Talk:Sexual violence/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

One in four

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the United States at least, the "one in four" statistic is dubious at best.[1] If it is true in other countries, the lead should be more specific than "some countries." JCDenton2052 (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Legal Re-Definition of the Term "Sexual Violence"

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Article fails to note that the terms "sexual violence" or "sexually violent predator" are used, in a legal context throughout the United States, to denote actions or behaviors which do not involve the use of force or physical violence as these terms have always been understood. However, this re-definition, having been heavily influenced by U.S. and European scholarship in the area of sexual assault, is certainly propagating internationaly and within the United Nations. It has already, and will continue, to shape criminal policy worldwide.

As the term "sexual violence" has been redefined, it now includes any adult having "sexual contact" with a minor below a certain age (these ages vary by state from 14 to 18). The term "sexual contact" itself varies by state, as well, and can include fondling through clothing even if what is being fondled is not genitalia.

The mere act of having sexual contact with someone under that age is, as a legal definition, "sexual violence". No actual violence need be employed.

This is crucial to understanding governmental policy on sexual offending today and to providing a fuller, more balanced, view of the context in which these terms are used. Davidmkennerly (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmkennerly (talk • contribs) 00:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Female Perpertators

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

From the article there is nothing on sexual violence carried out by woman. From the definition of sexual violence given in the article females being the victimizer can and does happen, and it should be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.158.123.184 (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I started looking at it, and I added the sidebar for Violence against men that I just created, I do agree that the article needs to be inclusive of female instigators, but not just against men, as there are female-female relationships where females instigate violence against their partner. Lore Spinner (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You raise a very important aspect of sexual violence that needs to be addressed. The article has now been updated and a section has been added to the chapter on perpetrators, which tries to "neutralize" who the perpetrators of sexual violence are. However, as with sexual violence in general, there is the problem with underreporting also with regard to female perpetrators of sexual violence and not much data exists. Vic.nor (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there needs to be more information on why instances of men getting sexually assaulted are not reported as much as women getting sexually assaulted? (Nikoleprelooker (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC) nikole prelooker)

Domestic sexual violence, and History section

Latest comment: 10 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

This section is already mentioned above in Conflict-related and domestic sexual violence, so I think it should be deleted from the Victims part. Also I still suggest that the History part is moved in the beginning of the article, under the 'definitions' part. Finally, I have the impression that the whole article stresses too much on sexual violence in conflict, while there is already an extensive article on War Rape. Maybe some of the Resolutions/Conventions could be moved to 'External Links' to make the International legal framework chapter smaller so as not to prevail that much in the wiki entry. Nelipeuch (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

If there is a repeat section, yes, that should be removed.

As for the History section, like I stated in this WP:Edit summary, "I moved History down [three times now] because we typically don't include that information so high up when other factors are more important to know first. For example, see WP:MEDMOS. Sexual violence is largely a medical topic." Flyer22 (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, the material in the History section is not a part of the definitions, so I take it that you don't mean that you want that section as a subsection of the Definitions section. But still, see WP:MEDMOS...more specifically Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Sections...and where the History section is typically placed. And on a side note, I added ", and History section" on to this section's heading so that it's more accurate as to what this discussion is about. Flyer22 (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the History section more closely, I can see why you'd think that it should be a subsection of the Definitions section (if that's what you meant). However, considering that those are not modern views (not generally) and the "History section goes last or close to last in cases such as these" matter I pointed out above, I still feel that it's best that the History section remain placed where it is. Flyer22 (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Domestic sexual violence section, this part was initially meant to go under "Women" in the Victims section so as to better illustrate that, although the literature focus mostly on female vicitms of violence in times of conflict, domestic sexual violence is also widespread. The section has however been moved and the sub-heading under "Women" for the paragraph covering conflict-relate sexual violence deleted. I would maybe suggest to place the section on Domestic sexual violence under "Women", but without heading. But in this case, it has to refer only to women; besides, "Men" covers male-directed sexual violence. Vic.nor (talk) 08:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22, sorry for the misunderstanding, I meant after the definitions part, but now that I think of it, before 'definitions' would even make more sense. Thank you for this justification, I leave it as it is then. Whether sexual violence is a medical topic or not depends on through which perspective you look at the issue. I thought that 'History' would make more sense in the beginning as a background, and to give better ideas about how the phenomenon looked like before, then lay out our understanding of it now to show how things have/have not changed since, but of course that is just my opinion.Nelipeuch (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Nelipeuch Thanks for explaining. Yes, "whether sexual violence is a medical topic or not depends on through which perspective you look at the issue.", but this article covers the medical perspective to a large extent in addition to other perspectives. Deciding on putting the History section first or not, whether that article is a medical article or not, or is simply within WP:MED's scope or not, is a case-by-case matter. It is sometimes important that the History section comes first. Other times, it fits better placed somewhere in the middle or last. For the record, we also have the History section placed last in the Rape article; that section also has a "Definitions and evolution of laws" subsection, though that article also has an initial Definitions section that addresses the modern definitions of rape. Flyer22 (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for your inputs. I see that it can be difficult to decided where to place the History section, especially since it, as you both point to, depends on how and through which lens the issue of sexual violence is considered. It is true that sections on history are placed at the end of articles that deal with topics that are largely of a medical character. I would disagree though, that the this article mainly address the medical perspective of sexual violence; it addresses several aspects of the issue, including empirical, theoretical and legal as well as medical. Nonetheless, the introduction seems to point more to the medical aspects and does in my opinion not fully reflect the article as a whole. Vic.nor (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Vic.nor. And I thank you for your input as well. I agree that this article is not mainly medical. As can be seen above, I stated "largely a medical topic" and "covers the medical perspective to a large extent." Keep in mind that "medical" includes psychological aspects that are detrimental to victims' health (or even the mental state of the offenders). Flyer22 (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the lead, it is only the second paragraph that focuses on the medical aspects; that is consistent with WP:LEAD. It is a good summary of the medical aspects in this article, and I think should remain as is (though I don't mind some tweaks to it). However, the lead has room for another paragraph, since the lead should generally be no longer than four paragraphs. It currently has three. Flyer22 (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I also think that a paragraph should be included in the lead, and this should particularly mention the legal aspects. Moreover, the lead should more explicitly state that anyone can fall victim of sexual violence and that it can occur at all times. Vic.nor (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Flyer22 (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for your inputs. I agree with Nelipeuch and vic. nor that it is a little weird that the history part is at the end. I think it doesn't necessarily need to be just after the definition but I would argue that it should be put before the legal part. The historical part explains how sexual violence became codified as a war crime under international law. The international law part follows up with how the codification further developed until today. Putting the historical part at the end is very confusing and is not very reader friendly.Ginme (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ginme, I still don't agree with placing the History section higher. No pun intended, but history at this site tells us that the history information is usually the last thing our readers are looking for with regard to many (not all) topics, especially topics such as this one. They are usually looking for information about what the topic is now, not what it has been. Moving it higher won't make them any more likely to read it before aspects that they consider more important or ensure that they will definitely read it. Likewise, leaving it placed last won't ensure that readers will read it last, and they could easily skip to the section(s) they deem more important if the History section were placed higher. But, again, it is standard practice to put the History section last in cases such as these, because the modern aspects (what sexual violence is now, who the victims and perpetrators are, what causes it and how it can be prevented, what the health problems are, how widespread is it, what are the legal ramifications, etc.) are generally more important matters and our readers usually are not looking for historical information, at least not immediately, in this case. There are certainly articles where I think that the History section should come first or just higher, but this is not one of them. I used to be like you guys in not understanding how the History section would not be placed first or at least second in a Wikipedia article. But as you can see, I no longer feel that way. Flyer22 (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

references

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In reference 2 there is a url that does not work and must be fixed. There is also a url that does not work on the 50th reference. (Nikoleprelooker (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC) nikole prelooker) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikoleprelooker (talk • contribs) 22:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

information needed

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why does sexual violence occur ? Is there any evidence as to why there are more women victims than men? (Nikoleprelooker (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC) nikole prelooker)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sexual violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5xc2eRFDv?url=http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm to http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sexual violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)