Talk:Sexual assault

Small problem: wikipedia cannot say "you should" do this or "you should" do that. Any recommendation needs to be attached to a party making them.

Bigger meta-problem: The legal distinction, or social distinction, between "sexual assault" and "rape" is blurry. For example, the definition of "sexual assault" at [1] would include touching the victims buttocks through clothing without prior obvious and clear consent. Meanwhile, according to [2], all sexual assault is rape. If someone wants to take on a useful project, working on a clear distinction within wikipedia between sexual assault and rape would be worthwhile. Otherwise, as it stands, this article and rape should just about be merged together. -BuddhaInside

Just because some sources claim that all sexual assault is rape doesn't make it so. Legally, rape is distinguised from sexual assault in many (most?) juristictions. Nor are the terms identical in common usage.

Generally I find this article somewhat POV. I will give it some attention when I find the time. -- Daran 16:41, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Buddha - "Some suggest that victims should be referred to additional resources and made aware of their rights under policy and law."

That's an incredibly silly way to phrase that. Evercat 17:58, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes, there should be a better way. -BuddhaInside

Can I suggest a compromise between the two of you? Why not have a section on Best Practice. Evercat should cite an medical or other authoritative source, and Buddha should refrain from contradicting it unless s/he can find an comparible authority. -- Daran 04:33, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Daran, compromise on the content of the article, yes. Compromise on what is "true", no. You say I should refrain from contradicting evercat unless I can cite an authority. Why did you not say s/he should refrain from contradicting me unless s/he can cite an authority?

Try swapping the names in that sentence. Perhaps then it will become a little more clear to you, since it is essentially the same either way. Ducker

Congratulations. I see that you grasped my point. -BuddhaInside

I did say s/he should cite an authority. In case it's not clear, I have found both your approaches so far to this issue unsatisfactory.

It's not the job of an encyclopaedia to give every POV no matter how idiosyncratic. POVs should be reported if they are significant, either because they're widespread (many people think that...) or because they're authoritative or influential in some way (Dr. Sixpack, of the National Federation of Rape Crisis Centres says...) Evercat should cite an authoritative source for his/r claims. You should cite one if you wish to include a contrary POV. -- Daran

"Emergency Contraception" illegal in Chile [3], illegal in Poland [4], australia, italy, ireland, portugal, malta, etc, etc. Wikipedia can not state that doctors "should make victims aware of emergency contraception" when emergency contraception is something that is specifically illegal in several jurisdictions worldwide. Cutting to the heart of the ethical dilema, wikpedia itself, as an encyclopedia, cannot take a stance on this. There are (some) legal and moral authorities which hold that all abortion is wrong, even in the case of Rape. Wikipedia does not reflect purely American norms, and cannot override these legal and moral authorities. It can only cite and point towards alternative legal and moral authorities. -BuddhaInside

Fine. You're quite right. But "Involuntary administration of emergency contraception may be considered in societies where such administration is both socially acceptable and legal." - where does this happen? Evercat 13:18, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That is a very good question. If you read the article history you will see that I did not add that text. -BuddhaInside