andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2010-05-25 01:04 pm
andrewducker) wrote2010-05-25 01:04 pm
Entry tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
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.
"Examine what you have invested in rape culture."
Oh, very much, dear.
Oh, very much, dear.
Agreed, I thought it was very well done too. Nice contrast with RTDs Doctor.
> and after RTD's space-tart-Doctor I found it quite refreshing
Yup me too.
Yup me too.
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 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.
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.
In addition to the things ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
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 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.
>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.
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.
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.
The problem is that this has real world consequences, emotional, social, or legal, for the alleged assaulter.
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 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.
It's that sort of almost theological reasoning that I don't think is helpful.
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.
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.
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?
"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)
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.
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.
Do you remember early Torchwood where one of the characters used alien tech as a date rape drug?
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
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
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.
Oh God, let's not even start with Torchwood.
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.
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.
Hey, we agree on something!
Hugs all round.
Oh, hang on, now I have to turn myself in to the police...
Hugs all round.
Oh, hang on, now I have to turn myself in to the police...
Page 1 of 6