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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2010-05-25 01:04 pm
Flesh and Stone
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
>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.
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
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
no subject
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.
(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
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.
no subject
>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."
no subject
Again, the punishment/censure I deserve is mitigated by my misunderstanding, but I still committed assault.
no subject
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.
no subject
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?
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
[...]
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.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
Re: Flesh and Stone
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
The problem is that this has real world consequences, emotional, social, or legal, for the alleged assaulter.
Re: Flesh and Stone
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.
Re: Flesh and Stone
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.
Re: Flesh and Stone
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.
Re: Flesh and Stone
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."
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
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.
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.
Re: Flesh and Stone
Re: Flesh and Stone
Re: Flesh and Stone
Re: Flesh and Stone