Talk:rape

RFC
Spanish: needs splitting by etymology. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ —Ruakh TALK 20:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Double-check, if you don't mind. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. Now done for real. —Ruakh TALK 20:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Centuries

 * 1) To seize by force. (Now often with overtones of later senses.) [from 14th c.]
 * 2) (transitive) To carry (someone, especially a woman) off against their will, especially for sex; to abduct. [from 15th c.]
 * 3) (transitive) To force sexual intercourse or other sexual activity upon (someone) without their consent. [from 16th c.]
 * 4) (transitive) To plunder, to destroy or despoil. [from 17th c.]

Do we have any data to support that these were the centuries the words originated from? What is the source of these century labels?

I ask because I find it odd that forced sexual activity precedes plunder/destroy/despoil. The latter seems like a more natural extension of the 'abduct/carry off' usage. Etym (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's confirmed by the OED (entry updated 2008). First citation for forced sex is from 1574; for plunder/despoil, 1673. Ƿidsiþ 10:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 20th century is 1900s, so 1574 is 16th century. However I think it would be good to list the specific year in every case, and what publication the year is based on. Not just trust OED. 174.92.134.248 07:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Order
Why not put the most used senses first (not last). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Traditional rape laws have been sex specific, specifying that only women can be victims of rape, and only men can be rapists. Historically, the term has meant a man putting his penis in a woman's vagina against her will. Women don't have penises, so I don't think they could be rapists. I think the traditional definition should go in first. PaulBustion88 (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well that's going to open a massive can of worms. Why would we put the "historical" definition before the current one? Users presumably want the current definition when they use our site. Equinox ◑ 02:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think ‘forced sex’ has always been the primary meaning. Older legal frameworks perhaps did not accept that women could force sex, for whatever physiological and sociological reasons, but I don't think the gender of the participants was ever an inherent part of the definition. Ƿidsiþ 06:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I remember using Encarta in middle school and high school, and it stated, "Traditional rape laws were gender specific, specifying that only women could be victims of rape and only men could be rapists." It stated that was still the case in most states. It stated, some jurisdictions had passed sex neutral rape laws, and added, "in these jurisdictions it is possible, although unlikely, for a woman to be charged with raping a man."--PaulBustion88 (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In the UK the law states "he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,", therefore all rapists must be male, but it makes no comment as to the gender of the victims. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Back on-topic; our first definition is "One of the six former administrative divisions of Sussex, England." That is most certainly NOT the most used definition of rape. In fact, I'd never heard of it until I read this entry. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As to my main point, I think that the traditional definition, a man penetrating a woman against her will or with no consent, should be listed as one of the definitions. Is there anything wrong with adding it?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your added definition:- "sexual penentration ..." seems to me to be essentially the same as "the act of forcing sexual intercourse ...". Also, I don't see how this definition is supported by the following citation from Tolkein. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Tolkien quotation being underneath this one was clearly a mistake, so I moved it back under the previous definition. The point is for this definition that a man has to be the rapist for the definition to apply. I don't know whether I support having specific sub-senses for the laws of particular jurisdictions, and I feel that might be a topic better suited for Wikipedia. But this might be a significant enough deviation from the first sense, so I don't know. &mdash;Internoob 20:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My point was not to list every states' rape law. My point was generally for the term "rape" to apply, it has to be a man who is the rapist, in the common use of the word. Renard Migrant said that the term pedophilia should include the common, incorrect definition of the term to mean any sexual attraction towards or interaction with a minor (i.e. under 18) by a an adult (i.e. 18 or older). That is the most common use of the word, but it is not correct because the term is actually a medical term with a more specific definition, I'm not going to try to change that, but if we're going by how words are commonly used, I'm quite certain that the most common use of the word rape is with a man as the only possible perpetrator and woman as the only possible victim. When I was in ninth grade, I used the word rape to refer to forced homosexual intercourse, and was mocked and told "You can't rape another man." Rape has traditionally been a legal term, and it traditionally meant a man penetrating a woman without her consent and against her will. I'm fine with leaving the newer, more politically correct definition in, but I think we should also include the older, more common, and more accurate definition as a separate entry. I'm not suggesting we include individual laws, I'm suggesting we separate out the original more specific sense of the word into its own definition. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That leads to overlapping senses (where some acts would be rape according to sense 1 and sense 2). The less clumsy and redundant way to do that, as you already seemed to guess, is to have one sense that is qualified (as now: "X, originally conceived as Y"). Equinox ◑ 21:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In the pedophilia entry the same overlapping senses also happen. Because the medical definition of sexual attraction to prepubescent children is included, but the popular, mistaken definition of anyone 18 or older being sexually attracted to/sexually interacting with anyone 17 or younger is also included. Those are overlapping because an 18 year old being sexually attracted to an 8 year old would meet both definitions, but Renard Migrant still insisted and I reluctantly accepted including the popular, mistaken definition also. If we can allow overlapping definitions in one term, why not in another? --PaulBustion88 (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You obviously have a deep emotional connection to this topic, and an agenda, and I suggest you avoid editing it. You can probably see why that is a good idea. You might also want to consider why Wikipedia banned you. Equinox ◑ 00:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not edit warred, and I'm a man, so I have no reason to have an emotional connection to the rape topic. I don't have an agenda. I can see that my editing needs to be more careful though. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think "I'm a man" has anything to do with rape then you are a lunatic. Equinox ◑ 01:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying that I'm emotionally offended by the idea women can be rapists. I'm not a woman, and I'm opposed to feminism also, so I'm not really pro-woman either. That's my point. I'm not trying to change the rape article anymore, if people want to believe that women can commit rape in the same sense men do, I guess I can't stop them from doing it. I'm done with this debate. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I talked to my sister today and she explained to me that I was wrong and I accept it, rape is a sex neutral term, I'm going to edit rape and all related topics neutrally and I understand I was mistaken to think only women could be victims and only men could be rapists.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

new rape
Joe Rogan coined this term beginning 3:10 here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4WBx5SBOos&t=3m10s until 3:30

Rather than listing it as a new definition here I wonder if "new rape" should have its own page to describe the concept of sex for which consent was received but then (after sex stopped) called rape based on accusations of deception. 174.92.134.248 07:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * We don't add new inventions or propaganda. If it catches on and meets WT:CFI we could add it at some future time. Equinox ◑ 11:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

derived terms
Would base rape or spawn rape be appropriate to list? They're popular terms in online FPS games between teams with defensive bases or known respawn points. Ranze (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Possibly, but recent gaming slang may be hard to attest per WT:CFI. For example, a YouTube video or blog isn't durably archived so can't be used as a source. Equinox ◑ 12:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Legal Elements
These sources discuss the legal elements: p.3-4p.4p.1166 --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

tangled etymology again
As with sap we have a subsense of noun etymology 1 (currently sense 5), Movement, as in snatching; haste; hurry.  This is very similar to etymology 3 To make haste; to hasten or hurry. (verb) and its noun  Haste; precipitancy; a precipitate course. Could it be that e1s5 is actually from e3? I put this here instead of on the Etymology scriptorium as i think this is of lesser importance and also more likely to be ultimately unknowable. — Soap — 08:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)