Delicious LiveJournal Links for 5-25-2010

[andrewducker]

• Mass Effect movie deal done
  (tags: movies games)
• Stirling builds first council homes since 1985
  And a good thing too.
  (tags: society scotland housing)
• What happened at the end of Flesh and Stone was sexual assault
  (tags: assault sex DrWho)

Comments

[marrog.livejournal.com]

What happened at the end of Flesh and Stone was sexual assault

Good grief, what a patronising article.

Beyond that, though, who's saying it wasn't sexual assault (genuine question, not sarcasm)? Do good people not do bad things in DW any more? I weep for the fan culture that made someone feel that this was a necessary thing to point out. Of course it was an assault. Of course she behaved inappropriately, funny or not. And I thought the scene was quite uncomfortable, and meant to be so.

At the time, in fact, I was pleased to see just how uncomfortable it was - just how well it established the Doctor as off-limits, as the victim of advances that he was incredibly not-up-for. However ambigious his reaction was in some respects, my overall impression was one of profound discomfort on his part with the whole affair and after RTD's space-tart-Doctor I found it quite refreshing.

We're not meant to think Amy Pond is in any way a perfect human being, and I felt that, so far, the depiction of the juxtaposition between the empowering vs negative aspects of her sexually agressive personality has been pretty even-handed.

[andrewducker]

I was wondering how long that would take, and who would be first :->

And yes, agreed on all points. I assume that it stemmed from some people in who-dom saying "It can't have been assault, we lik Amy! And he's a man!" and other such idiocies. It certainly looks like it was written as a FAQ-like object, after there had already been discussion.

Much like you, I thought the scene was well done, to be honest.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

Agreed, I thought it was very well done too. Nice contrast with RTDs Doctor.

I bit

[zornhau.livejournal.com]

But took too long to type.

[momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com]

> and after RTD's space-tart-Doctor I found it quite refreshing

Yup me too.

[daisy-stitch.livejournal.com]

Really couldn't agree more. I understand that for the purpose of ratings the Doctor has to have a young attractive female assistant, but it did need to be underlined that he doesn't just go around picking up floozies for the sake of it. Am liking the fact that he now seems to have a male assistant on a long term basis too. Mickey didn't really count as he always felt like a gooseberry - and was written to be one.

[ashfae.livejournal.com]

Agreeing pretty much entirely with this, well put.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

"Examine what you have invested in rape culture."


Oh, very much, dear.

Flesh and Stone

[zornhau.livejournal.com]

I've been trying to work out why I'm uncomfortable this sort of discourse, which seems to pop up on the Internet a lot at the moment.

I think ultimately, it's because it's criminalising crass.

IIRC, in the real world, a lot of sexual communication is either nuanced and non-verbal, and most initial encounters do not start with a conversation about consent, nor do people stop off to discuss the next move: "I say, would it be OK if we moved from this relatively chaste kissing to using our tongues?"

This sort of discourse is saying: "If you get it wrong, try for a kiss or touch an arm or a leg when in fact that kiss or touch was not wanted, you are not merely a jerk, you are an assailant."

I'm trying to imagine a culture where no man or woman would ever accidentally cross this line... presumably one where everybody was at one with their sexuality, 100% assertive, verbal, never drank or frequented places with loud music...

Now, to persist, that's different.

Reading the transcript, I'd say that the Doctor wasn't assaulted because the power differential was in his favour, and because she didn't grab his genitals. That doesn't make her behaviour acceptible, or reasonable. However, being bloody annoying is not the same as being criminal.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

I find this comment extremely problematic.

a lot of sexual communication is either nuanced and non-verbal
You don't think that the Doctor backing away, frantically trying to keep himself dressed, and pulling away from kisses would constitute nuanced, non-verbal communication of non-consent?

This in addition, of course, to his actual verbal non-consent.

Now, to persist, that's different.
She did persist. Repeatedly.

the power differential was in his favour
How? This was a social situation, and this Doctor has repeatedly shown himself to be deeply socially awkward to the point of mild autism. To my mind Amy held all the cards.

because she didn't grab his genitals
This is such a ridiculous stipulation that I don't even know where to start with it.

Nobody - or at least, far from everyone - is saying that Amy deserved a fine or imprisonment or to be put on an ofenders register for this. We're not saying there weren't extenuating circumstances - there almost always are. We're not saying that she's a bad person.

People who step over the line aren't always serial sex attackers, and they aren't always in need of more than a stern talking to about their behaviour. How many of us (well, us more confident types anyway) can say that we have never been somewhat thoughtless or carried away in a physical situation and later regretting our actions? I know I can't.

We're saying that she committed an assault. The connotations you choose to attach to that are your own. The worrying internet trend that I see here is the tendancy of apologists (of whatever kind) to warp definitions to suit their own ends rather than to try to understand that not everyone who talks about 'consent' or 'sexual assault' or whatever else sees these terms as black and white - just because we draw the line before you do doesn't mean that we don't believe in a continuum of severity or accountability exists beyond it. You don't go from nought to rapist in one inappropriate snog.

[zornhau.livejournal.com]

>You don't go from nought to rapist in one
>inappropriate snog.

Using the term "assault" implies just that, makes a mockery of the whole discussion, and - I should imagine - jacks up the level of anxiety amongst younger people.

[hawkida.livejournal.com]

Nobody - or at least, far from everyone - is saying that Amy deserved a fine or imprisonment or to be put on an ofenders register for this.
[...]
We're saying that she committed an assault.


This is where the problem lies for me. I see assault as something serious enough to lead to all that stuff. I haven't seen the episode or even the clip, I've only read the blog piece linked. Based on that only, she came on too strong, she acted grossly inappropriately, she was in the wrong. But by calling it "assault" you bring down the weight of the consequences of assault, which are all the things you've listed as things you're saying she didn't necessarily deserve.

Re: Flesh and Stone

[erindubitably.livejournal.com]

In addition to the things marrog brings up, I also think that this sort of discourse is not saying "If you get it wrong, try for a kiss or touch an arm or a leg when in fact that kiss or touch was not wanted, you are not merely a jerk, you are an assailant." It's quite clearly saying "If you get it wrong and ignore the reactions and communication from the other person/people (be it verbal or non, nuanced or un), even if all you're doing is kissing/touching/whatever AND it had been totally consensual up until that point, THEN you are an assailant." It's also saying "Sometimes people aren't able to communicate their discomfort at all because of pressure, fear, or any number of other reasons, but that doesn't mean it's their fault if they are pressured into doing something they don't want to do." There is absolutely no cut and dry way to say 'this action is assault, this action is not'.

Just because different people have different boundaries that might not agree with yours doesn't mean that in their mind and their reality they have not been assaulted and that their feelings should be ignored. If being treated the way the Doctor was by Amy wouldn't have bothered you - fine. But it would have upset plenty of other people, and if her advances were in any way unwelcome (which they clearly were, both from the transcript and the scene) then it was assault. No two ways about it.

Re: Flesh and Stone

[zornhau.livejournal.com]

You're saying that assault lies entirely in the head of the alleged victim.

The problem is that this has real world consequences, emotional, social, or legal, for the alleged assaulter.

[meaningrequired.livejournal.com]

I resent social norms that the media present.

I understand that what I'm about to say will incur a lot of difference of opinion.

I fear, that it showed that its okay to come onto someone sexually, despite their protests. I fear that it showed that this behaviour is associated with being admired, feisty and intelligent.

I wish that the media was more responsible.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

I didn't think that Amy's behaviour was being portrayed as okay. I sort of feel as though it's the people who thought that it was who have a problem.

[meaningrequired.livejournal.com]

I've copied this from Wikipedia, but the fear comes from Bandura's Bobo Dolls:

"In this experiment three groups of children saw a film which showed the adult attacking an inflatable doll with a stick. The doll was thrown across the room, sat on, punched and kicked. Bandura provided three alternative endings to the film:

Group A - Saw only the doll being hit. Group B - Saw the adult being praised and rewarded for hitting the doll. Group C - Saw the adult being punished for hitting the doll.

When the children had seen the film, they were given the same doll. Bandura observed their behaviour which showed that groups A and B imitated the aggressive behaviour they had witnessed, while group C were less aggressive."

I fear, that in this case the episode was similar to Group A and because there were no repercussions, it sends the message that this behaviour is okay to be repeated.

I know adults aren't children and can make up their own minds, Dr Who is a kids show (as Andy tells me a lot despite my being aghast and infuriated!)



I wonder if the people who think its okay, would welcome it to happen to them, and if so, are they not realising that not everyone would enjoy it?

[zz]

I despair at this sort of thing. A lot of people I know, and their chosen media, seem to espouse the idea that no-one must ever be discomforted or offended even for a moment. Not having to trivially suffer other people's imperfections or different points of view is not a fundamental human right. The logical conclusion seems to be no-one ever even touching each other without signed contracts and chaperones.

Although it was nice to have the genders reversed for once, and men treated with the same kid gloves as this topic usually treats women.

As mentioned in other comments, the problem with the term sexual assault is that the practical definition may happily be vague, there's also a legal meaning, which can't be. Accusing someone of the former is indistinguishable from accusing them of the latter. There's a slight difference in consequences between a "sort yourself out" friend's talking to and a sexual offence conviction.

Yes, she might have gone a bit too far. No, it won't have troubled him for more than a few seconds.

What happened at the end of Flesh and Stone was sexual assault

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I don't feel like I really have a right to comment on it, but my impression is that something that might be seen as sexual assault might fall between two categories (or somewhere on a continuum). If Person A touches me unwantedly, I may not mind, because although I'm not really attracted to them, I'm not UNattracted to them, and it's not inherently unpleasant, and I feel like Person A isn't going to pursue the issue at length, or with intimidating forcefulness. To some extent, the issue is that I still feel in control. Whereas if Person B does a similar thing, I may feel scared or threatened.

The question seems to be, when are those cases? One generalisation is that case B is sufficiently prevalent or sufficiently bad, we need to avoid any risk of it we ever can. Another generalisation is that man->woman is much more often B and woman->man is much more often A. (This is commonly useful, but not so prevalent that we can just accept it.)

To me, the case in Doctor Who seems to be case A. Some people heavily disagree, but it seems like the doctor is uncomfortable, but not significantly more so than if Amy had merely declared her feelings, because he's worried about how they're going to feel, but doesn't actually suffer much fear that the situation will end with anything other than him being in control.

If I'm right, it's good to realise that it presents something that in other circumstances would be very bad, and people disagree whether it's so bad that things like it should be verboten also. But may or may not be problematic in itself.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

As far as I'm concerned the entire argument of it being a sexual 'assault' committed by Amy is invalidated by the fact the Doctor kisses her back. And then he decides no no, you're getting married, we can't do this.

[ashfae.livejournal.com]

*scritches head* I didn't get the impression that he kissed her back at all, just that he was too startled to respond immediately.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

I think he kissed her back a little when she pressed him against the Tardis. Or rather, he does pucker up his lips a bit thereby making it easier for her to kiss him rather than keeping his mouth resolutely closed and shaking his head around the way you might under serious attack, which could arguably be counted as responding.

However:
1. He spent plenty of the time resisting.
2. It doesn't matter whether he kissed her back a bit if he was saying "No!" and trying to push her off. Which he was. Furthermore he doesn't kiss her back and then change his mind (although if he did, that doesn't invalidate is as assault in any way) - he resisted verbally from the outset.

Frankly Ash I saw this comment yesterday and decided to leave it well alone as the poster is clearly several chapters behind everyone else in their copy of Rape Culture For Dummies.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

Just when she throws him against the Tardis, he kisses back, and then he breaks away being all no no, its wrong, you're getting married tomorrow, I'm 900 years old.

(Not it's wrong because you're assaulting me, I might add.)

Well, it pretty much definitely looked like he was kissing back to me and my friends anyway.

[blearyboy.livejournal.com]

Holy crap!

New council houses in Stirling!

[andrewducker]

I know! It's marvellous!