Well that was interesting

[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.

Comments

OP Here

[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

[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

[cybik.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: OP Here

[iainjcoleman.livejournal.com]

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.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

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.

[andrewducker]

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?

[marrog.livejournal.com]

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!

[andrewducker]

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 :->

[marrog.livejournal.com]

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.

[andrewducker]

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.