andrewducker | Delicious LiveJournal Links for 5-25-2010

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.

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.

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

But took too long to type.

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

Yup me too.

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.

Agreeing pretty much entirely with this, well put.

"Examine what you have invested in rape culture."

Oh, very much, dear.

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.

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.

>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.

I don't mean to be jumping on the bandwagon. I feel mental shock at words like assault and rape. Part of me does think, well, nobody was really hurt were they?

But actually, if you consider the definition of sexual assault, that's exactly what happened. She touched him, inappropriately, when he did not wish it and told her so.

It's that sort of almost theological reasoning that I don't think is helpful.

Ok. Forget the first bit.

What I was trying to say is that her behaviour can be defined as sexual assault by the Sexual Offences Act (2003).

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/en/ukpgaen_20030042_en_1

Which is fair enough.

The problem is that it opens up a world where people can shrug an say, "Oh well, they're calling everything assault these days."

The law aside, I think it's morally assault if one or more of the following is true:

* The victim has a reasonable well founded fear of the consequences of non-compliance.
* The assailant has made contact with specifically private areas of the victim's body - e.g. if you walk up to somebody and grab their genitals, then that's clearly sexual assault.

Anything short of those two is pestering, harassment, bullying even, none of these nice, but still different.

She was physically and assertively propositioning him for sex and ignoring both physical, paralinguistic AND verbal resistance. In what world do you live where that is not sexual assault?

She was - very rapidly - completely out of line. You could easily call her a bully. If she did it again, then the two incidents together would be sexual harassment. But it wasn't assault. Pulling at a man's upper garments simply isn't the same as pulling at those of a woman.

Pulling at a man's upper garments simply isn't the same as pulling at those of a woman.

I categorically reject this statement.

OK. At this point I'm going to pause and see if anybody else jumps in.

Who gets to define what is 'reasonable' and 'well founded'? In your example below the young woman had a well founded fear of men because of her past experiences and a well founded fear of what the consequences might be if she didn't 'play along'. And yet you're implying that she wasn't assaulted despite those facts. So who gets to say what is reasonable and what's not? Does a man get to? What about a woman who's never been assaulted? Who gets to draw that line?

Legally speaking you are completely wrong:
"An assault is an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful, force on his person; a battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person ... any touching of another person, however slight, may amount to battery."

I don't have public and private areas of my body. The whole thing is private. Nobody is allowed to touch it without my say-so. If someone hugged me when I was trying to back out of it then they have, both legally and morally, committed assault.

Now, it might not be assault with intent to harm, or serious assault, but it is still assault. Any kind of physical bullying is assault. Assault is a wide scale ranging from simply grabbing my arm to sticking a sword through me.

I don't know why swords should come up...

I think physical attacks to harm are different since it would be unlikely that an assailant would imagine erroneously that the other would consent to the attack.

Any touching of someone else's body without their consent is assault. Doing so in a sexual manner is sexual assault. Pushing someone back against the door of a police box, kissing them by surprise, and then refusing to back off when they're saying "No, get off." is sexual assault.

Couple of years ago, we had some neds break in to the close in Broad St. I asked them to leave and on the way out, one of the girls spat at me. She missed.

Later, the police perked up when I mentioned that as that contributed to the charge, and I believe contributed to previous assault charges and sentencing. It counted as attempted assault.

The assailant has made contact with specifically private areas of the victim's body

I claim the right to define my entire body as a private area. Which is hardly unreasonable, I would think.

You're saying there's absolutely no distinction between somebody touching your hand and your groin?

I'm not sure about hand and groin, but I'd be at least as upset by an unwanted hug as an unwanted grab at my genitals.

Yep, just so. I know lots of people to whom that applies. And since I usually welcome hugs, it's an effort for me to remember to get permission first. But the onus is still on me to get permission, not them to put up with me hugging them.

That's not the point. The point is that no one is allowed to touch *any* part of my body without my permission; it's *all* a private area. Would I react differently to someone touching my hand by accident as opposed to someone grabbing for my crotch? Yes, I would. But that's my choice, not theirs.

Using the term "assault" implies just that, makes a mockery of the whole discussion

Not in my opinion. If I punch you in the face I assaulted you. It's that simple.

That doesn't mean that there weren't extenuating circumstances that make my behaviour more understandable and more excusable (note, more excusable, not completely so).
I still bear 100% responsiblity for my actions, and you are still 100% the victim. That doesn't mean that I'm not more wrong if I did it completely unprovoked, or in a position deserving of less censure if I was provoked, or if my own judgement was impaired in some way by either my current circumstances or an ongoing issue.

That being said, I didn't punch you so hard that I broke your jaw, and I didn't kick you in the genitals or jab you in the kidneys.

This stuff exists on a continuum. Not eveyone can see that - and that's a fault of people on both sides of the argument. But not to my mind.

Let's take another one. If I use 'gay' to mean 'crap' I'm being homophobic. It might be homophobia born of social context that I don't even think about, but that thoughtlessness itself is a problem, and I am at fault.

That doesn't mean just because I'm guilty of what I'd say is a mild homophobic slur, that I deserve to be censured, or pulled up for hate speech, or tarred with the same brush as the Ugandan ministers pushing for the death penalty for gays. All I really warrant is a talking-to. It's still homophobia. We don't choose a different word for it just because it's a mild version of the same thing.

Yes, there's stigma attached to the term assault. There should be stigma attached to what Amy did. She's not as bad as a rapist, but the very fact that people are defending her (assuming they are) says to me that we're, if anything, not using the term freely enough.

>Not in my opinion. If I punch you in the face I assaulted you.
>It's that simple.

No its not. What if you thought we'd gone out back to "settle our differences like real men" and I thought we'd gone out back to "talk like civilised people."

Then I committed assault.

Again, the punishment/censure I deserve is mitigated by my misunderstanding, but I still committed assault.

Let's take a real life situation. I once punched a one-time friend and now-cordial-ish-acquaintance of mine in the face.

He is a person who many, many people want to punch in the face on a regular basis. He is a person unpopular enough that when people - even pacifistic people - hear that I once punched him in the face, they laugh first and look shocked after. I found out recently that the story of when I punched him in the face is one that people are told about me even nearly eight years after the fact.

On top of that, I punched him in the face because after goading me and teasing me all evening, he then pulled a chair out from beneath me as I was sitting down, causing me to go topping to the ground on solid stone flagstones.

On top of that, because I find it extremely hard to hit out in anger even when I dearly want to, I actually pulled that punch, and even an observer could tell that it was very, very 'wussy' indeed and barely made contact at all.

D'you know what? It was still assault. I consider myself to have committed an assault, I consider it to be far from my proudest moment, and although I simultaneously find it very funny along with everyone else, I am ashamed of it, and wish that I hadn't done it.

And that is the level on which I would view Amy's actions. Provoked (to her mind), the result of a long-standing 'issue', the work of a thoughtless moment, something that it's maybe even okay to laugh about later. But still assault.

Hmmm. Legally, yes I suppose it was assault.

Morally... he hurt you - and put you at risk - because he thought he could get away with it. You hurt him back. Gain five monkey points.

Regarding Amy's actions.

Are we really arguing because I'm defining assault morally, and you're defining it technically?

Am I right that our response to low-grade non-persistant invasive sexual importuning is very similar: stern talking to, possible social ostracism, but not a call to the police?

Am I right that our response to low-grade non-persistant invasive sexual importuning is very similar: stern talking to, possible social ostracism, but not a call to the police?

I'm pretty sure I said that in my very first comment to you. But no, I don't think that you're defining assault morally and me technically - if anything it's the other way around. You said "She didn't touch his genitals" - I said "She made him feel uncomfortable."

Ah. My bad.

We seem to agree that a continuum exists, but I want to draw a line between crass and evil, and call the latter "assault".

I think it's fair to say that I don't consider it merely 'crass' to push your affections on someone who's trying to fight you off, but no, I don't consider it evil either.

That last is a very productive exchange.

If you say so. It's merely a repetition of my very first comment on the topic.

Yes, but we've rather unpacked each other's viewpoint. I think I now really do get what you're saying. Don't agree with it. But get it, which I think is useful.

Perhaps you've 'unpacked' my viewpoint. I, however, understood yours to start with, I thought you were wrong then, I think you're still wrong now, and if you haven't come to agree with me I'd consider the exchange pretty unproductive in every respect - it neither interests me nor edifies me that you've managed to grasp my argument.

I'm glad that you got something out of the exchange but I'm afraid all I gained was a backlog of editing work and an irritation at my own inability to avoid going down pointless cul-de-sacs with people who're incapable of making a distinction between silly semantic asides and serious questions about personal responsibility, consent, the nature of sexual agency and the role of the active participant in any physical context.

In short, don't patronise me.

Edited 2010-05-25 15:33 (UTC)

Patronising not intended. Didn't mean to draw you in. Didn't mean to be drawn in, actually.

The downside of electronic communication is that it is free of non-verbal cues and verbal intonation. Mine at the moment would be very respectful.

Ah, whereas I by contrast am probably nicer and more patient on the internet that I am in person.

Now I'm scared.

Take care

Z

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.

Those aren't necessarily the consequences of assault. There's no minimum fine of necessity of imprisonment because someone committed assault. The legal system doesn't work in such a black and white way.

I don't think she behaved badly enough to be charged with assault, is what I'm trying to say. "Committed assault" = "could be charged with assault" to my mind. I think she was out of order, inappropriate, reacting badly and offering unwelcome advances, but she didn't assault anyone. If that makes me a rape apologist then it's not something I'm comfortable with, but I can see why the article's author thinks there are so many of them around.

Actually, legally, yes she did. She'd probably have her sentence deferred, but yes, she did.

Oh, she definitely did enough to be charged with assault. People have been charged with assault for pinching someone's bum...

Wow. I find that a bit scary.

The thing is - it's very unlikely to happen by itself. It's there so that someone can be found guilty of a whole bunch of different stuff that, together, make it worth taking someone to court. So that you can charge with with "six counts of assault over a three month period, harrassment, and tresspass" - any individual case would probably get a warning, but you need any individual case to be something you can take into account when things get bad.

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.

Edited 2010-05-25 13:13 (UTC)

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.

Well, yes. I'm not trying to imply that every person who assaults another person does so out of malice or a desire to hurt the other person. It can be as simple as a misunderstanding, or overeagerness. At the same time, how is it helpful to tell someone "no one touched your genitals, therefore you have no right to feel violated"?

An ideal situation would see both sides being educated, both on how to express one's opinions and feel strong and secure no matter what the situation, as well as how to listen and not create an atmosphere of control, power, hurt or fear so that others can express themselves. However, so long as people don't think they'll be listened to (because they are afraid people won't believe them/they'll be blamed for what happened/they'll be laughed at/etc.) then this is never going to happen.

Oh, no, you can feel violated by a non-genital touch. Hell, I've felt violated/soiled by being kissed on at least two occasions. But that doesn't make it assault.

Look, imagine a guy walking a girl back from a party. She's chattering away and he's walking just inside her space, and it seems all very comfortable.

However, she's actually terrified of him because he's a man, and bigger than her. She's laughing at his jokes and not withdrawing because that's the way she's learned to avoid being hurt by her [insert male relative here].

So, at the door, he stoops to kiss her.

And, out of sheer terror, she kisses him back and giggles in order to pacify his potential male violence.

And...

Your line or reasoning makes him an assailant.

I have no problem with that.

This is not strictly a problem of individuals. As I said, ideally we would be able to live in a culture where there is no fear, no discomfort based on past experiences, no imbalance of power between two people. But we don't, and that's part of the problem.

I understand that calling the young man in your example an assailant sounds harsh - he didn't rape her, he didn't actively physically intimidate her, he responded to the signs he was able to perceive. Do I think he should locked up, branded a sex offender, screamed at not to be a male chauvinist pig? No. But I think calling it 'assault' puts a serious name on something that is serious. This hypothetical young woman does not need to be told that nothing bad happened. She felt uncomfortable, frightened, intimidated and pressured into performing a sexual act she did not want to. Until we start recognizing and labeling things in a serious light it's not going to change. And I think most people would agree that we want things to change for the better.

So is calling it assault harsh? Yes. But if doing so means this hypothetical young man starts to realize what sort of world we live in and how he is responsible for the safety and well-being of so many people and maybe he starts to adjust his attitudes and reactions, then things might start changing for the beter.

Harsh? Completely meaningless* and sexist.

What you're saying is that he has to second guess the explicit consent of an adult woman.

*Suppose he did ask. "Hey, you seem nervous. You OK with this"?

And she thinks, Ohgodohgodohgod one of uncle's trick questions and she forces a smile and says, "Of course I am."

No, I'm saying that he has to accept the even explicit consent does not mean she's okay with it, and that he should understand there are dozens of reasons why his actions might be considered intimidating and pressuring even if he doesn't intend them to.

It sucks. It really, really sucks. It's unfair, and wrong, and I'm no happier about it than you are. But I wholeheartedly believe that without recognizing and protecting victims, giving them acknowledgment that bad things happening to them isn't their fault, there will never be a change away from this sucky, unfair, wrong way of being. It is not meaningless to recognize someone's pain and acknowledge it by using a harsh word to describe it.

No, you can either have a world of patronising chivalry where womens' sexual agency is denied, or you can have a world where people sometimes have bad experiences.

And yes, I acknowledge the hypothetical lady's pain. Her previous traumas have led her to put herself in a traumatic situation. But, calling it assault implies that he could have done something different.

...he could have. He could have not kissed her. He could have gotten to know her better, learned about her past, figured out if she was interested in him that way. He could have waited for her to kiss him. There are plenty of things he could have done differently.

And I hope you don't assume I think men should be in charge of every woman's sexual agency - I do believe firmly that women should have charge over their own agency and take full responsibility for that. But I don't think that necessarily means it's okay to accept that sometimes people will have bad experiences, just because men aren't in charge anymore.

In case you hadn't noticed, most young women tend to lose interest very quickly if a young man fails to respond to positive encouragement.

And again, if she's explicitly up for it, isn't it really very patronising indeed to pat her on the head and say, "let's get to know each other better"? What if *she* just wants a disposable one-night stand?

Back to the scenario: In the middle of sex, she's goes crazy, screams, hits and goes into spasm.

As he frantically fails extricates himself, the flatmates kick the door in and come to her rescue.

Now he's pretty well traumatised - did I mention this was his first time? - and his only sin is not being telepathic, but in your language he's still an assailant.

Yes, both sexes do have bad experiences. That generally is the price of freedom. Lose use of language simply makes it worse.

"In case you hadn't noticed, most young women tend to lose interest very quickly if a young man fails to respond to positive encouragement. "

At this point in the thread I started to think that perhaps you were just trolling a little.

There are many the things that you could say about that statement which erindubitably already has much more eloquently than I could ever could but it also something that can be equally applied to young men too (she won't put out so you move onto the next girl that will). When I was growing up there was a huge peer pressure on /everyone/ to react positively to sexual situations and even if they were to a certain extent uncomfortable or unwelcome there was always an understanding that this was to be expected.

But it shouldn't be expected. It shouldn't be the norm for anyone. Sexual actions should be comfortable for everyone all the time and if they are not then they shouldn't happen. By not defining things with the words they deserve we are perpetuating this notion and normalising it.

I have been the victim of the worse kind of sexual assault and when it was over my very best friend who I relied on for advice and guidance treated it like it was something that due to the circumstances was okay and could be brushed off. 15 years later and I am still traumatised in many many ways by the encounter. The fact that it was not treated by my peer group with the language it should have (rape) meant that for years I endured many other very unwelcome sexual advances and allowed myself to get into situations that I really did not want to be in because I felt that this was how the rest of the world functioned. I have been the victim of repeated sexual assault many times over since then - because I was lead to believe that if I didn't acquiesce to male advances they would loose interest in me and therefore I have never learnt to say no.
But I have still be assaulted and the more we continue to take away from that definition of that term then the this will continue.

I didn't want to jump in here with all my own personal crap but statements like the ones you made (even you are trolling) are just maddening to hear.

Sorry for the long ramble.

First let me salute your frankness. It says a lot about you that you can set any of this down. And it's why, with some trepidation, I'm dropping back into the discussion.

Really, I'm not trolling. I am actually bewildered and horrified having fallen into a looking glass world where all relations between the sexes are fraught with peril, and where it's possible to commit "assault" without realising your doing it, regardless of your actions or what precautions you take. Think about that from the male point of view for a moment.

Obviously, a "yes" obtained through bullying and implied threat is not consent. What you describe is rape, assault and abuse compounded by friend-fail. It is high time - and quite horrifying that this is even an issue in the C21st West - that we called such things what they are.

All that said, we're left with the question of how the sexes should interact sexually in the real world.

The statement you disliked was in response to the proposal of a protracted and delicate mating dance, perhaps lasting weeks, in which the male assures himself through friendship and so on that "yes" real does mean "yes".

My problems with this are practical and ethical.

Practically, people tend to lose interest if a relationship doesn't move forward. If we're looking for a new etiquette, then this isn't it.

Ethically, this asks the male to take responsibility for the sexuality of an adult female. It also dictates that only one sort of sexual encounter is permitted. To me this denies her agency and is downright sexist.

As you describe it, your experiences have damaged your agency. However, is that really *on its own* enough to turn every sexual encounter into an assault?

Practically, people tend to lose interest if a relationship doesn't move forward. If we're looking for a new etiquette, then this isn't it.

Er, what's wrong with talking? Doesn't that keep the relationship moving forward and help ensure that the speed with which things move is acceptable to both parties concerned?

"In case you hadn't noticed, most young women tend to lose interest very quickly if a young man fails to respond to positive encouragement. "

Repeat: Talking. Asking if things are okay, asking what people want (it's amazing how many people don't do this or are afraid to talk about what they want), and then working from that. It's all about communication and the importance of learning how to communicate, rather than trying to go on unspoken signals which can be so very easily misinterpreted.

Not everybody wants to talk, or can articulate about sex. Not everybody values conversation. And, as you point out yourself, not all such communication is truthful.

I think each person has to set their own pace and be responsible for that, and not expect the other person to second guess them.

I know and agree; but I also think this lack of communication comfort is a big problem and that learning to communicate would do a lot to solve some of the ambiguities surrounding definitions of assault.

I think each person has to set their own pace and be responsible for that, and not expect the other person to second guess them.

Again, completely agree, but inherent in that is the responsibility for ensuring other people know what your desired pace is.

And this is why I've been very happy to see the TV ads recently encouraging people to talk about sex with their partners (or proto-partners).

Ooh, have there been? How nifty! Good! *uses appropriate icon*

Here's one!
http://www.thedrum.co.uk/news/2009/08/13/11123-the-leith-agency-creates-scottish-government-sex-health-ad/?corder=DESC

Oh, are they any good? The posters with the incongruous speech bubbles make me wince sadly.

Here's one:
http://www.thedrum.co.uk/news/2009/08/13/11123-the-leith-agency-creates-scottish-government-sex-health-ad/?corder=DESC

Yes, exactly. Hence my original comments up thread - some time back in the Jurassic. :)

Look, a good few years ago I was mugged by teenage chavs. It was in its own way traumatic - a black eye is also a violation of self etc etc.

For a long time, I had difficulty coping with crowds of teenage boys going about their own teenage business; couldn't walk through them, felt an adrenaline surge if they asked the time, couldn't assert myself easily if they were out of line.

So, in a thankfully limited way, I have some empathy with the way a trauma can damage a person's ability to function normally in certain contexts.

However, then and now, I wouldn't expect society to change in order to cushion me from the effects of my trauma. (Well, OK, I fleetingly wanted to hire Serbian mercenaries to clean out a certain city-centre estate with fire and steel.)

Nor would it be fair for me to point at a crowd of oblivious and loud lads on a street corner and say, "They are victimising me by being boisterous."

It was the half-dozen chavs who mugged me that victimised me. Other groups of lads might unknowingly trigger uncomfortable feelings, but that would not be their problem or moral responsibility.

The alternative would be to return to a Conservative wet dream where young people live in fear of violence from their seniors, backed up by rule-bending police.

The price of not living in a deferential society is the suffering of people whose experiences have kicked them outside the psychological norm. I think it's worth it.

In the same way, if we are to have sexual freedom and sexual equality between the sexes, then people have to take responsibility for communicating their wishes and expectations either verbally or non verbally.

Those who can't, will have triggering experiences, which is horrid, but not the fault of the other party. That's the price.

Making the defition of assault entirely subjective is a sinister attack on the freedoms people have fought for.

(Sorry. I really have to stop here. I only dropped back in because I'd obviously said something triggering.)

In the same way, if we are to have sexual freedom and sexual equality between the sexes, then people have to take responsibility for communicating their wishes and expectations either verbally or non verbally.

Er, isn't that what I was just saying too? Though with emphasis on the verbally part, because it's harder to misinterpret than non-verbal signals. (still possible though, of course!) Anyway, with this statement I *completely* agree. It needs to work both ways though, o'course.

Statement: I don't disagree with everything you've said/agree with everything everyone else has said, I'm just pointing out small things which I feel I can discuss; I haven't been making statements about assault and definitions thereof because I've never been assaulted, by *anyone*'s definition {including of course my own}, which is why I've only commented on things relating to communication and whether or not my body can be constituted my private space. I don't have enough experience of assault to feel my opinion on it is worthy; that, or I'm too chicken-shit to dare express one. *wry grin*

OK. Take care
Z

You've suggested ways that the problem could have been avoided, and

zornhau has said that being that careful could itself be patronising and may mean the hypothetical man finds it difficult to establish relationships, as women largely still expect men to make the first move (after giving some signals that they're welcome). Seeing as forming relationships or taking part in non-patronising casual sex are good things, it seems there's a balance to be struck between risks and rewards.

Maybe there's an assumption here that if the hypothetical woman is upset about what happened, someone must be to blame, and if it's not her, it's the hypothetical man. But in the situation described, I think the man acted reasonably: he could have done other things, but I don't see any reason to suggest that he should have (this example is different from the Doctor/Amy case because we're not told he persists in the face of opposition). So I'd say neither of them are to blame.

I don't think I said it was the hypothetical man's fault. I did say in a later comment: No, I'm saying that he has to accept the even explicit consent does not mean she's okay with it, and that he should understand there are dozens of reasons why his actions might be considered intimidating and pressuring even if he doesn't intend them to.

Expecting understanding is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and I will continue to do so. I'm not here trying to point out who's to blame, I'm trying to point out that until we realize there are many different meanings of assault for many different people, it's going to be nigh-on impossible to make it stop occurring at all.

This hypothetical young woman does not need to be told that nothing bad happened.

This is true, but in the situation described above, she's the one doing the "bad" things. She wasn't straightforward or remotely honest about what was going on; the leap to making that this young man's fault is a terrifying one.

She felt uncomfortable, frightened, intimidated and pressured into performing a sexual act she did not want to.

And all of those feelings, and all of that pressure, was self-induced, which makes it emphatically not his fault. You seem to be equating "she felt pressured" to both "she was pressured" and "he pressured her", neither of which are accurate descriptions of the situation.

Again, I don't think I ever attributed the 'blame' to the hypothetical man. Someone made her feel that way - be it the quoted male relative, someone in her past, even society as a whole. So while there may be blame to place, maybe it's on a much wider stage. I tried to make that clear in my explanation; I think this is a much more widespread, insidious problem than 'one man/one woman'.

Do I think that the man in the hypothetical statement made unwanted sexual advances on the woman? Yes. Were they unwanted because of something he specifically did? Maybe not. But they were still unwanted, and that is important to recognize.

I believe you said that you'd call him an assailant, that you had no problem with his being identified as such, even if that did seem "harsh". Am I wrong about what you said?

But [his advances] were still unwanted, and that is important to recognize.

No, it's impossible to recognize, literally impossible for anyone who's not inside that girl's head.

When two people are guilty of miscommunication--which is the base of the problem here, and quite often in Real Life, I believe--that's always a two-way street, and I can't see any justice or usefulness in pointing a finger at just one of them.

If she didn't say no, either at all or in any way that she recognized, then how can what he did possibly be considered assault by any reasonable person? Whether or not she "felt pressured" can't have any bearing on the situation unless someone (other than herself) was actually putting pressure on her.

You're correct, I did say that.

I'm not trying to point a finger at just one person. I do believe that the less powerful person should endeavor to do things that will help them increase their confidence in situations like these, and that they should be given opportunities to learn how to express themselves and their opinions, because it is by doing so that bad situations can be (hopefully) avoided.

However, I think it is a fine line to expect people who cannot do these things (for one reason or another) to take all the responsibility for their personal safety and well-being. If she were to stand up a year later and say "I was assaulted" then her story should be listened to and given weight. I'm not saying that the hypothetical man should be jailed, or exposed to ridicule, or fined, or any other such punishment, but I do think he should realize that he was a participant in a sexual encounter that may have not been entirely wanted.

You realize that, after she'd sent out all the right signals and spoken all the right words, for her to announce later that she didn't really mean it, the lesson that he would most likely take home from this scenario is that "that chick is totally batshit crazy and you can't trust her", right?

I pretty explicitly don't want him to know that she'd retroactively rescinded the permission she gave. The fact that this hypothetical* chick is, in this arena at least, a completely non-functional person shouldn't have to hurt the people that she interacts with.

(* I'm continuing to use the hypothetical because it seems like an excellent one to me, that I've seen in day-to-day encounters frequently. I know a woman who divorced her husband and then three years after the divorce announced to the world at large that she now "realized" that he'd raped her ten years ago. Since it was the first he'd heard of it too I--unlike you, I imagine--am not inclined to give much weight to the declaration. I can specifically name other situations that largely map onto this hypothetical. )

By announcing that "he could have not kissed her" even though she was clearly sending signals that she was open to being kissed, you are setting up a paternalistic world which I, for one, would be unable to tolerate.

This is not hyperbole: I would rather be raped than have everyone I ever came onto second guessing my motives, honesty, integrity, and ability to say what I mean. And yes, I've been raped, so I do know exactly what I'm talking about. I am willing to do people the courtesy of assuming they mean what they say, and I would prefer they do the same for me, and the people who routinely lie, even if it's only about certain subjects, should be distrusted, not catered to.

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.

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.

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?

Edited 2010-05-25 13:57 (UTC)

Do you remember early Torchwood where one of the characters used alien tech as a date rape drug?

Nope, haven't seen it.

Thank your lucky stars.

As far as I could gather, it was OK for the character to do this because he was bi and using it to seduce straight couples.

Oh God, let's not even start with Torchwood.

Hey, we agree on something!

Hugs all round.

Oh, hang on, now I have to turn myself in to the police...

Well, taking it from that kids' point of view she sort of was punished, or at least given a stern talking to and made to see the error of her ways (which I think was a proportional response given that I at least am prepared to view her transgression on a continuum of badness). She was denied the thing she wanted and forced to face up to the thing she was afraid of. The equivelant of a child caught eating illicit sweets having the sweets taken away and replaced with a plate of brocolli which then must be eaten. Now kids aren't necessarily going to understand the value of that on a conscious level right now but I don't think non-sociopathic children are incapable of understanding the concept that when a thing is taken away from you it probably is for the best even if you really really wanted it.

I don't remember the aftermath well, so that is reassuring!

Well, the aftermath was the next episode.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Edited 2010-05-26 12:35 (UTC)

So he kissed her back, which you agree. And then if the Doctor felt assaulted by her? Why did he take her to Venice?!

People who are sexually assaulted tend not to kiss back their attackers, nor do they invite their attackers to romantic holiday destinations.

I'm sorry, I just do not see your argument that it was sexual assault, when the Doctor kissed her back, and at no point told her to stop because it was wrong, he was telling her to stop because she was getting married tomorrow.

And there was no need to be so rude and say I am clearly several chapters behind in 'Rape Culture For Dummies', just because I happen to disagree with your interpretation of something. Discussions on these topics are always very emotionally charged, and for you to wade in with open insults is I think deeply offensive.

there was no need to be so rude and say I am clearly several chapters behind in 'Rape Culture For Dummies', just because I happen to disagree with your interpretation of something

I wasn't disagreeing with your interpretation of whether the Doctor kissed Amy back or was being assaulted or not.

I was to your assertion that when someone responds to sexual contact, then resists, it can no longer be considered assault. That idea is repellent, offensive, backward and ignorant.

Well, I'm sorry, I'm still at a loss. If it was sexual assault as you claim, why on earth did the Doctor take her with him on his continuing adventures? Why did they continue to be friends? Are you arguing that the Doctor is such an abused victim that he's unable to break away from Amys controlling sexual violence?

My reading of the scene was that Amy tried to jump his bones, he was startled, he started to kiss back, but then he remembered that she is engaged and it would be terribly terribly wrong. Which is what he said.

At no point did he say 'Stop you're assaulting me', instead it was 'Stop, you're getting married tomorrow! And I'm too old for you!'

And I'm not saying that in all cases responding to sexual contact then resisting means its not assault. I'm saying in this case of the Doctor and Amy, I do not think it was sexual assault.

I'm not saying that in all cases responding to sexual contact then resisting means its not assault.

You used the criteria that the Doctor kissed her back as the single invalidating factor in the definition of the event. In what way, exactly, was that not a blanket judgement? You're welcome to take it back, of course - I'm always happy for people to say "No, that's not what I meant, I said it wrong." But you did say it.

If it was sexual assault as you claim, why on earth did the Doctor take her with him on his continuing adventures?

There's a strong argument that I once sexually assaulted the person whose ring I now wear. I continue to be good friends with people on whom I have at some point in the past made unwelcome physical advances. I also continue to be good friends with people who have in the past made physical advances on me that made me uncomfortable.

I'm trying to get away from the semantics here. Much though I got sucked into the argument, I don't really care what people call what happened at the end of that episode. What bothers me is whether people felt that what Amy did was okay - not when she kissed him - but when she persisted in kissing him when he was plainly uncomfortable.

You and your friends didn't read the situation as uncomfortable. You persist in saying that as he didn't say "I'm uncomfortable" that meant he wasn't uncomfortable. You persist in saying that he wouldn't have continued to be friends with her if she'd made him feel uncomfortable. I say that that tells me something about you, your friends, your understanding of sexual politics, and your world view, and I say that I don't like it.

I feel that people here are hiding behind the semantic argument "It doesn't count as assault because..." to try justify the fact that they weren't made to feel uncomfortable by a scene that others think was clearly displaying disrespectful, inappropriate behaviour on the part of Amy. Whether it's because it was female on male, because it was funny, because it was a character that they like perpetrating that offense, I don't care. I just don't care. The fact is that if you watched that scene and Amy's behaviour didn't make you squirm in your seat, then I think you are missing something.

Yeah, totally agree. There was clearly something wrong there, and I think it was entirely intentional on the part of the writers.

Well okay, thank you for explaining your position. I can definitely see a lot more clearly where you are coming from on this now. Which I very much appreciate.

(And indeed I did not intend for it to be a blanket statement, my opinion was in this case the Doctor kissing back, along with the other stuff I've mentioned, said to me that if she wasn't getting married the next day, he'd have been totally into her. Indeed I think he is totally into her, which is probably a large part of why he then rushed off to take her and her boyfriend to Venice the next day.)

I do still disagree with you though.

I don't think she did persist in kissing him, it took her maybe... 30 seconds? Before she realised it wasn't going to happen, and then she stopped. And up until that point she did have a lot of reasoning to think it was going to happen. (And then there is that greater issue I think of how the Doctor visited her as a little girl, imprinted himself on her, and then returns when she's a hot and sexy young woman. Which is potentially very dodgy if they had ever gone down the Doctor/Amy romance subplot.)

Of course I'm not saying I think your interpration is wrong. As said elsewhere, I think it was one of those scenes that different people are interpreting in very different ways.

I will respectfully disagree with your assumption that me and my friends holding this alternative interpretation tells you anything negative about our understanding of sexual politics however.

Again you're making an assumption here that if a person is into you they are therefore up for whatever you want to force on them. The Doctor absolutely fancies Amy - certainly a bit at least. That doesn't mean he wanted to be jumped by her and it just cannot be used to dismiss the concept that she was wrong to act as she did. This application of information is just so problematic on so many levels.

I think the part I find problematic is, okay. I don't think it was sexual assault. Leaving that to one side, because what I think really doesn't matter a damn in these situations. The person whose opinion really matters, is the victims. If they decide something was sexual assault, then it was sexual assault.

So in this case, did the Doctor think he was sexually assaulted? And, I just don't think he did.

Which... maybe this whole thing was meant as a comment on the RTD era of Ten?

The person whose opinion really matters, is the victims

This is all very well but that is not what you said. You are making blanket definitive statements, and then qualifying them endlessly.

I'm sometimes not entirely clear in expressing my opinions, particularly when I start off in a debate feeling insulted. I assure you though, I do think the only person whose opinion matters is the victim.

Why on earth would you go and round up someone's fiancee and take them both to Venice together if you were into them???

And I'm totally with

marrog on this - jumping on someone for 30 seconds because you think they might fancy you is _not on_.

Why on earth would you go and round up someone's fiancee and take them both to Venice together if you were into them???

In fairness, this is totally in-character for the Doctor, particularly given that he has some reason to believe that it's vital that Amy get 'sorted out' somehow and has decided that this means he needs to fix her relationship.

Well, first of all, I think the Doctor and Amy have a lot of flirtatious chemistry. And the Doctor having a bit of a history when it comes to picking up young women to travel with...

Only as we have seen with Rose, when he gives in to these feelings, it always ends badly, because they die, or go away, or something happens. So when he picks up yet another young woman who has a crush on him, it makes sense for him to distract her by fixing things between her and her fiancee, to get him off the hook as object of attraction, no?

I mean, if the Doctor thought she had sexually assaulted him, his Tardis was right there, why did he take her with him?

I'm not saying she was right to do it. I agree, jumping on somebody who genuinely isn't into you, is absolutely not on.

But I don't think this makes what Amy did, a sexual assault. I think that's far too strong a word for it because my personal feeling is that calling it a sexual assault does a dis-service to people who have been sexually assaulted.

I mean, if the Doctor thought she had sexually assaulted him, his Tardis was right there, why did he take her with him?

Because just because someone sexually assaults you, it does not make them a bad person, just a person that did something you'd rather they hadn't.

And you're not using the word assault in the legal or dictionary sense. Somone has already commented that when they were spat on the police recorded it as an assault, and I've also quoted a case where pinching someone's bottom counted as an assault. You're possibly thinking of a "serious assault".

Yes, you're right. When I hear the phrase 'sexual assault', I think of a serious sexual assault. Something absolutely black and white out of order wrong which should result in very serious consequences for the committer thereof.

Exactly.

Hence my post here:
http://andrewducker.livejournal.com/2067455.html

Ah yes, interesting, I missed that.

Is it the same impulse, to defend the drunken snog, that winds up as defending Roman Polanski... hmm. I will have to think on that.

It reminds me of the debate on racism recently where I became very aware that generally the younger generation have a quite different interpretation of what a racist is, than older generations.

To me, for example, a racist is the skin head thug out on the streets smashing in peoples faces. Because that's what I encountered in my formative years. So to hear somebody being accused of being a racist, who isn't a skin-head thug, is quite shocking to me (an extreme example, but you get the gist I hope). It's an extremely powerful word. In the same way as 'sexual assault' is extremely powerful.

Yes, it's exactly the same thing that popped up all over the place in the RaceFail discussions (and also in the Racebending stuff for the Avatar: The Last Airbender movie). People say "It's racist to do X" and then people react (essentially) saying "But if I did a racist thing then I'm a racist, and I'm not a thug, therefore the thing I did isn't racist, therefore you're just being nasty to me!"

Because, hopefully, we're mostly no longer having to talk about why it's wrong to kick people to death in the streets for having a different coloured skin, and have now moved on to cultural inequality and power relationships, which are a lot more subtle, and ingrained.

Yeah, and I think perhaps for people like myself who were on the streets fighting the Neo-Nazis, it's quite deep-grained offensive to hear somebody being called a racist, who doesn't fit into our/my preconception of what a racist is.

And I'm convinced, as you say, that this was a major contribution to the whole racefail thing. Because I thought that was so depressing, where people who are all basically on the same side, were falling out with each other so visciously. While all the time the real racist assholes are still out there laughing themselves silly at our sides inability to get along.

(And I'm not convinced we have moved on so much from kicking people to death in the streets. Look at the lot of Muslims in the UK for example, or anybody with brown skin in America. Or indeed that the BNP are still around. Though thank the gods Nick Griffin has had to resign following their election failure.)

Again I think you're missing something here, this time regarding the politics of privilege, and how damaging it is to real progress.

Oh no, I do understand the concept. And I do admit that I am no doubt somewhat antiquated in my thinking on a lot of these issues, because I am a product of my environment where racists were skin head nazis, and sexual assaulters were rapist bastards who were largely protected by the police and society.

But at the same time I'm increasingly finding the politics of victim privilidge to also be damaging to real progress.

Oh no, I do understand the concept. And I do admit that I am no doubt somewhat antiquated in my thinking on a lot of these issues, because I am a product of my environment where racists were skin head nazis, and sexual assaulters were rapist bastards who were largely protected by the police and society.

But at the same time I'm increasingly finding the politics of victim privilege to also be damaging to real progress.

I think at heart it comes down to, people interpreting the world in very very different ways. And to effect real change, you somehow have to challenge that, without making people feel defensive and threatened. Which... is a huge challenge for language.

I think this is where use of language to lessen hard blows like that comes in. I got very angry when the newspapers kept blythly saying that Gordon Brown called Whatserface 'a bigot' all over the place. He never said that. He said she was 'a bigoted woman'. I think I can safely and categorically say that I am not a racist. I can equally categorically say that I have in the past said racist things. I am about as far as it gets from a homophobe but I have been guilty of homophobia. Being guilty of an indiscretion/prejudice does not mean that you are fit to be defined by it.

Absolutely, I agree. And I think everybody has this to some extent. We all say dumb stupid insensitive things sometimes. It doesn't mean we're dumb and insensitive.

Which I think is one of the problems with the internet as a form of communication. A lot of things divorced from body language, sound quite different.

Also, I didn't think I'd need to divide it out given my long explanation, but to clarify...

You and your friends didn't read the situation as uncomfortable.
I say that that tells me something about you, your friends, and your world view.

You persist in saying that as he didn't say "I'm uncomfortable" that meant he wasn't uncomfortable. You persist in saying that he wouldn't have continued to be friends with her if she'd made him feel uncomfortable.

This tells me something about your understanding of sexual politics.

By "everyone else" you mean about 10% of the population, right? If that?

I meant everyone else in my liberal bubble.

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.

Ah well if you and your friends pretty much definitely think he was into it then I guess that tells us all we need to know.

Hey. That was uncalled for.

I don't think so.

The other comment (you just made) is a good one - telling him what you disagree with, and why.

That statement that "if you and your friends pretty much definitely think he was into it then I guess that tells us all we need to know." comes across as saying that if they saw that then that tells you all you need to know about them, which is just pejorative.

If that wasn't what you meant, then fair enough, but try to be a bit clearer, and stick to attacking people's ideas, rather than attacking the people just because they're not in the same place you are, culturally speaking.

Yes, I agree, exactly. It was clearly a scene that is open to a very broad range of interpretations.

Watch his hands when she kisses him. He's flailing. Looks like he doesn't know what to do, how to get her off of him without harming her in any way.

Holy crap!

New council houses in Stirling!

I know! It's marvellous!

Delicious LiveJournal Links for 5-25-2010

no subject

no subject

no subject

I bit

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Flesh and Stone

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone

Re: Flesh and Stone