andrewducker | Well that was interesting

Well that was interesting

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

In fairness, there are different degrees of assault...

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>

but not, it seems in interweb discussions
That depends what side of the discussion you're on. What I find problematic is that people seem to be unable to see that their oppostition don't see things in black and white.

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.

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.

Indeed; I've been thinking about how differently we'd be reacting if the roles were reversed.

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.

You try floating that next time round. I'll pay close attention to how it goes for you :->

Sorry, I don't follow.

To clarify:
Next time the "assault" discussion comes up, try telling the people who say that it is assault that they need a new word, because some people say it isn't actually assault. I shall watch and see what happens.

Err, ok.

What does that have to do with the validity of my argument?

My argument is: The meaning of words are defined by the majority usage. If in the view of the majority a word is being used in a way which jarringly does not fit then it suggests that the word is being misused.

My main point is about the meaning of words being determined by the majority usage, I don't want to shift attention away from that with this comment, but given that there seems to be a disagreement about what the word means I thought I'd look at the OED. Of course the OED doesn't dictate what words mean, it just records common usages, but it might be helpful.

Perhaps there is a clue here in the OED to how the terms are being used differently, one definition is "To make a violent hostile attack by physical means", which I think is how the majority of people normally use the term for situations like the one being discussed.

Another definition is the far broader legal definition, where as stated by other commenters, touching someone lightly on the arm in a conversation may be assault (as may a harsh word according to the OED).

So Amy definitely did assault the doctor according to the second definition, but did she according to the first? Probably not. The response that people have to the use of the word assault will depend on what they understand the term to mean. I suspect that in general usage by laymen the primary usage is the former rather than the latter.

You're wrong. Using the first definition means that if someone slips someone rohypnol and then rapes them, that wasn't sexual assault because it wasn't a "violent hostile attack". Which is very apparently completely wrong.

As usual I find your application here problematic, but in principle I actually agree.

I hate the fact that that conversation got turned into a semantic argument over the definition of sexual assault when I felt that totally missed the whole point: The point being that it seems as though an awful lot of people saw the thing that happened in that episode as not a big deal, or not uncomfortable, or not at least a bit not okay and uncategorically just funny or even worse, a positive sign of female sexual independence or what-the-hell-ever.

When I watched that scene I thought it was uncomfortable, and my opinion of Amy went down - not irrevocably, not permanently, not without hope of redemption - but I decided that I just didn't like her quite as much because of what she did. And I thought that was the way it was meant to be read.

If a person watched that scene and didn't feel that way, I have a problem with that, and with them, and with the culture/society/portrayal (although I actually think the issue in this instance is with the viewer and not the writer/director but that's subjective) that allowed that scene to seem 'okay' or even 'funny' (without reservation) to a significant proportion of people.

Now, I'm making an assumption here, from the fact that that article was written, that this is the case. I don't actually know what the overall on-balance reaction was to the scene - everyone I know and respect so far almost without exception has agreed that the scene made them uncomfortable.

That was what I wanted to say. Unfortunately, what happened by use of the hot-button word 'assault' was that some people said 'that wasn't assault because blah blah blah'. Now, in actuality, I don't care what your (not you personally) personal definition of assault is. I care that your reason for saying 'that's not assault' is because it didn't make you uncomfortable. Call it whatever you like. It should have made you uncomfortable.

I largely agree with this. I thought that the scene was quite clearly intended to be non-consensual, though relatively mild in the scheme of things; and that Moffatt was trying to say something important and serious about Amy. I *also* thought it was funny.

And although I have sympathy with the reading of this as sexual assault, I also pause. Because by the strict definition (it's sexual assault if you continue contact once the person has made clear their non-consent) then every time either my husband or I fancies a frolic, and the other person says 'no, sorry, too tired/busy/whatever' and we press the point, we're committing sexual assault. Which is clearly nonsense. So I think there has to be some sort of threshold here.

Even so, Amy probably passed that threshold, or certainly would have done if the plot hadn't overtaken her.

I think that you make a good point, and appreciate that it can become hard to feel good about being sexually assertive at all when your definitions get that sensitive. Which is why I'd like to see the argument move away from the words used and think more about the feelings caused.

I agree with you - and have had a conversation about this with Julie, who was worried about pressuring me or making me feel bad. And so I told her that she's absolutely fine to initiate things at any point in time she fancies, so long as she stops if I make it clear I'm not interested by getting grumpy. And as this gives her my consent, it's not assault :->

Of course, that's us. I'm well aware that most people don't spend as much time thinking/worrying/investigating this kind of stuff as we do.

When you want to initiate, you're in the mood. How do you back off from someone else's initiation while staying perky and positive?

That's a tricky one.

Never found it that tricky. The initiator doesn't go beyond a mild level of "stuff" before the other person is responding positively, and the initiated can go from saying "Naah, not today" (in a casual voice) to "Really not today" (in a slightly less casual voice). Body language and shared understanding allows for a lot of information exchange without actually saying much.

How do you avoid the initiator feeling let down?

You give them a hug?

Sometimes people don't get what they want. If Julie wants to play Mario and I'm not in the mood then she does something else. If I want to go for a walk outside togther and she fancies a quiet night in, then we don't go out. Such is life.

I don't think words are determined by majority usage. They're determined by the understanding that individuals have of them, and the interlinked understandings between groups of people. Sure, you want to make sure that the people you're talking to have a generally agreed understanding, but that's what discussions like this are there for - to argue over meaning and attempt to share your meaning with others so that common understanding can be found.

"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.

There's a link to her actual deposition somewhere. It's not pleasant.

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.

Agreed. I was disgusted by her leaving her child with him. I just can't get inside her head.

What Goldberg was trying to do with the language, I think.

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.

From what I read of the conversation, it looks like people agree on everything except whether it should be called 'assault' or not.

Somehow, I'm reminded of the Level/L-E-V-E-L/Level edition of OOTS.

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.

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.

You may not have considered it serious or violent, but another person in the same situation might, and their opinion is just as valid as yours.

Well of course it is, and they are free to give their own accounts. As the OP said, it is people who have been in these situations who should make these assessments. That is what I have done. If you have similar experiences, you are welcome to share your expressions if you so choose. If you have not, then your contribution is neither relevant nor helpful.

I'm not sure how "I was jumped once and it didn't bother me" is more relevant or helpful than any other opinion, or why only people who have been in that situation are in a position to judge.

Yeah, I feel the same way. I don't, for instance, believe in a victim-led justice policy. Did you see the comment by the person who wrote the original post?

I did. But then, I already said I didn't much like the tone of the OP and it doesn't surprise me that their opinion on the topic is more extreme than mine.

I think I'm destined to be seen as a 'crazy feminist' by the apologists, and an apologist by the crazy feminists. Life is tough for moderates on the internet!

I have felt much the same way - and I find it reassuring sometimes to normalise myself by remembering that there other people that feel the same way I do :->

My comment further up the page, by the way, says what I wanted to say at the crossroads yesterday and couldn't find the words for.

I actually don't give a shit what someone's definition of 'sexual assault' is - I care when I see them using language as a shield to defend their own privilege, or their own reluctance to admit they weren't bothered by something a lot of people think they should have been.

I also get irritated by my own inability to not get drawn into said semantic arguments instead of sticking to my point.

I also think there's a post brewing in my head regarding the general inability people seem to have to accept the concept that they might have made a mistake or been insensitive in a romantic/sexual context - whether in principle or practice. I might post a poll today to gather some numbers to talk about.

Edited 2010-05-26 08:46 (UTC)

or their own reluctance to admit they weren't bothered by something a lot of people think they should have been.

The thing being that Zornhau _was_ bothered by it. His very first post said "That doesn't make her behaviour acceptible, or reasonable."

You were both, as far as I can tell, entirely in agreement that she should not have done what she did. The only difference between you (that I can see) is that in his head "assault" is a GREAT BIG THING that should be reserved for serious physical damage, whereas I/you view it as any kind of unwanted physical affect (which is also the legal view). The entire argument seems to have been one over semantics and the effect they have on discourse.

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).

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.

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.

Absolutely.

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…”

Yeah, I've seen that one. He's very, very funny.

Ah, good. I've gotten to the end of the big threads and that *was* covered - that ther's not always signs to read.

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.

Yep. Talked to a girl recently who didn't show any signs and then couldn't figure out why the boy didn't go for it anyway.

Or I've a Central European friend, for whom playing hard to get is absolutely proper and correct, no questions or quibbles.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Well that was interesting

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

Definitionof "metarape"

Re: Definitionof "metarape"

no subject

no subject

OP Here

Re: OP Here

Re: OP Here

Re: OP Here

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