Talk:Date rape/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merged

• should not be merged 69.136.128.140 22:41, 18 September 2006 Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by Esdawg (talk • contribs) 16:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

statistics my name is nic

I took out the statistics and the links to the statistics. Figures like those are notoriously inaccurate and any statistics on this page should come from sources where we can verify their methodology such as links to academic papers. It is especially important in statistics like this to know how the various terms, like "rape" and "consent" are defined. I also think at that any statistics that are added should reflect the male experience as much as possible. [[User: 19:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

its not rape its surprise sex

biased article

This is an incredibly biased article as written. I am new to editing wikis and actually created an account to comment on this because I find it *so* offensive. In the US, Canada, and most of Europe, most people believe and the legal system recognizes that sex while either person is too intoxicated to give consent is rape, and that wearing revealing clothing does not imply consent. This article makes it sound like there actually is a debate on this and that the existence of date rape is actually controvesial. It's offensive and misogynist. At a minimum it should be flagged as controversial - I'm afraid I don't know how to do that. User: madscientistgirl 20:33 30 Nov 2007 EST

Also I'm really not sure why the bulk of the discussion is actually under "Social Issue." That's a large part of why this is biased. The subheading seems totally out of place. Date rape is not a "social issue" - it is a crime. This also makes it sound like there is ambiguity in the definition of rape. Rape is non-consensual sex or sex by a person unable to consent, perhaps because of age or intoxication. People can argue about facts - whether consent was given - but the definition is pretty straight forward. madscientistgirl 21:57 30 Nov 07

Not all type of non-consensual sex is the same. Date rape most often lacks the psychological trauma that control rape causes and also the motives are different. A rapist who uses rape as a form of torture to break the will of his/her victim usually has very deep psychological issues as opposed to a sexually frustrated person who loses control over his physical drives and starts sexually abusing others. 62.47.231.88 (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Errata

Why is there only limited mention of GHB?

I took the following out for lack of citation:

55% of females & 75% of males admit to have been drinking or using drugs when acquaintance rape occurred. 90% of all campus rapes occur when alcohol has been used by either the assailant or the victim. As many as 70% of college students admit to having engaged in sexual acts primarily as a result of being under the influence of alcohol, when they wouldn’t have if they had been sober.

The "Effects of Rape on the victim" section doesn't have any particular relevance to date rape.

"Statistics" section. Updated statistics section to reflect what the cites showed. Sammichraptor (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sad but better statistics

Note on reverted edit about six month acquaintances:

• Many of my respon­dents felt that being in a rela­tion­ship jus­ti­fied what they would oth­er­wise con­sider date rape. When told that the girl and boy are in a long-term rela­tion­ship, the num­ber of respon­dents who believed Sce­nario B to be date rape dropped to 48.6% (from 77.8% when the two were not in a rela­tion­ship). [1]

The point is that a surprisingly large many young people feel that force is justifiable in a sexual relationship, despite what the law says (not to mention Christian morality, or Jewish for that matter). I hope I won't let my objections to rape distort my editorial judgment, so I'll wait and see whether anyone replies before trying to add a statistic again. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

More statistics (this time from a university ):

• Twenty-seven percent of women who were date raped did not realize that what happened met the legal definition of date rape.
• Eighty-four percent of men who were involved in a date rape did not realize that what they did met the legal definition of date rape. [2] --Uncle Ed (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the one that was reverted:

• 65% of the boys and 47% of the girls said it was acceptable for a boy to rape a girl if they had been dating for more than six months ( White,1991). ( “Young People’s Attitudes Toward Acquaintance Rape,” J White and JA

Humphrey, 1991, in Acquaintance Rape: The Hidden Crime, ed. Andrea Parrot, John Wiley & Son ) [3]

Is that a good enough source? --Uncle Ed (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"Any substance that is physical" ??

Isn't every substance physical? Is this wording right? -- 92.226.93.51 (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Merging with drug facilitated sexual assault article?

I'm happy to see that this page is improving. Maybe it can be merged with the drug facilitated sexual assault article, which is better written and more comprehensive?KRFred (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem I can see is while there is overlap between these issues, they both cover areas the other wouldn't. Not all date rapes are drug facilitated, so merging DR into DFSA wouldn't be right, and not all sexual assaults faciliated by drugs are done on dates, so merging DFSA into DR isn't appropriate either. Ranze (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree: drugging victims of sexual assault doesn't imply dates and date rape doesn't require drugs. Do not merge. Monado (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Would like to add template

We currently have the Template:Violence against women shown on this page. Seeing as how men can also be raped on dates I would like to add the Template:Violence against men as well. Any opposition? Ranze (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I have been a victim of male on male as well as female on male date rape and would request it also posted by Dylan D.

Y I think both templates should be there. I checked a few other articles related to sexual crimes and both are there.

Aisteco (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a larger topic or category of Sexual Predation that we can relate this to? Is there a sexual predation template? Monado (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

infographic

(I titled and moved this topic/subject down to a chronologically sensible location. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC))

why is there an infographic on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.189.132.211 (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

What if the Roles are Reversed?

This article focuses almost entirely on "him -> her" violence. Could somebody expand and add with references and statistics involving "her -> him", "him -> him" and "her -> her" rape? Yes, they do occur, and no, they are no less significant than the standard view of date rape. Most modern societies paint the woman as the only "victim" in a rape situation, and ignore the inequality of doing so.

Men can be victims of heterosexual rape too, and same-sex non-consentual activity is still rape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.123.38 (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You should definitely research this, it does happen, albeit very infrequently in comparison. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ketamine

Currently, the article says excatly the following about Ketamine: "Ketamine[5] is commonly known as: Black Hole, Bump, Cat Valium, Green, Jet, K, Kit Kat, Psychedelic heroin, Purple, Special K, Super Acid, Keller, Super C, etc."

However, it says nothing about whether or not Ketamine is a date rape drug, or about why the above statement is even there. Shouldn't that be the more relevant information? -- 92.226.93.51 (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Badly-written article

I have a number of problems with this article, and so I added a number of tags to the article.

(1) It lacks a global perspective. The article only discusses the laws of the United States, and is written with a Anglosphere perspective. Laws and concepts regarding date rape vary around the world, and non-English-speaking countries also must deal with the problem of date rape.

(2) The article makes an unsubstaniated and false claim that "almost all victims of sexual assault are female. This is also true for victims of drug-facilitated sexual assault." Later the article contradicts that claim by discussing male date rape:"Male-on-male offenses: Such cases occur nearly exclusively in social or school settings. Often the crime reflects the perpetrator's conflicted feelings about private same-sex thought and desires."

(3) The Prevention section violates WP:NOTHOWTO. While I understand the desire to educate people on who to help prevent date rape, Wikipedia is not advice column. We should just stick with the facts.

(4) The Social issues section violates WP:POV. While I don't personally disagree with the content of the section, it is important not to include opinions in an encyclopedia article. The following is clearly an opinion: "Understanding date rape as a social issue is important due to the wide acceptance of rape myths." 71.125.71.56 (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Not even a public health attitude that rape is a bad thing? Does the seatbelt article discuss the psychology of wearing or refusing to wear seatbelts? Without descending to giving advice, we might have a section on rape prevention strategies from a public health perspective, which would heavily feature educating potential rapists about gaining consent and everyone on not providing cover or comfort for rapists by focusing on what the victim could have done. Second, would it help to move discussions of law & culture to a section marked "Date rape in the U.S." or "Date rape in the Western World"? Monado (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge the Acquaintance rape article into the Date rape article

The Acquaintance rape article was created on May 19, 2014‎; I have proposed that it be merged into the Date rape article, because, like the Date rape article shows, "acquaintance rape" is covered under the topic of "date rape." In other words, a person should not always take the term date rape too literally. The Acquaintance rape article is the type of WP:Content fork that Wikipedia advises against. The aforementioned acquaintance rape material, however, needs tweaking and cleanup for redundancy before being merged into this article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Sue Gardner, this change you made to the lead does not change my opinion that the Acquaintance rape article should be merged into the Date rape article. These two terms are usually (not simply "often") used to mean the same thing in the literature on the topic (as your "often" wording somewhat acknowledges), and I wonder about the existence of any WP:Reliable source distinguishing the terms in the way that you have in the lead. Either way, there is no need for two different Wikipedia articles for these terms. And since the term date rape is used far more often than acquaintance rape, I won't be agreeing that the Date rape article should be merged into the Acquaintance rape article. If a WP:RfC is needed on this matter, I will start one. Flyer22 (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll also likely (maybe not) at some point, in the upcoming days or weeks, tweak the lead to better reflect what the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources state or show with regard to the interchangeability of the terms date rape and acquaintance rape. In addition to the sources used in the Date rape and Acquaintance rape articles showing this interchangeability, sources on regular Google, on Google Books and on Google Scholar do as well. Even if you significantly fix up the Acquaintance rape article in the near future, it is my opinion that its existence causes confusion on this topic and that it is not a WP:Content fork that is beneficial to our readers. That stated, the aforementioned Google searches (Googling the phrase "Date rape Acquaintance rape") show the terms being used side by side, as though different (or simply to emphasize them as the same thing). And on Google Scholar, I do see a WP:Reliable source for your wording that distinguishes the terms; it's this 1998 Rickert source, which states: "Date rape is a subset of acquaintance rape where nonconsensual sex occurs between two people who are in a romantic relationship." Flyer22 (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22; I'm actually doing a pretty significant edit on the article right now. (Independent of your merger proposal: I had started it just before you added the template.) Let's both see what we think once I'm done in a few hours :) Sue Gardner (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

When I saw this edit you made at the Rape article, which led me to the Acquaintance rape article, I considered that you were going to do significant editing on the Acquaintance rape article. With this edit, I see that you meant the Date rape article by "I'm actually doing a pretty significant edit on the article right now," and that you linked the term stranger rape. You want a Stranger rape article as well? I'll wait and see how you shape the Date rape article, but I might eventually add back in some things you removed from it. And I feel that having a Stranger rape article in addition to a Date rape and Acquaintance rape article is more non-beneficial WP:Content forking. Flyer22 (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• merge (also agree stranger rape is a content fork, and should be perhaps a section in Rape). The examples given of "date" rape are William Kennedy Smith, who met a woman and took her for a walk. Then Mike Tyson invites a girl to a party and rapes here. If these are canonical examples of date rape, they don't seem to suggest the "romantic relationship" angle written into this article in it's current form. I think we should merge, and then note that some sources (which ones) consider date rape to ONLY occur when the parties are in a romantic relationship. However, in common parlance, that's not how the term is used, and a date is not at all a romantic relationship.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Now that I think about it a little more, perhaps it would be fine to have a Stranger rape article, since the term stranger rape, as opposed to the term acquaintance rape, is usually used to mean someone that the rape victim isn't at all acquainted with. Then again, stranger rape often falls under the category of date rape, with the term date rape acting as an umbrella term for date rape, acquaintance rape and stranger rape, like the Date rape article stated before Sue Gardner's changes to it. And stranger rape (as in not knowing the rapist at all) is rare. Flyer22 (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Sue, your edits seem to be prioritizing one particular subset of sources that make this distinction, but the distinctions are made in other ways in other sources. I think it's not beneficial to limit "date rape" in the way you've done, as it's commonly used in a much broader sense.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • What other sources are you referring to? Kaldari (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources that I pointed to above, found on regular Google, Google Books and Google Scholar. Sources that were in the article before before Sue's extensive changes to it, such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Women's Health source (which, though a dead link, was the first source in the article) or The American Academy of Experts in Traumatic Stress source. Sources found in local libraries. So, yes, since it's very common for sources, including many health organizations, to not distinguish the terms date rape and acquaintance rape, but rather list them together as one entity, it can be considered WP:Cherry picking (Sue knows about the aforementioned way the terms are defined) to make a distinction with the terms in the way that Sue has done. It's similar to making a distinction between the different terms for domestic violence, seen in the lead of the Domestic violence article, and wanting to make Wikipedia articles about those different terms. Sue pointed out in the lead of the Date rape article that "The two phrases are often used interchangeably," but where she goes wrong is with the wording immediately following that: "but date rape specifically refers to a rape in which there has been some sort of romantic or potentially sexual relationship between the two parties, whereas in acquaintance rape the victim and the perpetrator may barely know each other or have been in a non-romantic, non-sexual relationship." That wording makes it out to be that date rape is categorically different than acquaintance rape, which is in contrast to what many sources state or show. Flyer22 (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I think I fixed it. Yes, the original wording was confusing -- it defined date rape as a subset of acquaintance rape, but went on to imply that they are mutually exclusive. I changed the wording which I think solves the problem. (I actually don't agree with you Flyer22 that the lede is wrong about the way the terms are defined, but you should go ahead and make a case for different wording, if you want. I also oppose the merging of date rape and acquaintance rape, for the record: I believe the terms mean different things, and it's worth WP having an article on both.) Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I know that you disagree. Your text still distinguishes the terms in a way that makes it out as though date rape is categorically different than acquaintance rape, which, like I stated above, is in contrast to what many sources state or show when it comes to reporting on the topic(s); when it comes to mentioning both of those terms, sources usually list the terms together and barely distinguish them or don't distinguish them at all. The first source you've used in the article even shows the terms being discussed side-by-side. The wording for this specific section is about merging. And per everything I stated above, I'll will get around to proposing a WP:RfC for merging the articles. I'll likely first make my case by pointing to specific sources to emphasize my point, so that when I direct editors to discussion below the WP:RfC (since the WP:RfC should be neutrally worded), they will be able to assess the sourcing issue. I suggest that you gather your sources as a counterpoint. Flyer22 (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Pending further discussion, I oppose merger, for much the same reason that we wouldn't have just one article on rape. The rape category has many articles now, so we already distinguish extensively. There are probably more than enough sources to fill separate articles. There's an emotional difference between acquaintance and date rapes in that the latter type more than the former likely entails a deep betrayal beyond that experienced with any rape. And acquaintance in general (apart from rape) sounds like a lightweight relationship, not so often the case with dates (people much more often speak of "my date" than of "my acquaintance"). Thus, if some sources distinguish, it's likely for good reason. Others doubtless use the terms interchangeably, but sometimes that will be erroneously (people, including scholars, outside of a field tend to be less precise in their topical language than are scholars inside a field) and sometimes it will be in the same way that some writers would simply call all of it rape without attributives. But if virtually all sources use the terms interchangeably or treat one as covering the other so that there's almost no significant sourcing that's solely for the other, then merger would make sense for the time being.

Stranger rape may be rare (I'm a bit surprised if it is rare although being relatively infrequent or being a minority of rapes wouldn't surprise me) but I think it was almost exclusively what was criminally prosecuted until a few decades ago, because anything that made a rape a nonstranger rape almost guaranteed an acquittal by a jury, and so the popular view was of rape as happening in a dark alley when a woman happened to pass by. Thus, depending on sourcing, stranger rape probably warrants a separate article, although I'm not prepared to write it.

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: Nick has come to this discussion via this post by me at the WP:Cherry picking talk page (I'll eventually get around to reading Nick's replies there and looking at the changes he made to the WP:Cherry picking essay; from my WP:Watchlist, I've seen that he's replied and that he has changed the essay, but I have not yet looked to see what he has stated or to assess the changes to the essay). Nick, I still disagree with keeping the Date and Acquaintance rape articles separate, and that's still for the reasons I cited above. I'll still be starting a WP:RfC on the matter. And, yes, stranger rape (as in someone the rape victim does not at all know) is quite rare (or just rare). Flyer22 (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, Nick, I wouldn't state that "[date rapes likely entail] a deep betrayal beyond that experienced with any rape" in all or most cases; I think that being raped by someone you know better than simply a date is more of a betrayal. Acquaintance rape often includes rape by a friend, for example. Rape by a friend seems more intimate than rape by a date the rape victim just met. Then again, only the rape victim can tell us which experience, to him or her, is more intimate. All that stated, as seen with Googling "Stranger rape rare," you are pretty spot-on about how stranger rape, as compared to date rape/acquaintance rape, used to be seen as the only "real" rape. Flyer22 (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fair. That comment of mine verged on using this topic as a forum; what matters, of course, is what sources say. I guess acquaintance can include a wide range of intensities, so perhaps rape by an uncle would be included. Sources would determine the scope of an article or section on acquaintance rape. As to stranger frequency, I won't contest the point; I don't know enough. Susan Estrich's book Real Rape likely has useful content, albeit dated. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'm unconvinced by the argument that they are not separate topics simply because some or most sources don't differentiate between them. There are plenty of obscure topics on Wikipedia that are typically conflated with other topics. What would convince me are quotations from high-quality sources, relevant to the field, stating or suggesting that they are equivalent. So far all I've seen is a lot of personal opinions, links to ambiguous Google searches, and vague references to sources that "used to be in the article". The only exception so far is this link to an essay on the website of the American Academy of Experts in Traumatic Stress which Flyer22 provided. Unfortunately, the American Academy of Experts in Traumatic Stress seems to be nothing more than a small professional networking organization, so an essay on their website doesn't carry much weight. If there are relevant sources out there that clarify the relationship between the two terms, it would be helpful if someone would add them to this discussion (preferably with quotations or links to the actual text). Kaldari (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I advise you to look closer at the sources found in the "ambiguous" Google searches I pointed to. I did not state that date rape and acquaintance rape are never distinguished. I stated that the terms are usually used interchangeably, that it's very common for sources, including many health organizations, to not distinguish the terms date rape and acquaintance rape, but rather list them together as one entity or to barely distinguish them while listing them together, and that stranger rape often falls under the category of date rape, with the term date rape acting as an umbrella term for date rape, acquaintance rape and stranger rape, like the Date rape article stated before Sue Gardner's changes to it. All of that is shown by the Google searches. For years, I've seen health organizations and other health sites (including anti-sexual assault organizations) use these terms in those ways. The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), for example, is one such site. And many scholarly sources do the same. Since there are no authoritative sources stating that the terms/concepts are categorically different, it's not too much of a conflation that the terms are commonly used in these ways by WP:Reliable sources. As for pointing specifically to what sources state via quotes, I already stated to Sue (in my "23:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)" post): "I'll likely first make my case by pointing to specific sources to emphasize my point, so that when I direct editors to discussion below the WP:RfC (since the WP:RfC should be neutrally worded), they will be able to assess the sourcing issue. I suggest that you gather your sources as a counterpoint." Flyer22 (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

And some of the references that the aforementioned American Academy of Experts in Traumatic Stress source is based on (shown at the bottom of that article) help shed light on this interchangeability topic. Flyer22 (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to have a full-blown RfC. How about just a well-advertised Requested move discussion? Kaldari (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see it as a move discussion, since it's a merge discussion (see here). I prefer a WP:RfC. Flyer22 (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops, that's what I meant :) Kaldari (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Reverted here and here. That I didn't get around to pursuing the above does not mean that I won't be pursuing it. I fully stand by my statements above. And so do many sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Note before archive: Years later, I am not looking for a merge at this time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

in U.S. or worldwide and whether centuries

The last statement in the lead, "[i]t [date rape] is primarily but not solely a modern American phenomenon, whereas acquaintance rape has taken place throughout history, worldwide", needs clarification and sourcing (if the sourcing is in the body, I missed it). Being separately discussed may be primarily an American phenomenon, but I doubt date rape itself is, just as we could doubt acquaintance rape was separately discussed worldwide for millennia, although acquaintance rape itself probably was perpetuated "throughout history, worldwide" (as well as before, in prehistory). While dates may not happen in religiously strict cultures (and that's doubtful if we count secret dates and perhaps elopements in an environment of teen girls' and young women's resistance to the principle of arranged marriages), I had assumed (without checking) that dates are common enough in many nations that the near-absence of date rape outside of the U.S. would be startling (and wonderful). It would be interesting to see if the international edition/s of Cosmopolitan magazine discuss/es either dating or date or acquaintance rape; if it almost never discusses dating, I imagine it must be a very different magazine from the U.S. edition. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC) (Corrected misspelling & syntax & clarified analysis: 20:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC))

I agree, Nick. Stating that "[date rape] is primarily but not solely a modern American phenomenon" is dubious. Flyer22 (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, i already had to remove some synth from I think Sue around date rape in Muslim countries being non-existent or something; I easily found a Malaysian source that decried the increase in date rape. We have to be very careful to not make assumptions about other cultures, especially "the muslim world" which is quite vast and differentiated - saudi Arabia is not the same as Malaysia, which is not the same as Indonesia.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The last paragraph in the "Prevention" section could be seen as an opinion. I don't want to delete work (particularly because it has a cited source), but it is written in a manner of opinion, which isn't the unbiased view the article should be geared towards.Morgan.root (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Percentages quoted from reference in "Minority group victims" section might actually be wrong

[4]

@80.189.113.46: @Arjayay:

Reference: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6104a1.htm

Alleged numbers: "A research conducted in 2013 indicated that sexual assault situations were greater among Hispanic (12.2%) and Black (11.5%) female high-school students than whites (9.1%)."

Reference says:

Dating Violence

During the 12 months before the survey, 9.4% of students nationwide had been hit, slapped, or physically hurt on purpose by their boyfriend or girlfriend (i.e., dating violence) (Table 19). Overall, the prevalence of dating violence was higher among black (12.2%) and Hispanic (11.4%) than white (7.6%) students; higher among black female (11.8%) and Hispanic female (10.6%) than white female (7.7%) students; and higher among black male (12.4%) and Hispanic male (12.1%) than white male (7.4%) students. Overall, the prevalence of dating violence was higher among 10th-grade (9.6%), 11th-grade (10.3%), and 12th-grade (10.3%) than 9th-grade (7.5%) students; higher among 10th-grade female (9.8%) and 12th-grade female (10.7%) than 9th-grade female (7.6%) students; and higher among 11th-grade male (11.2%) and 12th-grade male (10.0%) than 9th-grade male (7.4%) students. The prevalence of dating violence ranged from 6.5% to 16.1% across state surveys (median: 11.0%) and from 7.6% to 24.2% across large urban school district surveys (median: 11.6%) (Table 20). Among students nationwide, the prevalence of dating violence did not change significantly during 1999–2011 (8.8%–9.4%) or from 2009 (9.8%) to 2011 (9.4%).

Forced to Have Sexual Intercourse

Nationwide, 8.0% of students had ever been physically forced to have sexual intercourse when they did not want to (Table 19). Overall, the prevalence of having been forced to have sexual intercourse was higher among female (11.8%) than male (4.5%) students; higher among white female (12.0%), black female (11.0%), and Hispanic female (11.2%) than white male (3.2%), black male (6.1%), and Hispanic male (5.4%) students, respectively; and higher among 9th-grade female (8.2%), 10th-grade female (12.2%), 11th-grade female (12.7%), and 12th-grade female (14.5%) than 9th-grade male (3.5%), 10th-grade male (4.2%), 11th-grade male (5.2%), and 12th-grade male (4.7%) students, respectively. The prevalence of having been forced to have sexual intercourse was higher among black male (6.1%) and Hispanic male (5.4%) than white male (3.2%) students. Overall, the prevalence of having been forced to have sexual intercourse was higher among 10th-grade (8.0%), 11th-grade (8.8%), and 12th-grade (9.5%) than 9th-grade (5.8%) students; higher among 10th-grade female (12.2%), 11th-grade female (12.7%), and 12th-grade female (14.5%) than 9th-grade female (8.2%) students; and higher among 11th-grade male (5.2%) than 9th-grade male (3.5%) students. The prevalence of having been forced to have sexual intercourse ranged from 5.6% to 12.2% across state surveys (median: 8.4%) and from 6.5% to 12.6% across large urban school district surveys (median: 8.1%) (Table 20). Among students nationwide, the prevalence of having been forced to have sexual intercourse did not change significantly during 2001–2011 (7.7%–8.0%) or from 2009 (7.4%) to 2011 (8.0%).

Where are the numbers from the article? Am I blind? Had this been vandalized in the past? Someone modified the percentages and nobody noticed? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)