Talk:Forced seduction

File:Lagrenee, Louis Jean - The Abduction of Deianeira by the Centaur Nessus - 1755.jpg ? Hafspajen (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Ahead of the times, overlooks English language country culture completely

Until the early eighties, not only was forced seduction extremely commonplace in televised tales from English language countries, it was standard. Think: Clint Eastwood? John Wayne? They raped a girl as standard in practically all of their films. And they made the most films, or are in the category of most and most popular films, of any actors in their times. Undoubtably, having forced seduction as a regular theme in soap opera, such as described in the lead about Thai TV, is probably a further degree to that still, but only slightly. It is actually a bit ironic to see Western literature head the information, but not to see Western TV shows mentioned at all because they are iconic of forced seduction.

Also, does anyone remember that Jersey Shore episode where the man tried to rape the girl in the shower on live TV and there was an outcry that nobody viewing it called the police to help her? Well that's forced seduction too, albeit unsuccessful, it is what it is. ~ R.T.G 11:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• The article also suffers from systemic bias. I don't understand why a reference to The Marquise of O was removed. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Forced seduction, in the context of the Forced seduction article as it currently is, does not simply mean rape or attempted rape. It means that the rape has resulted in a romance between the rapist and his rape victim or a rape victim falling in love with her rapist. And it applies only to fictional contexts. As for systemic bias, we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state. By that, I mean, as far as systemic bias goes, it's like what Template:POV and Template:Globalize state: "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public. ... This tag should only be applied to articles where global perspectives are reasonably believed to exist (e.g., that people in China have a different view about an idea or situation than people in Germany or South Africa). If additional reliable sources for a worldwide view cannot be found after a reasonable search, this tag may be removed." Flyer22 (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what tags User:Flyer22 is refering to, but is there something saying that forced seduction is specific to fiction? I think taking that on face value is somewhat naive. And indeed, if the article is focusing one area and ignoring another, whatever the intentions are, it is biased. It requires no citation, *outside the article itself*, it requires no citation to point out this theme in "western" culture because, wether you are familiar with that or not, it is just as common a theme as that. So I am just noting it here so that when someone goes to improve the article they know what the principle missing element is. I believe it says in the Christian bible and some Greek literature from before the first millennium that it is good manners to marry a girl once you have raped her. Is that not forced seduction? ~ R.T.G 12:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No need to ping me to this discussion via WP:Echo since this article/talk page is on my WP:Watchlist. And as for tags, the article is obviously not tagged with Template:POV and Template:Globalize, at least not at this point in time; I pointed to those templates, which are used as tags, to address any accusation that the Forced seduction article is not adhering to the WP:Neutral policy and suffers from systemic bias. The WP:Neutral policy has a WP:Due weight section, which is clear that, for any given topic (unless it's an article on a WP:Fringe topic that will naturally get more space than the mainstream view), we are supposed to give most of our weight to what the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources state. Unless you can show that an article is not adhering to the WP:Neutral policy and suffers from systemic bias, then I don't see a case for such claims. That's the point of when and when not use the aforementioned tags. Flyer22 (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems absurdly sexist article

definition is "male on female" to automatically exclude the opposite, eg many romantic comedies where female rapes male and doesn't apologise and they fall in love. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoubleStandardRapeFemaleOnMale 50.65.219.232 (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Provide WP:Reliable sources for your argument. Tvtropes.org is not a WP:Reliable source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I reverted you here. We also go by WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

by your definition of reliable, wikipedia itself should not be considered "reliable". TV tropes is one of most visited pages on internet which allows "original research". This page obviously does not meet wikipedia's standard for an article, as does the equivilent of defining "rape" (reworded as forced seduction) as exclusively "male on female", which is obviously not the perspective of vast majority of people or experts and you seem to be engaging in vandalism in order to protect an extremely sexist view that rivals the Klu Klux Klan for prejudice.... eg KKK might define for example murder as when a black person kills a white because statistically that is more common. How do I report this web page a vandalised and not up to wikipedia standards by an extremist biased minority? 50.65.219.232 (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, read WP:Reliable sources and WP:Due. That is what we go by in cases like these. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

This is still WP:Editorializing. It is you adding your personal commentary in a WP:Synthesis manner. It also is not WP:Lead material. The lead is meant for summarizing what is already in the article. Do you want me to take this to some form of WP:Dispute resolution, other than this talk page, since you clearly are not understanding our rules? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

How is http://jezebel.com/5827427/once-again-men-can-be-raped-too, not a reliable source, news paper article published and read by many with reporters name and date? How do I report you for vandalism? 50.65.219.232 (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Not only is it a poor source for the material in question, you are engaging in WP:Editorializing and WP:Synthesis. You can report me at WP:ANI pr WP:AIV. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The matter was further explained here, where the IP took the issue to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. If the IP wants some outside commentary, he should try WP:Third opinion, the WP:Neutral noticeboard, or even a WP:RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)