Talk:Rape/Archive 23

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 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Poor medical sourcing

Regarding this edit, which are additions by An Inconvenient Truth (talk · contribs), it is poor medical sourcing. Medical sourcing should comply with WP:MEDRS. One example of poor and outdated sourcing is the following sentence sourced to a 1992 source: "94% of women who are raped experience posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms within two weeks." It should obviously be removed. Another example is the following content sourced to a 1999 source: "A large representative sample of college students (N = 4609) found that women who were raped were 1.5-2.7 times more likely than non-victims to engage in negative health behaviors including: drinking and driving in the 30 days prior to the survey, smoking cigarettes, episodic heavy drinking, marijuana use, and using alcohol or drugs the last time they had sexual intercourse." It should obviously be removed.

Doc James and Jytdog, can I get your opinions on this? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

My understanding of MEDRS is that more recent sources of equal quality are to be generally preferred, but that older sources are not disqualified from use based on age alone. Further, these claims don't seem terribly far fetched. Rape and PTSD in particular I know are extremely well studied. TimothyJosephWood 20:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

See WP:MEDDATE. If the sources are good, it should not be difficult to find more recent sources reporting the same thing. This user, as usual, is adding poor sourcing for medical and legal content. We should not be using sources from the 1990s for the aforementioned rape material. We should not be using WP:Primary sources or relying on primary source studies. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, MEDDATE was what I was referencing...and summarizing...and it doesn't seem to say what you appear to think it does. TimothyJosephWood 21:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh really? WP:MEDDATE says, "Keeping an article up-to-date while maintaining the more-important goal of reliability is important. These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published."

So tell me: In what way is the content in question not actively researched?

WP:MEDDATE also says: "In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written. The range of reviews you examine should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies. [...] Prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic. If recent reviews do not mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious. Conversely, an older primary source that is seminal, replicated, and often-cited may be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews. E.g., the article Genetics could mention Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species as part of a discussion supported by recent reviews."

So tell me: In what way should the content in question be relying on sources from 1990s? Why should we be reporting on studies from the 1990s? Why should we be using any primary source studies for such material?

The content in question does not fall under the MEDDATE exceptions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the sourcing is ideal, but that MEDDATE says simply that more recent sources should be preferred. I feel that uncontroversial claims like the link between rape and PTSD should probably not be excluded based on, what is in this instance, a fairly trivial issue of dating, as if there is some rationale why the link between rape (a traumatic experience) and PTSD should be expected to somehow have changed in the interim. TimothyJosephWood 22:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:MEDDATE doesn't simply sate that more recent sources should be preferred. I think it is very clear that we shouldn't be using the sourcing/content in question. Objection to the PTSD content is not simply about the outdated sourcing. It's also about the percentage claim. It makes the following definitive statement: "94% of women who are raped experience posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms within two weeks." Non-primary sources that are significantly newer and that comply with WP:MEDRS should be sought to see how that percentage and "within two weeks" claim stands today. Such sources should be sought to see about conflicting percentages on that topic. The other piece is based on a college sample from many years ago; its inclusion is undue weight. Jytdog has been removing content from the article accordingly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

the psychological section is terrible. am reading reviews now and will provide well-sourced content in a bit. the key thing is FIXIT which i am doing.... Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Much thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Jyt has it under control. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The section seems somewhat degraded by the over use of "may" (and I really wish there were a WP:MAY to discourage this). Just at a quick glance:

"may react outwardly"
"may get an erection and may ejaculate"
"may be uncomfortable with and not understand"
"may develop one or more specific phobia"

While this might make the section easier to read, it really diminishes the amount of actual information conveyed. Thoughts? TimothyJosephWood 12:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

If you can find a recent meta-analyses that provides data on outcomes that would be great. These MEDRS sources were narrative and described various possible outcomes. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, This book from 2001 paints a similar picture regarding PTSD as the source in question here. See page 13 onward. Nearly all victims experience symptoms of PTSD, and as many as 65% actually met criteria, with this number decreasing over time. I'll continue poking around with what limited access I have. TimothyJosephWood 18:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

15 year old ref, meh. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It's an improvement, and it secondary. Probably not going to see many 2016 sources coming out of the kind of access I have. TimothyJosephWood 18:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I will look for recent MEDRS sources that provide data. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

This book from 2014 seems to still be using a national study from 92 as its source (p. 43). TimothyJosephWood 18:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Bit troubling, that. i have been noticing the same. One wonders if that is really the best data out there or if people just fling that around; as i mentioned i will go digging (soon, not now) and will let you know if i find anything that discusses the data. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I suspect there is not a lot of funding out there anymore for doing simple prevalence studies, since it is a bit like studying the prevalence among combat veterans. But we'll see what comes up. TimothyJosephWood 18:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Just documenting at this point, but interestingly, on the same source, page 99, presents two studies (1987 and 1978) indicating that rape victims who were of a lower socio-econ status were more likely to experience worse outcomes regarding symptoms, and another (82) found that low SES predicted depression among rape victims at 12 months. TimothyJosephWood 19:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Here (2007) p. 186, citing the National Comorbidity Survey (1995): "...the trauma most likely to be associated with PTSD was rape; 65% of men and 45.9% of women who identified rape as their most upsetting trauma developed PTSD."

Here (2008) citing Cahill et al. 2008: At initial assessment <1 month post-assault 90% of women met symptomatic criteria for PTSD. At 3 month assessment 50% met full diagnostic criteria. TimothyJosephWood 19:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

If it turns out that the old studies are what we have to rely on for PTSD content because that is the most up-to-date material on the matter, then so be it. But we should stay away from the really old content, such as material from 1978 or 1987, and stick to the most recent. We should also be using good book sources or reviews for it, since those are tertiary and/or secondary sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

At least what I've linked to so far have all been scholarly/academic type books. I didn't find jack for recent meta analyses, but I have fairly limited access. So far though everything I've found seems pretty consistent as far as the result of prevalence studies across time. TimothyJosephWood 20:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I never doubted PTSD's relation to rape. I specifically questioned definitive statements such as "94% of women who are raped experience posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms within two weeks." That statement is presenting a percentage and time span that other sources might not present. We shouldn't be going on a single study for statements like that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I've not seen anything so far that contradicts that by more than a few percentage points. What I have seen is some seemingly describing the 90ish figure as experiencing "symptoms of," meaning perhaps (?) that they meet some criteria but maybe (?) not all, while others seem to definitively state that they meet criteria period other than that which requires experiencing these symptoms over a particular span of time. TimothyJosephWood 20:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is the source ("A prospective examination of post-traumatic stress disorder in rape victims") that was used for that percentage and time span based on one study? Since the title says "examination," perhaps not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Per abstract here, yes, it does seem that it was base on a single study. I would add though, that, at least in changes from DSM 4 to 5, criteria have focused more on sexual assault ([1]) rather than moving to be more broad, so I don't see an obvious reason for dramatic changes in prevalence as far as I can tell. TimothyJosephWood 21:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Rape. 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) 22:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

My last edit...(Effects/Emotional and Psychological)

My deletion of content today is definitely fueled by my own COI on this topic, but even if I was completely neutral on rape, the reference does not support the content. The reference uses blogs and opinions of individuals to support its claims. This reference doesn't match the lowest standard on WP to establish veracity. Nice try. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

As you yourself note, I think it is important to approach this from a neutral point of view, as difficult as that may be when the article is about a controversial subject. I noticed that you described the content as "nauseating" in the main edit (revert) that you made to the page itself. The fact that the content is disturbing to you, however, isn't a reason to revert the edit if the content is properly referenced. I will admit that the Popular Science article was not a good reference, because it did indeed depend on blog posts and dead links. However, the Popular Science article does include some references to much more scholarly articles with very similar content. The links may be dead, but it won't take much effort for me to find active links to the scholarly articles with this content. I plan to give this a day or so to give you a chance to respond, and then to restore this content (or very similar content) with better references. I recognize that the content is disturbing and controversial but that is not a reason to avoid it if it can be properly referenced. Moreover, if we are going to remove this content purely because we find the content disturbing, then the previous sentence (which I note you left in) regarding similar physical responses by male survivors should also be deleted for the sake of neutrality. I would question the reference on that one, actually, because a journal on obstetrics and gynecology seems a questionable source for information about male survivors. It is a disturbing subject, but if we are going to discuss it for male survivors, we need to do so for female survivors as well. So in sum--yes, my reference was questionable but there are good references out there for this subject, so it won't be possible to dismiss this purely on the grounds of it being disturbing content. Dash77 (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Need much better references. I've seen discussion about physical arousal during rape/sexual assault and there's some research on it and how to does affect both reporting, CJS response, and mental health. That said, that edit needs to be worded more encyclopedic. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough! The deletion was based upon the reference. I am honest enough to admit a COI, so that can be ruled out as the reason for the removal of the content. The reference itself is a 'reprint' (if there is such a thing in the digital universe) of the same article in a different media source.(I traced it to a blog.) Look here, and here where I have found no mention of the pleasurable nature of rape for women (or men). I know you can't prove a positive statement by the absence of a negative statement, (logic) but I think I would have run across the information sometime, somewhere in my readings. Also, since the content I removed described a physiological response, the reference should be based upon MEDR and not popular literature. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I fixed it Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Barbara (WVS), regarding your revert, I had to go ahead and note in the edit history that the sexual arousal/sexual pleasure content is correct. Experiencing sexual pleasure during rape is one of the things that psychologically devastates a rape victim, because it makes them question whether or not they truly didn't want the rape. Similar has been documented regarding victims in cases of child sexual abuse. When it comes to adults raping adults, there is not much research out there on the "sexual pleasure during rape" aspect, mainly because the victims aren't willing to admit to it because of the stigma associated with it. Like this 2003 The Trauma of Sexual Assault: Treatment, Prevention and Practice source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 56, states, "As with men, some women experience orgasm during sexual assault and this can be a source of difficulty (Sarrell and Masters, 1982). We are not aware of research demonstrating how common this response is or the range and intensity of any difficulties with which it is associated." This 2013 Recovery: How to Survive Sexual Assault for Women, Men, Teenagers, and Their Friends and Family source, from Columbia University Press, page 29, states, "A few women do have orgasms when they are raped, something they usually don't want to admit to anyone. If this happened to you, you are probably devastated. You might think it means you must have secretly enjoyed the rape, that the myths about women being masochistic and wanting rape are right. And you know that if people found out, they wouldn't sympathize much with you as a victim. You are also deeply ashamed and likely to despise yourself. To some extent, your worries are justified -- most people will take your orgasm as evidence that you enjoyed the rape and so won't sympathize with you. But those people are wrong." The next page of the source goes on to explain how a person might orgasm during rape. In this 2014 Psychopathology and Psychotherapy: DSM-5 Diagnosis, Case Conceptualization, and Treatment source, from Routledge, page 141, the scholars recount the case of Jason, who stated that his rapists (male perpetrators) laughed at him because he had an orgasm while being raped; the men stated that he must have liked being raped since he had an orgasm. Jason started crying when retelling his story and was wondering if he was gay because he had an orgasm during the rape. And when it comes to the child-adult aspect specifically, there are a lot of scholarly sources mentioning the matter, like this 2010 Disability and Child Sexual Abuse: Lessons from Survivors' Narratives for Effective Protection, Prevention and Treatment source, from Jessica Kingsley Publishers, page 134, or this 2011 Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church: A Decade of Crisis, 2002-2012 source, from ABC-CLIO, page 174.

There should definitely be something about this in the article. Well, the child sexual abuse stuff can stay regulated to the Child sexual abuse article. Anyway, our editors need to leave their personal POVs at the door on these issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

And, Jytdog, thank you for fixing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

A superb edit, Jytdog, with an excellent reference. A single case study mentioned in a book about arousal is probably not appropriate as discussed above. Listen, the little episode of finger-wagging at me for deleting inappropriately referenced content is probably not necessary and there are plenty of times where I have admitted a conflict of interest without a problem. That is not the issue for this particular edit: the reference was bad. Flyer, for all the content that you put into the talk page, more of it should go into the articles. I've noticed a lot of editors leave content suggestions on talk pages (not just you) but then wait for someone else to insert it. Go ahead. Be bold! Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS), the issue here is that you let your COI get in the way of retaining verifiable and accurate information. This is not about case studies. It's about the fact that there are reliable scholarly sources that support what you removed. You claimed above, "I have found no mention of the pleasurable nature of rape for women (or men)." You clearly did not look hard enough. Furthermore, the body finding pleasure doesn't mean that the person finds it pleasurable. As seen here and here, regarding your views and/or your research methods, this is not the first time you have done this type of thing. I've edited plenty here, for years, as many know. I am not that interested in heavily editing Wikipedia anymore; many editors get like that after editing at this site for years and years. And I recently noted on my talk page what my issues are with this site. There are select Wikipedia articles that I mainly focus on these days. I do not simply go to talk pages suggesting improvements. If I want something improved, I usually do the work myself. The exceptions are when I am debating someone on the talk page, pointing to sources that they can easily find themselves, especially when I am challenging their edits, or when I am gauging reactions about what can be done to improve an article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a thought, but as a social worker, I have unfortunately had experience in this area, and it is unfortunately a thing. Stay tuned for lots of other objectively terrible reasons why I'm no longer in the field. TimothyJosephWood 00:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts Flyer and I strongly agree. At the risk of again being publicly shamed, I would like to see some of the info I tried to add included in the article. Many people just do not understand this aspect of rape at all and the more that we can do to include it in our articles, the better. Anyone that thinks that in these "modern" times we are more understanding of the horror that a women that has been raped goes through only includes the act itself needs to think again. I have worked with victims for several years and I can say this with some authority. The only "nauseating" thing about it is that some people continue to find it nauseating. Gandydancer (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)