Talk:sexual abuse

Reasons to not delete

The term is more than the sum of its parts because it is of historical and cultural interest (given that there was a point in history when people didn't use the term because it was a matter that wasn't spoken of). I intend to find more information on it from that perspective. So automatic deletion would be premature and neither called for nor in the best interests of Wiktionary. --Tyranny Sue 10:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

:I haven't had time to have a really good look for references as mentioned above so I don't mind if it's deleted. (In which case, should I change the links at abuse Derived terms to link to the two words separately?)--TyrS 13:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(Oops, it's all coming back to me now - the reasoning behind this, that is.) Part of my initial idea in creating this page was to fix the problem (as I see it) of the perceived need for a 5th sense of abuse being sexual abuse, which seems wrong to me. (I don't think the word "abuse" by itself means "sexual abuse" and I've just started this discussion at 'abuse'.) Anyhow, if sense 5 there is removed it seems to me we need 'sexual abuse' to not be a red link (though I guess this can be achieved by separate links, but I also think having all the related terms etc together is worthwhile). Anyway, I guess it hinges on what happens at 'abuse' (sense 5).--TyrS 14:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)--TyrS 14:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

choice of 'pedialite' template over 'wikipedia'?

Just wondering about, in general, when and why we might choose one over the other?
(I might ask this question in Tea Room as well for a more generalised response, and/or greater chance of any response). Thanks. --TyrS 02:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's mainly personal taste, though the "right-floating table of contents" proposal likes to move things away from the right-hand side of articles. I prefer {{pedia}} because it is visually less distracting, and more connected with the entry, wheras {{wikipedia}} is a box that looks and feels like an advertisement. Conrad.Irwin 03:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussion

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Rfv-sense: "rape". I think this is just an innuendo of rape. But it might be a euphemism. DCDuring TALK 11:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they're really synonyms though, just highly related concepts. The other sense is at WT:RFD so they might both get deleted separately. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the two are the same and I am sure that at least in some legal sense the term rape must include penile/vaginal intercourse. However we follow usage here rather than exact definition, so this might need a usage note at least.--Dmol 01:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I would opine that rape is a form of sexual abuse, but that sexual abuse has other forms than rape (however that be defined). I don't rule out the existence of usages where the term sexual abuse specifically means rape, but would need to be convinced. Pingku 13:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I was gonna mark this has failed, but the user who added it removed it herself. Shall we say RFV closed either way. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Striking per Mglovesfun. —Ruakh_TALK 18:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion debate

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

sexual abuse

"Abuse of a sexual nature". Also, I don't think it means rape as a synonym, it's just almost always gonna refer to rape. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(I first posted this on the entry's discussion page, not being aware that it should be discussed here, so this appears there as well.)

I believe this term should not be deleted because it is more than the sum of its parts, being of historical and cultural interest (given that there was a point in history when people didn't use the term because it was a matter that wasn't spoken of). I intend to find more information on it from that perspective (i.e. date of first use, if possible). --Tyranny Sue 10:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue that "historical and cultural" information goes on the Wikipedia article, not here. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to have such an entry, it would have to be a lot more complete and well-cited than what we have. If it is a legal term, it is governed by 50 state laws in the US alone. ("All senses in all contexts of all words in all languages"?)

For starters, I have split the rape sense and RfVed it. Is sexual abuse a hyponym of rape, a euphemism for rape, or an innuendo of rape? DCDuring TALK 11:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

So what exactly is a "sexual abuse"? There should be at least one definition in the "sexual abuse" entry. The sum-of-partish sense defined as "abuse of a sexual nature" should be replaced and expanded rather than deleted. See also “sexual abuse”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. --Dan Polansky 11:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• To me it seems like a very "set" term, so I wouldn't want it deleted. Very common in journalism, and is the usual terms employed by support groups etc. Maybe it even has some specific legal signification. Ƿidsiþ 12:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If someone wants to improve the article, that would be a good reason to keep it, yes. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on it :) --TyrS 02:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Abandoned since March 2010. Still says "abuse of a sexual nature". Still delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted with an informative deletion summary.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

sexual abuse

Discussion split off from 2010 discussion by Mglovesfun (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC). For the previous debate, see Talk:sexual abuse

• I am recreating this with a more useful definition, but I'll include an rfd tag so free to keep discussing. Ƿidsiþ 10:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• OK, so to clarify why I recreated. Apart from the fact that this is just obviously a set term with a specific meaning in many law codes as well as in social discourse, it is also clearly not any abuse which is sexual. "Filthy slut!" is abuse of a sexual nature but it isn't sexual abuse. Ƿidsiþ 12:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Out of interest in terminology, would you call this kind of abuse sexual harassment? Is "sexual harassment" (also) a legal term or would you call it something else in legalese? --Hekaheka 14:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

To me sexual harassment is a form of sexual abuse, but as for whether either of them have specific legal definitions, I don't know for sure. Ƿidsiþ 14:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. To me sexual harassment is not a form of "sexual abuse", and "Filthy slut!" is sexual harassment. Is there a U.S./U.K. (or Ruakh/Ƿidsiþ) difference in the meaning of "sexual harassment", or am I just misunderstanding what you're saying? —Ruakh_TALK 23:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep, probably. I don't think that sexual abuse, they way it's actually used in texts and conversations, is just "abuse of a sexual nature". Mglovesfun (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's just keep the entry, and let us work on a fitting definition. I still do not know what it means exactly. Like, if a man touches a woman's buttock over the clothes with her voiced disagreement, is this a case of "sexual abuse"? The thing is also that I am not very clear about the scope of "sexual activity"; WS:sexual activity is rather broad and involves kissing and hugging, which may be wrong. As a hint, see “sexual abuse”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. --Dan Polansky 09:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep per Mglovesfun's reasoning. DAVilla 15:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

kept -- Prince Kassad 09:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion: February 2011–January 2014

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

sexual abuse

The forcing of undesired sexual activity by one person on another.

Definition does not approach adequacy for a topic that warrants w:Sexual abuse, especially with regard to seduction of minors or those not deemed competent. Obviously, too, at least one party desires the activity. The inadequacy of the definition reflects the absence of citations. There would seem to be a need for legal definitions in addition to the general-use definitions. Some questions include whether the term is used both as a hypernym and a coordinate term of rape and other specific bad behavior of a sexual nature and whether it can be purely verbal or conducted via telecommunications (eg, Child Abuse on the Internet [2001]). DCDuring TALK 13:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I copy-pasted the def from Wikipedia but actually I think it serves pretty well. You object that one party does desire the activity, but that doesn't stop it being undesired by someone, and that's precisely the point of the definition. I think your point about minors and so forth is interesting but encyclopaedic -- it really has to do with various groups or lawmakers deciding how they are going to classify "forcing" and "undesired" and indeed "sexual activity", but I reckon it's better to leave those distinctions to them rather than us. But you're definitely right that citations would help all this. Ƿidsiþ 15:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Same, I'm not convinced that we need 'legal' definitions. That would vary by country, so we'd need (or at least want) a different definition for each country that has its law written in English. Perhaps DCDuring if you referred to specific definitions that we don't have, rather than what would be the nature of the definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The RfD called for improvement of the definition. I took that as not mere rhetoric. I'd be happy if it were deleted if it could not be brought up to standard. As it stands other dictionaries do a better, though not adequate, job. Legal definitions are per se includable based on one of the Pawley idiomaticity criteria, if attestable. In the US and its territories, applicable law is at the state level for the most part so, in principle, more than 51 definitions might apply. DCDuring TALK 18:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Expanded somewhat with a couple of cites. Ƿidsiþ 14:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)