andrewducker: (Default)
[personal profile] andrewducker
It seems to me that part of the reason why discussions of sexual assault, get very heated very quickly is that some people view "assault" as a great big thing.  If someone was assaulted then _something very bad happened_.  This means that when something happens that they don't see as being that awful, then they object to the word "assault", because it doesn't emotionally resonate with them as feeling similar to the act that occurred.  What happened wasn't assault because it wasn't that bad (someone got kissed when they didn't want to be, it was just a hug, etc.).

At the extreme end you end up with things like Whoopi Goldberg's defence of Roman Polanski because what he did wasn't "rape rape" - because that would make Roman Polanski evil, which would make her a bad person for liking him.  At the milder end you have people arguing that kissing someone against their will isn't assault, because if it is then it means that people can be charged for drunkenly snogging someone they fancied in the pub without checking first.

In any case it means I end up with 70-odd comments while I'm away at a meeting on the other side of town, which I wasn't really expecting.

Date: 2010-05-25 04:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bracknellexile.livejournal.com
I think you may have a very valid point here and wonder if it might justify the idea of different "degrees" of assault. When one, unqualified, phrase can cover everything from a drunken inappropriate snog up to everything bar actual rape we tar an awful lot of people, who've done a lot of very different things, with the same brush.

"Sexual assault" is a black-and-white phrase and it's not a black-and-white world.

Date: 2010-05-25 08:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] marrog.livejournal.com
In fairness, there are different degrees of assault...

Date: 2010-05-26 02:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bracknellexile.livejournal.com
There probably are under law, but not, it seems in interweb discussions. If some folks are to be believed then you're either a rapist or a hermit :) </joke>

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] marrog.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-26 02:36 pm (UTC) - Expand

Date: 2010-05-26 02:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cabarethaze.livejournal.com
That's something I think should be addressed. I don't consider assault to only be if something Very Bad Happened, but a friend thinking there's something more to the relationship and mistakenly heading in for a kiss is heaps different from someone forcing you to have sex at knife point.

I'll admit, I have no idea what the 'right' phrases for degrees or levels of sexual assault are, but I think the phrase 'sexual assault' is sort of a catch-all that ends up meaning different things to different people. I'd say Amy was sexually inappropriate, perhaps, but wouldn't class it as assault.

Date: 2010-05-25 04:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] a-pawson.livejournal.com
Isn't the problem that different people have different definitions of both "assault" and "sexual assault". There may be a single legal definition, but what is considered acceptable varies from person to person.

Had the genders been reversed in that scene from Dr Who, I suspect we would have a very different response about the acceptability (or not) of what was depicted.

Date: 2010-05-25 05:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com
Indeed; I've been thinking about how differently we'd be reacting if the roles were reversed.

Date: 2010-05-25 04:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] robhu.livejournal.com
Really? You didn't expect that to happen? I read the blog post you linked to and expected there to be volcanos of reaction from both sides (well, the various sides).

If the word assault doesn't seem to work very well for something in the opinion of the majority of people then maybe assault isn't the right word. Words only really have a meaning in as much as they represent what the majority of people understand them to mean afterall.

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] robhu.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-25 04:45 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] robhu.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-25 05:03 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] johncoxon.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-25 05:38 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] marrog.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-25 08:26 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] bohemiancoast.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-26 12:58 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] marrog.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-26 01:02 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] broin.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-26 01:36 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] broin.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-26 01:50 pm (UTC) - Expand

Date: 2010-05-25 04:31 pm (UTC)
zz: (Default)
From: [personal profile] zz
"rape rape"

Now i'm trying to work out what metarape is.

Wow. I hadn't actually bothered to absorb the polanski thing, and assumed it was americans doing their puritanical shtick (sex offender for pissing against a tree, etc) and conflating rape and "statutory rape", but if wikipedia's to be believed...

What's wrong with liking bad people? Everyone's grey. Mind you, given how much trouble I have remembering that, I imagine most people *really* struggle.

Date: 2010-05-26 01:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bohemiancoast.livejournal.com
Yes. And my understanding is that there is little or no dissent as to the actual sequence of events. I have no sympathy for Polanski, but am also appalled by the behaviour of the mother, who knew perfectly well that she was pimping her daughter to Polanski.

Definitionof "metarape"

Date: 2010-05-25 04:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zornhau.livejournal.com
What Goldberg was trying to do with the language, I think.

Re: Definitionof "metarape"

Date: 2010-05-25 05:15 pm (UTC)
ext_52479: (Default)
From: [identity profile] nickys.livejournal.com
Rather than defend her choice to still care about a flawed human being who had done a bad thing but may well have had redeeming features, (which is defensible) she chose to deny his faults (which is both idiotic and dishonest).
Too many people do that over all sorts of issues and it's a huge problem because it isolates the victims.

Date: 2010-05-25 04:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ipslore.livejournal.com
From what I read of the conversation, it looks like people agree on everything except whether it should be called 'assault' or not.

Date: 2010-05-25 04:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] captainlucy.livejournal.com
Somehow, I'm reminded of the Level/L-E-V-E-L/Level edition of OOTS.

OP Here

Date: 2010-05-25 05:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] womanoflamancha.livejournal.com
Hiya.

I tend to think it's a very privileged sort of viewpoint that can term what happened in F&S "not serious" and say "I don't see why people are using this word, that word should be saved for something terrible." There are many people who have gone through a type of assault like what happened in the scene, and maybe they should be the ones to say "this is serious" or "this is not serious," or "this is violent" or "this is not violent." I was trying to say in the post that yes, the word "sexual assault" should only apply to very bad things, and what Amy did was very bad! The fact is that what happened is all there is to sexual assault. I'm repeating myself by now, hah. But a lot of people all over the interbutts seem to have missed it!

Anyway, thanks for the linklove.

Re: OP Here

Date: 2010-05-25 06:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] iainjcoleman.livejournal.com
I have experienced unwanted sexual advances / physical contact much as the Doctor did in the episode in question. It was annoying. I did not consider it serious or violent.

I have had someone grab me by the throat in a pub and try to throttle me. I considered that somewhat more serious, and certainly violent.

Re: OP Here

From: [identity profile] cybik.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-25 06:50 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: OP Here

From: [identity profile] iainjcoleman.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-25 07:40 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] marrog.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-26 08:03 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] marrog.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-26 08:40 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] marrog.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-26 08:45 am (UTC) - Expand

Date: 2010-05-25 06:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] supergee.livejournal.com
I believe Whoopi Goldberg said that because she believed Polanski was guilty of statutory but not forcible rape (which of course is mistaken, according to the uncontradicted testimony of the complainant).

Date: 2010-05-26 08:47 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] marrog.livejournal.com
That may be her opinion of what she said. I think she actually said that because, as Andy and Nicky suggest, Goldberg was uncomfortable with the concept that she might like and respect a rapist, ergo he couldn't be a real rapist because real rapists are evil.

Date: 2010-05-25 10:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] palmer1984.livejournal.com
Yes, slapping someone across the face and punching them repeatedly in the face until they pass out are both forms of physical assault, but the first is much less serious.

Date: 2010-05-26 10:13 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] broin.livejournal.com
Louis CK has a joke about going out with a girl. They head back to the hotel room, and start making out. He's about to go further, but can't read her signals.

Next day, she says he totally should have gone for it and not care about what she wanted.

“What are you out of your fucking mind?! You think I’m just going to rape you on the off chance that hopefully you’re into that shit?! … Oh, I’m getting kind of a rapey vibe from this girl, I dunno…”

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] broin.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-26 10:33 am (UTC) - Expand

Date: 2010-05-26 01:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bohemiancoast.livejournal.com
As with most things, there's a strand of folk songs about this. Not much performed these days exactly because of this issue.

Basic plot. Boy meets girl in circumstances that would facilitate rumpy pumpy. Boy suggests same. Girl declines, citing the damage that the grass would do to her clothes; suggests he takes her back to her home. Boy escorts girl home (this bit often takes several verses). Girl goes inside, locks door, and proceeds to taunt boy for his lack of sexual courage (also often for several verses). One of them, or the narrator, suggests that next time these circumstances arise he should just get on with it.

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] broin.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-26 01:25 pm (UTC) - Expand

September 2025

S M T W T F S
  12 3456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 3rd, 2025 10:49 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios