the top of page. The link given does not exist. And what is listed is NOT the legal definition of rape in any US state. If someone feels forced to have sex through "psychological coercion" it isn't legally rape. If someone says: "If you don't have sex with me I'll break up will you." or "If you loved me you'd have sex with me." They're being coercive and arguably a jerk -- but they're not anywhere near being guilty of rape. Here is the language from the California Penal Code: (which you can read online here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=261-269) "Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another."
Also, including "attempted rape" in the definition of rape makes no sense. Attempted murder and murder are two different crimes -- and so are rape and attempted rape.
But the bottom line is that the current definition is unsourced. [Or, more accurately gives a source that doesn't currently exist and I doubt ever did.]
So the following has been removed.
The United States Justice Department defines rape as[2]
"Rape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape."
Hoping To Help ( talk) 07:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
To someone familiar with USDOJ statistics on rape it is obviously baseless to claim that:
"According to the RAINN about 3.3% of rapes in the US are black-on-white and 3.4% are white-on-black."(Reference 10)
"Fact: In 93% of assaults, the rapist and victim are of the same race. In 3.3% of sexual assault cases, black men did rape white women, while in 3.4% of the cases, white men raped black women."
CCASA provides NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE for it's claim. If needed I will take the time to prove it's bogus with DOJ statistics Bluebye ( talk) 01:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Update: I've contacted CCASA and they completely disown the RAINN document. It has been scrubbed from their website but is still floating around in cyberspace, much to their chagrin. Bluebye ( talk) 23:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I updated the definition of rape to properly indicate where the definition was sourced from and what it's applied to. Ismarc ( talk) 05:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The definition of rape was incorrect by stating that the victim has to be the one penetrated. Rape can happen where the victim can be the one penetrating a mouth, vagina or anus without his or her consent due to being underage, being forced to do so, being drugged, being threatened to do so, etc.
Patrick.N.L (
talk) 04:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to add some of the stats from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nisvs/ too. Admittedly they're only from 2010 but more recent than some of the other stats added. I've got it marked on my to-do list (which is sadly growing longer and not shorter). Any objections? Legios ( talk) 09:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The UNODC data are not a meaningful comparison between different countries because they do not make any attempt to address different definitions of rape used in different countries or the differing rates of underreporting and false allegations in different countries. To simply say that rape in "grossly underreported" in the United States in the context of a comparison with the rest of the world is overly simplistic and highly misleading, since underreporting of rape is believed to be problem worldwide. See also my comments on the talk page for Rape statistics. DGAgainstDV ( talk) 00:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Can either of you provide an academic source that backs up anything you are saying? Its not your job to decide what data the public sees. Period. The Huffington Post characterized the study as "grossly underreported". Please work with me to come with a better phrasing, than simply deleting 3 unquestionably good references. 178.170.111.84 ( talk) 00:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok I added the direct study with quote. 178.170.111.84 ( talk) 18:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
First off the 2013 academic book published by academic publisher Routledge, "Handbook on the Study of Multiple Perpetrator Rape" does not refer to the 2008 National Crime Victimization Survey anywhere in the book. Secondly, where is this 6.8% number coming from? I don't see it. 178.170.111.84 ( talk) 20:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is the be all end all. It is literally called the "Handbook on the Study of Multiple Perpetrator Rape". Moreover the National Research Council indicated that your source is unreliable. 178.170.111.84 ( talk) 23:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Saw an article recently claiming more men than women where raped in america.
Looked it up and basically this becomes true once you include prision stats. aka an extra 216,000 rapes against men.
Here's a newspaper report with the main points in an easy to read format.
and here's a link to the origional authors work (with links to stats on the page).
If anyone would feel comfortable putting this in as I do feel this is relevant, but not personally sure how to fit it onto this page. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
90.204.99.69 (
talk) 09:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate that different studies can find different breakdowns of rates by age, race, etc. But what's very challenging in this article is that the sections typically lead with a different source when discussing rates or breakdowns by type / demographics / etc. And then we have different and inconsistent sets of different views, in random order with random rebuttals. This lack of structure and uniformity is very confusing and poor editorial work. There's no way in the current article for a reader to follow a thread from the macro view of the crime, to the breakdowns by type, race, age etc.
I'm OK with having varying estimates since some studies can be narrower or broader in how they assess the crime. Some older studies can provide historical context, but it would be good to lead with the latest rates possible.
Here's a proposal.
If we think this is reasonable, I'm willing to expend some time on it. Mattnad ( talk) 19:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The lead of this article needs to be rewritten; it should not begin with a statement such as, "Nearly 90,000 people reported being raped in the United States in 2008" because it is already dated and will only continue to become ever more dated. Why list facts about rape in 2008 in particular? FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 10:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, as I've started to look into some of the numbers and their sources, a couple of things pop up:
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Rape in the United States. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I am a student at the University of Chicago Law School taking a course on feminist economics. I am interested in expanding the scope of this article to include a subsection on rape in Indian country. In order to provide greater perspective on rape in the United States, I propose the following changes:
I am very interested in receiving feedback on my proposed changes. I have added a list of potential references to my user page and welcome any suggestions for additional sources. Medleya ( talk) 16:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
"Both the NCVS and UCR are believed to significantly under-count the number of rapes and sexual assaults that occur. [13]" Believed by whom? Wouldn't it be better to say who it is that believes that the NCVS may be under-counting rapes and sexual assault? (The answer, of course, is given by the citation.) It is odd here not to mention here that the methodology of the CDC study has also been criticized (links are trivial to find).
It is also odd that the findings of NCVS are preceded by "According to the National Crime Victimization Survey...", whereas it is stated baldly that "A 2010 study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control found that around 1 in 5 women...". It is the difference in the wordings that is worth noting here. In the end, either both studies "found" facts (apparently incompatible with each other) or both simply state figures (giving which percentage of respondents answered "yes" to different sorts of questions).
On another note - it would be best to have directly comparable figures coming from NCVS, UCR and CDC. I do not know whether they can be accurately drawn from data available in the studies. What we have in the article allows the reader to come up with crude estimates (multiply 0.04 or 0.24 by female life expectancy, and multiply by approximately 2) but nothing more than that. Should we at least have rates of victimization stated further up than they are now, in the "Statistics" section, so that readers can make the comparison easily? Feketekave ( talk) 20:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Katya72918:
That statical figures quoted is cherry picked.If you are going to include,include the whole thing,otherwise it's misleading and racist. Post a response. Katya72918 ( talk) 16:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree Katya72918 that it is cherry-picked. There's no reason we should have stats from a subsample of the NCVS and not other sources. Moreover, the NCVS measures perceived race (which is why Hispanic is not included). EvergreenFir (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Then mention it explicitely. Whites,Blacks are also perceived races.Study just asked the victims ,white ,black or others.They didn't give them a hispanic option to tick. Katya72918 ( talk) 17:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi
XeCyranium, you just
removed a material supported by
this book – "Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood, and Privilege on Campus", Peggy Reeves Sanday (p.9) – : "We know that rape is common in the united states, which is in all likelihood one of the most rape-prone societies in the world."
How would you rephrase this so that it's not 'vague'?
Mhhossein
talk 05:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Well my concern is mostly that with attribution it's something of a weak claim, just "somebody said this is probably the case" instead of a definite "this is the case". Given it's by an expert I guess it'd be fine to be included with attribution if you think it's good I just object to the noncommittal language of it only being "likely" when it seems like a question with a definite statistical answer. But I definitely don't know if it belongs in the lead before being mentioned in the body. XeCyranium ( talk) 07:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LizzieB2327 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by LizzieB2327 ( talk) 21:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
At Template_talk:Rape_in_the_United_States#Addition_of_links_that_are_not_with_the_United_States_scope there is a discussion about a template used in this article. Third-perspective input is welcome. MartinPoulter ( talk) 21:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)