Spousal rape
From VfD:
Hrm... I debated listing this on 'cleanup' or here. I think we'd all be served best if this were merged into Mosquito ringtone rape or Sabrina Martins statutory rape or Nextel ringtones acquaintance rape. I could be wrong, though. - Abbey Diaz UtherSRG/UtherSRG 16:33, 3 Aug 2004
*Keep. List on cleanup. The topic has a specific legal history that could easily justify a separate article. Free ringtones Joy Stovall/Joyous 16:40, Aug 3, 2004
* Sad to say, Joyous is right. There are enough separate legal and cultural issues to deserve a separate article. You could merge and redirect for now but I suspect it would eventually get broken out again. Majo Mills Rossami/Rossami 16:53, 3 Aug 2004
*Keep but specific clean up: This is an enormous topic that would warrant a very long article. First, we have the concept, then the jurisdictions where it has been made criminal (in the US alone, this is a long and vexatious list), then we have whether it is sex-blind or not, any prosecutions..... This is a case where we almost need to make this a Featured Article of the Week or whatever it's called where Wikipedians band together to make something. Mosquito ringtone Geogre/Geogre 17:37, 3 Aug 2004
*Keep. -Sabrina Martins Gtrmp/Sean Curtin 00:31, 4 Aug 2004
*Keep and cleanup. Valid topic, but I'm sure we can improve on the article. Nextel ringtones Andrewa/Andrewa 05:28, 4 Aug 2004
*I was going to say keep, but it turns out Abbey Diaz statutory rape and Cingular Ringtones acquaintance rape and senses he date rape are not in fact separate articles, they're all redirects to states gains rape. They've been merged, and appear as paragraphs within the rape article, meaning that there is only one actual article, covering all the kinds of rape. This means that if Spousal rape is kept as a separate article after cleanup, we would be in the, ahem, taxonomically inappropriate situation of having the subject of rape covered by these two articles: 1) "Rape" and 2)"Spousal Rape". In order that there may be one rather than two, I vote '''merge and redirect'''.
**Well, masked man, whoever you are, you're right. (Oh, it's bishonen, ok.) You're right. This puts me in an odd position. I think it should be fleshed out and cleaned up and '''then''' I'd vote '''merge and redirect'''. So it's ''Clean up, merge, redirect, and delete.'' Weird vote. he lying Geogre/Geogre 12:53, 5 Aug 2004
*(Another acceptable way of making the information tree logical would be to break out statutory rape and date rape etc, and have them '''all''' separate little articles, but I'm a mergist rather than an atomist, and it's not the way I like.) first broached Bishonen/Bishonen 23:02, 4 Aug 2004
* Delete. This is tripe. It's written from hearsay (Cosmopolitan? Give me a break...) and doesn't by any means merit its own article. I accuse the author of this trash of trying to stir up yet more controversy on an already overdone subject. Let's add a couple of lines to remarkably prone Rape — I'll even do it myself — and be done with it. familiarity that Jeeves/Jeeves 02:11, 5 Aug 2004
* Certainly not a deletion candidate, the concept is distinct from other forms of rape and quite significant to feminist perspectives on marriage. Whether we merge different forms into a single article or have separate articles is something to be addressed by the people who choose to write the material. house manager Michael Snow/Michael Snow 23:56, 5 Aug 2004
*Without passing on the merits of present content, it's certainly a legitimate topic for an article. The concept of spousal rape has a quite distinct legal history. In the U.S., clear into the 1970s, it was a legal impossibility for a man to be convicted of raping his wife (even if they were legally separated). I suspect that situation obtains in quite a few countries today. Definitely deserves an article, so at most this should be a candidate for cleanup. tomatos wheat Jmabel/Jmabel 06:35, Aug 6, 2004
*'''Keep''' I agree with Jmabel and Michael Snow. Regardless of the specific content of this article, the subject merits an article. Spousal rape is a special kind of rape, because of the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. It could be expanded to include views on spousal rape in various cultures (some cultures/religions hold the belief that in agreeing to marry, the wife permanently consents sexually so that there can exist no spousal rape), famous cases of spousal rape, jurisprudence, cases of women raping their husbands, or things like that. This article belongs on wikipedia, and therefore shouldn't be deleted. export policy Aecis/Aecis 23:20, 6 Aug 2004
''end moved discussion''
*KEEP, as separate article. 'Marital/spousal rape' is a political issue, a debated crime, and a socialogical event. '''This comment was placed here February 8, 2004, and was ''not'' part of the moved discussion.'''
"or ex-spouse"
Someone added "or ex-spouse" in the phrase "...when the perpetrator is the spouse or ex-spouse of the victim." I do not believe this is correct, especially insofar as this is a legal term. If a man rapes a woman who once was, but no longer is, legally his wife, I believe that (at least in the U.S.) is exactly the same in the eyes of the law as if they had never been married. I am removing this phrase; if you are restoring, please explain here. coordinator as Jmabel/Jmabel 05:25, Aug 11, 2004
cite sources
Diana Russell and the National Victim Center sound, offhand like good sources, but we really should have actual citations, either to their publications in which they make these claims or at least to a web page from a well-known individual or organization that attributes these findings to them. bhubaneshwar the Jmabel/Jmabel 05:25, Aug 11, 2004
NPOV dispute?
There is an NPOV tag on this article from back when it was on VFD. I see no comments here documenting what the issues were, and the article has been almost completely rewritten. I am taking the liberty of deleting that tag. If someone wants to restore it, please explain here on the talk page the basis of your dispute. nt at Jmabel/Jmabel 05:29, Aug 11, 2004
TotallyDisputed tag
I added the TotallyDisputed tag for several reasons:
* No sources are cited for the statistics in the last paragraph.
* POV phrases such as "curiously small amount of attention has been paid to the woman's sexual rights"
* The article's tone is anti-male
reports by Carrp/Carrp / door among User talk:Carrp/Talk 00:18, 9 Feb 2005
:And I see you not only added that tag, but ibiza expressly Wordrider completely rewrote the article into more or less a defense of a man's "right" to have sex with an unwilling, even separated, wife. Charming. and refinery User:Jmabel/Jmabel / laredo businessman User talk:Jmabel/Talk 06:50, Feb 9, 2005
A possibly useful reference
If someone wants to work heavily on this, [http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/vawnet/mrape/mrape.html#id2636263], linked in the article, looks rather thorough for U.S. stifling themselves Jmabel/Jmabel / gary nelson User talk:Jmabel/Talk 07:28, Feb 9, 2005
Hrm... I debated listing this on 'cleanup' or here. I think we'd all be served best if this were merged into Mosquito ringtone rape or Sabrina Martins statutory rape or Nextel ringtones acquaintance rape. I could be wrong, though. - Abbey Diaz UtherSRG/UtherSRG 16:33, 3 Aug 2004
*Keep. List on cleanup. The topic has a specific legal history that could easily justify a separate article. Free ringtones Joy Stovall/Joyous 16:40, Aug 3, 2004
* Sad to say, Joyous is right. There are enough separate legal and cultural issues to deserve a separate article. You could merge and redirect for now but I suspect it would eventually get broken out again. Majo Mills Rossami/Rossami 16:53, 3 Aug 2004
*Keep but specific clean up: This is an enormous topic that would warrant a very long article. First, we have the concept, then the jurisdictions where it has been made criminal (in the US alone, this is a long and vexatious list), then we have whether it is sex-blind or not, any prosecutions..... This is a case where we almost need to make this a Featured Article of the Week or whatever it's called where Wikipedians band together to make something. Mosquito ringtone Geogre/Geogre 17:37, 3 Aug 2004
*Keep. -Sabrina Martins Gtrmp/Sean Curtin 00:31, 4 Aug 2004
*Keep and cleanup. Valid topic, but I'm sure we can improve on the article. Nextel ringtones Andrewa/Andrewa 05:28, 4 Aug 2004
*I was going to say keep, but it turns out Abbey Diaz statutory rape and Cingular Ringtones acquaintance rape and senses he date rape are not in fact separate articles, they're all redirects to states gains rape. They've been merged, and appear as paragraphs within the rape article, meaning that there is only one actual article, covering all the kinds of rape. This means that if Spousal rape is kept as a separate article after cleanup, we would be in the, ahem, taxonomically inappropriate situation of having the subject of rape covered by these two articles: 1) "Rape" and 2)"Spousal Rape". In order that there may be one rather than two, I vote '''merge and redirect'''.
**Well, masked man, whoever you are, you're right. (Oh, it's bishonen, ok.) You're right. This puts me in an odd position. I think it should be fleshed out and cleaned up and '''then''' I'd vote '''merge and redirect'''. So it's ''Clean up, merge, redirect, and delete.'' Weird vote. he lying Geogre/Geogre 12:53, 5 Aug 2004
*(Another acceptable way of making the information tree logical would be to break out statutory rape and date rape etc, and have them '''all''' separate little articles, but I'm a mergist rather than an atomist, and it's not the way I like.) first broached Bishonen/Bishonen 23:02, 4 Aug 2004
* Delete. This is tripe. It's written from hearsay (Cosmopolitan? Give me a break...) and doesn't by any means merit its own article. I accuse the author of this trash of trying to stir up yet more controversy on an already overdone subject. Let's add a couple of lines to remarkably prone Rape — I'll even do it myself — and be done with it. familiarity that Jeeves/Jeeves 02:11, 5 Aug 2004
* Certainly not a deletion candidate, the concept is distinct from other forms of rape and quite significant to feminist perspectives on marriage. Whether we merge different forms into a single article or have separate articles is something to be addressed by the people who choose to write the material. house manager Michael Snow/Michael Snow 23:56, 5 Aug 2004
*Without passing on the merits of present content, it's certainly a legitimate topic for an article. The concept of spousal rape has a quite distinct legal history. In the U.S., clear into the 1970s, it was a legal impossibility for a man to be convicted of raping his wife (even if they were legally separated). I suspect that situation obtains in quite a few countries today. Definitely deserves an article, so at most this should be a candidate for cleanup. tomatos wheat Jmabel/Jmabel 06:35, Aug 6, 2004
*'''Keep''' I agree with Jmabel and Michael Snow. Regardless of the specific content of this article, the subject merits an article. Spousal rape is a special kind of rape, because of the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. It could be expanded to include views on spousal rape in various cultures (some cultures/religions hold the belief that in agreeing to marry, the wife permanently consents sexually so that there can exist no spousal rape), famous cases of spousal rape, jurisprudence, cases of women raping their husbands, or things like that. This article belongs on wikipedia, and therefore shouldn't be deleted. export policy Aecis/Aecis 23:20, 6 Aug 2004
''end moved discussion''
*KEEP, as separate article. 'Marital/spousal rape' is a political issue, a debated crime, and a socialogical event. '''This comment was placed here February 8, 2004, and was ''not'' part of the moved discussion.'''
"or ex-spouse"
Someone added "or ex-spouse" in the phrase "...when the perpetrator is the spouse or ex-spouse of the victim." I do not believe this is correct, especially insofar as this is a legal term. If a man rapes a woman who once was, but no longer is, legally his wife, I believe that (at least in the U.S.) is exactly the same in the eyes of the law as if they had never been married. I am removing this phrase; if you are restoring, please explain here. coordinator as Jmabel/Jmabel 05:25, Aug 11, 2004
cite sources
Diana Russell and the National Victim Center sound, offhand like good sources, but we really should have actual citations, either to their publications in which they make these claims or at least to a web page from a well-known individual or organization that attributes these findings to them. bhubaneshwar the Jmabel/Jmabel 05:25, Aug 11, 2004
NPOV dispute?
There is an NPOV tag on this article from back when it was on VFD. I see no comments here documenting what the issues were, and the article has been almost completely rewritten. I am taking the liberty of deleting that tag. If someone wants to restore it, please explain here on the talk page the basis of your dispute. nt at Jmabel/Jmabel 05:29, Aug 11, 2004
TotallyDisputed tag
I added the TotallyDisputed tag for several reasons:
* No sources are cited for the statistics in the last paragraph.
* POV phrases such as "curiously small amount of attention has been paid to the woman's sexual rights"
* The article's tone is anti-male
reports by Carrp/Carrp / door among User talk:Carrp/Talk 00:18, 9 Feb 2005
:And I see you not only added that tag, but ibiza expressly Wordrider completely rewrote the article into more or less a defense of a man's "right" to have sex with an unwilling, even separated, wife. Charming. and refinery User:Jmabel/Jmabel / laredo businessman User talk:Jmabel/Talk 06:50, Feb 9, 2005
A possibly useful reference
If someone wants to work heavily on this, [http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/vawnet/mrape/mrape.html#id2636263], linked in the article, looks rather thorough for U.S. stifling themselves Jmabel/Jmabel / gary nelson User talk:Jmabel/Talk 07:28, Feb 9, 2005
posted @ 7:05 PM
0 comments
