s/o What is sexual assault

[Amira]

Maybe this was already rehashed enough for some in the other thread, but it seems there are some significant differences of opinion on what sexual assault actually is and whether it’s a big deal. The US Department of Justice currently defines sexual assault as “any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by Federal, tribal, or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent.“ Do you agree with that definition?  If you don’t, what definition would be better?  A previous DOJ definition said sexual assault is “any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.”  Does this definition work?  

And when does sexual assault become a problem?  Only if the victim cares, or if they report it, or should it always be considered a problem?  

 

[Carrie12345]

10 minutes ago, Amira said:

Maybe this was already rehashed enough for some in the other thread, but it seems there are some significant differences of opinion on what sexual assault actually is and whether it’s a big deal. The US Department of Justice currently defines sexual assault as “any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by Federal, tribal, or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent.“ Do you agree with that definition?  If you don’t, what definition would be better?  A previous DOJ definition said sexual assault is “any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.”  Does this definition work?  

And when does sexual assault become a problem?  Only if the victim cares, or if they report it, or should it always be considered a problem?  

 

I'm not even sure how to start.  I don't understand the "if the victim cares" part.  I mean, if I'm open to having men touch me, it isn't non-consensual, which means it doesn't fit any real definition of assault.  The idea that anyone would not care if someone used their body in any context without consent doesn't really add up.  You're willing, or you're not.

[unsinkable]

1 hour ago, Amira said:

Maybe this was already rehashed enough for some in the other thread, but it seems there are some significant differences of opinion on what sexual assault actually is and whether it’s a big deal. The US Department of Justice currently defines sexual assault as “any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by Federal, tribal, or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent.“ Do you agree with that definition?  If you don’t, what definition would be better?  A previous DOJ definition said sexual assault is “any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.”  Does this definition work?  

And when does sexual assault become a problem?  Only if the victim cares, or if they report it, or should it always be considered a problem?  

 

Why don't you quote some posts which claimed sexual assault wasn't a big deal so everyone knows what you're talking about?

Edited October 9, 2018 by unsinkable

[ktgrok]

2 minutes ago, unsinkable said:

Why don't you quote some posts which claimed sexual assault wasn't a big deal so everyone knows what you're talking about?

Several times it was mentioned in the other thread that grinding on someone without consent, grabbing them, etc was just how boys were in high school and not something worth getting upset about. 

[moonflower]

47 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

I'm not even sure how to start.  I don't understand the "if the victim cares" part.  I mean, if I'm open to having men touch me, it isn't non-consensual, which means it doesn't fit any real definition of assault.  The idea that anyone would not care if someone used their body in any context without consent doesn't really add up.  You're willing, or you're not.

 

Well, clearly this happens with other kinds of crimes.  For example, it's a crime (simple assault?) to punch someone who  hasn't physically attacked you - but I don't know a huge number of men who would want that prosecuted, or would want to be involved in that prosecution.  Sure, they care, but they don't care for it to go through the legal system, kwim?

Or like if someone steals the money out of my change drawer, I'm offended, it's bad behavior, it's stealing - but I'm not going to the police about it.

Or maybe there are some things that some people in society are just used to, and don't consider a serious problem, even though they're less than desirable.  Maybe if you're socialized to believe that some forms of sexual assault are more or less inevitable and/or not something that seriously bothers you, even though you don't want them, you don't think of them as a problem or even as assault.  

[unsinkable]

Just now, Ktgrok said:

Several times it was mentioned in the other thread that grinding on someone without consent, grabbing them, etc was just how boys were in high school and not something worth getting upset about. 

Quotes? 

I'm one of those "looking at the leaves" not trees or forests people. 

[unsinkable]

5 minutes ago, HeighHo said:

Sexual assault is assault of a sexual nature. Intentional contact, with threats, intimidation, and/or force or no consent.  It is criminal behavior.

When is it a problem?  Always.  It's the mark of the beast and an explicit declaration that the person is above the law.  This is a being that does not respect other being's personhoods and has rejected the law of the land as well as social norms (or maybe not, depending on the culture).

The mark of the beast? Satan? 

Just to clarify, please.

[ktgrok]

4 minutes ago, unsinkable said:

Quotes? 

I'm one of those "looking at the leaves" not trees or forests people. 

I'm not wading into the other giant post to cut and paste. Sorry. I have sick kids and not enough coffee, lol. But it was said. 

However, I don't think it was meant as in "it's not a crime" just that it didn't traumatize them, and they feel therefore it isn't very traumatic in general, or worth doing anything about, like the change theft above. B

[Guest]

I think the first definition is accurate, because it includes mention of “lacking ability to consent,” which is an important element. 

Part of my view I was expressing in the locked thread is this: cultural understanding of consent has come a looooong way in thirty years. It is problematic to apply today’s standard - which I am happy is where we have arrived - to events that may have happened far in the past.

To me it is comparable to issues of discrimination suffered several decades ago. The treatment of protected groups of people has improved over decades; I am very happy this is the case. It wouldn’t make sense to me, though, if, say, a woman claimed she was discriminated against for the promotion of Chief of Police and was permanetly kept on parking violations duty thirty years prior, because she was a woman. Or if a gay couple tried to sue a Landlord now because the LL refused to rent to them in the 70s. 

I am very glad we, on the whole, are thoroughly instructing our kids in what it means to consent. My 18yo ds has had it drummed into his head by me and the college also drums it into their heads. I surely hope he never does anything to anyone without consent and I hope nothing non-consensual is never done to him. I have also instructed him to avoid situations where he could be accused. 

I am one of the people who said something like this happened in my life when I was 14. While I don’t want that to be an experience any of my kids have, it - for me; not implying others should feel the same! - was not traumatic. It was embarassing; I previously liked the guy. He was cute and popular. Later, seeing him around was embarassing. He never had another conversation with me. But it didn’t traumatize me. For me it was like, “Wow. That was a sh!tty turn of events. I used to think he was cute.” I, personally, have spent almost zero minutes thinking about that event in 33 years. I don’t horrible-ize the words I use to describe that event. Only in the wake of the #metoo movement have I even thought about it at all. 

I personally do not feel it would be right for me to bring an accusation against this guy now if he were famous or running for office. For one thing, there were no witnesses at all. Someone could perhaps know or remember or produce a yearbook in which I wrote something about how I thought that guy was cute. No way would I open that can of worms for anything. But, more importantly, it’s back to what I said about judging past behaviors through today’s understanding of them and that is not right. I did not take legal action against him in the 80s, partially because I thought it was lousy but I was not harmed. I think I may have told my best friend about it but other than that, I did not tell anyone. 

Also, suppose it turns out he went on to a lifetime of assaulting women. Suppose they start coming forward now and tell their tales. Well, I would not throw my hat in the ring on that. I would feel it was too long ago, too “small” of a matter, not provable, and not worth it. I would feel he could get what’s coming to him on the strength of the more recent/provable events. 

Please, please, nobody personalize what I am saying as “sexual assault is no big deal.”  I am only speaking about how it affected me personally, thirty+ years ago when views of consent were a lot different. 

[unsinkable]

2 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

I'm not wading into the other giant post to cut and paste. Sorry. I have sick kids and not enough coffee, lol. But it was said. 

However, I don't think it was meant as in "it's not a crime" just that it didn't traumatize them, and they feel therefore it isn't very traumatic in general, or worth doing anything about, like the change theft above.

Yeah, I have a sick kid too.

every day

[MeghanL]

http://time.com/5419179/sexual-harassment-uk-school-uniforms/

In regards to the question "Is sexual assault a big deal?" I didn't think that the OP was saying any specific people don't think it's a big deal...just that the general "you" of society doesn't see it as a big deal. I understand this is in the UK and not the US, but this quote from the article stood out to me and made me profoundly sad. (I also realize that sexual harassment and sexual assault are different things, but I think the general attitude of when a woman/girl should say something and when the line is crossed is more complicated in our society than maybe it should be.)

But many girls also dismissed the street harassment as “all part of growing up.”

[Ravin]

12 minutes ago, moonflower said:

 

Well, clearly this happens with other kinds of crimes.  For example, it's a crime (simple assault?) to punch someone who  hasn't physically attacked you - but I don't know a huge number of men who would want that prosecuted, or would want to be involved in that prosecution.  Sure, they care, but they don't care for it to go through the legal system, kwim?

Or like if someone steals the money out of my change drawer, I'm offended, it's bad behavior, it's stealing - but I'm not going to the police about it.

Or maybe there are some things that some people in society are just used to, and don't consider a serious problem, even though they're less than desirable.  Maybe if you're socialized to believe that some forms of sexual assault are more or less inevitable and/or not something that seriously bothers you, even though you don't want them, you don't think of them as a problem or even as assault.  

 

One area where there seems to be a double standard in how we consider consent is when people are intoxicated. Generally, one is considered criminally culpable for one's wrongful actions while intoxicated. However, if there is sexual activity while two parties are both intoxicated, if one of them, particularly if they are female, feels violated by this when they sober up it may be considered sexual assault by the definition given above, even if the other party was just as impaired and even if the "victim" was enthusiastic while drunk. That is a grey area where the definition may not hold water in a way that's going to stick in a criminal court. Note, I'm not talking about where one party just had a couple of drinks and the other was passed out, I'm talking about when both are stupid drunk.

 

Another area where it may be unfair to category legally wrongful sexual contact as sexual assault is when we're talking about statutory rape. In my state one minor can commit statutory rape against another--technically both can be charged if they are under 18, and it's more serious if they're under 15. That is asinine. Statutory rape is not based on whether the "victim" actually consented or not, but simply on the assumption that if you are a minor, you cannot consent no matter how enthusiastic about it you may be at the time. 

[Paige]

1 hour ago, Carrie12345 said:

I'm not even sure how to start.  I don't understand the "if the victim cares" part.  I mean, if I'm open to having men touch me, it isn't non-consensual, which means it doesn't fit any real definition of assault.  The idea that anyone would not care if someone used their body in any context without consent doesn't really add up.  You're willing, or you're not.

I can imagine there are some women who could be really drunk, high, or whatever and wouldn't care if they found out after the fact that someone had sexual contact with them. There's many reasons they may not care. Some may be so used to being abused that it's no big deal anymore. Some may have been wanting to attract a certain guy and see it as success instead of assault. I'm sure there are other reasons. Like theft, I think it's still assault. It would make things too messy for me if the definition depended on the victim's perception- that leaves no clear rules for guys to follow which could be why some are confused.

I like the first definition. I don't think threats need to be involved. Sometimes it's over before a threat can be made. 

I want to live in a world where it's not part of growing up or being a grown up for anyone.

[Amira]

I certainly wasn’t thinking about any specific people on this board when I posted this.  I could come up with plenty of broader examples from society, but that really wasn’t my point here. 

[Katy]

I think this is the central question to the Kavanaugh issue. I honestly believe that every Republican on the judiciary committee believed Dr Ford, if none of the other allegations, and no matter what they openly said. But if you look at it through his lens rather than hers, it was groping, not rape or attempted rape, and who gets out of high school without getting groped at least once? Especially 35 years ago.  I doubt Kavanaugh would even remember it, it wasn't important to him and it wasn't a big deal. To her though, who was sure she was going to get raped and possibly killed, it was a VERY big deal. I honestly think the people who voted to confirm him didn't think groping a girl 35 years ago was grounds to keep him out of the court. What was acceptable then has obviously changed, but I suspect the entitled behavior that would lead someone to grope a woman then is a character defect that will remain.

I'm under the impression that in some states sexual assault = rape or something akin to rape, but in other states assault = something much less, rape is a more serious charge.

[Familia]

Since reading a comment on the other tread that maybe part of the problem is that men think of se# as 'good' or 'not so good', I have thought that that may really be the crux of the matter.  

I think women have a sense of personal space that men just can't relate to.  At all!  I've been contemplating this along with the discussion of teaching daughters to keep themselves safe.

If a man places his hand on a woman's hand with an intent she just knows is wrong and unwelcome and an advance, it IS a violation.  I am not saying that is to the level of se#ual assault by any means, but I just want to illustrate that I believe that women have a sense of violation that is valid and just not understood by men - and may never be.  In the world we now live in, the lack of understanding of this difference in perspective, combined with the brand of feminism which attempts to make women just.like.men is just going to keep leading us to these disasters.  There is less of an understanding in that case that there are differences between the sexes that serve to protect women.  A deference paid to women that is gone.  

Edited October 9, 2018 by Familia
clarifying

[unsinkable]

27 minutes ago, Amira said:

I certainly wasn’t thinking about any specific people on this board when I posted this.  I could come up with plenty of broader examples from society, but that really wasn’t my point here. 

You certainly werent? Oh, that wasn't clear to me because in your first sentence in your first post, you referenced the other thread.

 

[Familia]

Just now, HeighHo said:

 

imho there are men who take every opportunity to touch sexually when there is no audience and no consent.  I understand, its human to need touch and many have no partner due to the consequences of their personal decision to violate social norms and women's bodies. They understand they are violating, and they've got the smooth words to make the woman want to just leave feeling icky and the manager think there was a misunderstanding rather than pressing for a hostile workplace remediation. 

Sorry, but no man gets to place his hand on another woman's without consent.  Her personhood is to be respected. There is no perspective disaster, there is simply a male weaseling out of being accountable for the opportunity he just took to violate. You can bet your bottom dollar he wouldn't do it if there was an audience.

I need to edit my post.  I see how it was read - completely different than intended!  When I said 'a man can place his hand...' I meant, "For example, IF a man places his hand..." meaning that even something seemingly that 'innocent', if unwelcome IS a violation, albeit, not exactly assault.  And, by saying, 'disasters' I was referring to the disaster of complete breakdown of communication.  I am sad about everything that recently happened in our country.  

[marbel]

24 minutes ago, Ravin said:

 

One area where there seems to be a double standard in how we consider consent is when people are intoxicated. Generally, one is considered criminally culpable for one's wrongful actions while intoxicated. However, if there is sexual activity while two parties are both intoxicated, if one of them, particularly if they are female, feels violated by this when they sober up it may be considered sexual assault by the definition given above, even if the other party was just as impaired and even if the "victim" was enthusiastic while drunk. That is a grey area where the definition may not hold water in a way that's going to stick in a criminal court. Note, I'm not talking about where one party just had a couple of drinks and the other was passed out, I'm talking about when both are stupid drunk.

<snip>

I always think of this type of situation when the topic comes up.

I've certainly known lots of people who found/put themselves in such situations.  I may have done so myself in my deep dark past. Never would I consider it assault if I was stupid drunk and got too friendly, to the point of regret, with a guy.  I have a hard time considering it assault when both parties are stupid drunk and consent is implied by behavior. I think men and women carry equal responsibility for not becoming so impaired they can't properly give/withhold consent or properly discern consent/withholding of consent.  

In my partying days, I saw a lot of bad behavior by both men and women. I knew lots of women who expressed morning after regret but there was no feeling of having been sexually assaulted, because they recognized that they had invited it with their behavior. This is not victim-blaming so please no one try to go there from this. This was people regretting what they themselves had done. (Not how they dressed or wore their makeup, but how they interacted with the guy.) This was in the later 80s/early 90s. I don't run in those sorts of circles anymore (for which I literally thank God daily) but I assume things have changed. Or maybe they haven't.  

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, unsinkable said:

You certainly werent? Oh, that wasn't clear to me because in your first sentence in your first post, you referenced the other thread.

 

Just FTR, and just putting this out there - I’m pretty sure I am one poster that may have been interpreted as saying sexual assault is no big deal. Hopefully I have adequately cleared that up in this thread. I don’t harbor any ill will towards Amira or ktgrok if I am the poster alluded to. 

[unsinkable]

7 minutes ago, Quill said:

Just FTR, and just putting this out there - I’m pretty sure I am one poster that may have been interpreted as saying sexual assault is no big deal. Hopefully I have adequately cleared that up in this thread. I don’t harbor any ill will towards Amira or ktgrok if I am the poster alluded to. 

Aww, Quill. I wanted some examples of specific posts so we'd all be on the same page and know what specifically what was said. I thought it is possible to quote posts and not use the poster's name.

[LucyStoner]

In our culture there is a strange tendency to minimize the sexual assault of children by calling it molestation or abuse rather than rape.  We also also have tendency to minimize rapes that are faciliated by coercion rather than blatantly physical force even though both are very much violations of someone’s bodily autonomy and freedom.  So called “forcible rape” has become a dog whistle term for parsing between survivors and that’s problematic for me.  I find it very distasteful.  

I also would point out that not feeling traumatized by a rape or sexual assault doesn’t make someone strong and feeling traumatized doesn’t make someone weak. Not feeling traumatized may just mean someone is compartmentalizing or rationalizing what happened.  Or that someone has been deeply traumatized in other ways.  In my situation I vacillated between attempting to convince myself that what had happened had not happened (despite knowing full well it had) and denying that it impacted me to the degree that it did.  I tried to frame myself as not a victim.  

Before I had the chance to confront my rapist, he did the world a favor and died.  I know he must have continued after me and I feel profound anger that we live in a world where it is just not safe or feasible for girls to always report their abuse.  It is really common for survivors to not be believed by their own families.  My immediate family believed me but part of my extended family did not.  This provided me a handy dandy cheat sheet of who in the family wasn’t safe to be around.  I’ve saved myself a lot of grief cutting off people who defended him.  I’ve probably also substantially reduced my sons’ chances of being sexually abused or raped as children by cutting off the people who would either do that or defend anyone who would.  One of the ways cycles of sexual violence in families are perpetuated is when people try move past it like nothing ever happened.  

 

  

Edited October 9, 2018 by LucyStoner

[Amy in NH]

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

Several times it was mentioned in the other thread that grinding on someone without consent, grabbing them, etc was just how boys were in high school and not something worth getting upset about. 

 

Frotteurism

 

[unsinkable]

My dad went to jail for things he did to men.

When he did it to my mom, she went to the hospital and he got told to take a walk and cool off.

Edit/not edit. I was going to add something else but now I'm not.

Edited October 9, 2018 by unsinkable

[LucyStoner]

11 minutes ago, OKBud said:

 

As legal definitions I think these are both fine. 

I mean, what is the definition that is going to get women and children tangible justice for sexual violence? That would be my favorite definition. 

As a personal note I would love to see people stop conflating all times of sexual crimes under the "sexual assault" heading, in colloquial speech. I have had so many misunderstanding in conversations when I was talking about, for example, rape/rape/real-actual rape while the other person was talking about groping or something similar. Both unacceptable, but ultimately the devil is in the details here. 

 

I agree.  Words mean something and just like we all understand the difference between swearing at someone, punching someone, assaulting someone with a deadly weapon and killing someone, I think people naturally do understand that not all sexual misconduct or sex crimes are the same thing.  

I have noticed that what we used to call sexual harassment is sometimes now, culturally (not legally), considered sexual assault.  I really don’t think this is helpful.  It’s important that words have meaning.  Having men yell lewd things at me is simply not the same think as being raped.  The former could be terrifying and traumatic but it’s not one and the same thing as the latter.  The impact on me is different and the legal consequences (if any) are and should be very different.  

[livetoread]

Here’s a situation that happened to me the summer after high school graduation. I was dating a guy who was going into his Senior year of college. I was his first girlfriend and he had never kissed anyone before. I was the more experienced, lol. We had not had any physical contact except holding hands up until this incident.

We were sleeping in sleeping bags out on a beach, and I woke up to him fondling my breasts. He didn’t know I was awake, and I ended up just pretending to turn over. He stealthily withdrew his hand, and that was that. We finally kissed a few days later, though never did anything else, and we broke up at the end of the summer when he met his later wife. He is now a professor at a university, happily married for decades. I doubt he acted inappropriately with anyone else. He was very naive and very embarrassed about his naïveté and was seriously lacking in “skills”.

I had no sense of violation at the time. I wanted him to do more with me physically, lol. Now, looking back, I do feel a sense of violation. It was not right of him to touch me without my consent, even if I would have given the consent. He didn’t know that, hence the sneakiness. Not to mention, why do so many men just think they have the right to touch our bodies? I can honestly say it never crossed my mind to reach out a grab a guy’s junk while he was sleeping if we hadn’t already been at that point while awake many times and I knew he’d be fine with it. I just don’t feel entitled to access to their bodies. 

Did he asault me? Yep. I would never do anything to him, but the situation was not okay. I didn’t know enough to be upset that a man was doing this to me, and he didn’t know enough to understand why what he was doing was a profound wrong. We were both badly served by the times we grew up in. I was harmed, but I didn’t even have enough sense of bodily autonomy to know I was harmed. The damage done wasn’t apparent at the time, but the concept that men have access to my body was reinforced in a damaging way even though I didn’t recognize it. 

We may think we weren’t really affected by some of these more minor violations, but we were. That doesn’t mean we need to file police reports now or do anything, but I don’t think we should deny that they reinforced unhealthy ideas about male access to our bodies. As long as we shrug off men accessing our bodies without our enthusiastic consent, we make it easier for worse things to happen.

(I’m not addressing anyone in particular on this thread - just preaching to a general audience! “We” means all women.)

editing to add when I say we make it easier for worse things to happen, that isn’t meant to be victim blaming. I just mean we help perpetuate an environment where men think they have more access than they should and they shouldn’t have to face consequences.

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by livetoread

[Amy in NH]

Assault (also called attempted battery) is a threat or physical act that creates a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact, whereas battery is a physical act that results in that harmful or offensive contact.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault_and_battery

[LucyStoner]

7 minutes ago, Amy in NH said:

Assault (also called attempted battery) is a threat or physical act that creates a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact, whereas battery is a physical act that results in that harmful or offensive contact.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault_and_battery

 

While I understand that legally speaking, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone use the term battery outside of a legal charge or proceeding to describe a sexual crime they have experienced.  

[Murphy101]

2 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Several times it was mentioned in the other thread that grinding on someone without consent, grabbing them, etc was just how boys were in high school and not something worth getting upset about. 

 

Then those boys and their parents need to except that my daughter kicking them in the nuts hard enough to make the guy gag is just going to be part of how girls have to be and their little boy can get the hell over it. DBAD and keep your hands to yourself is something most kindergartners have no problem with so the boys will be boys bullshirt doesn’t fly with me.

Seriously I’m so done with that nonsense. They make a hostile environment, they can quit their moaning and whining about women acting violently about it. I swear that’s the real issue. Some men are terrified they will have to live with the consequences of their actions and we all know that’s supposed to be women’s work. 

[LucyStoner]

27 minutes ago, livetoread said:

Here’s a situation that happened to me the summer after high school graduation. I was dating a guy who was going into his Senior year of college. I was his first girlfriend and he had never kissed anyone before. I was the more experienced, lol. We had not had any physical contact except holding hands up until this incident.

We were sleeping in sleeping bags out on a beach, and I woke up to him fondling my breasts. He didn’t know I was awake, and I ended up just pretending to turn over. He stealthily withdrew his hand, and that was that. We finally kissed a few days later, though never did anything else, and we broke up at the end of the summer when he met his later wife. He is now a professor at a university, happily married for decades. I doubt he acted inappropriately with anyone else. He was very naive and very embarrassed about his naïveté and was seriously lacking in “skills”.

I had no sense of violation at the time. I wanted him to do more with me physically, lol. Now, looking back, I do feel a sense of violation. It was not right of him to touch me without my consent, even if I would have given the consent. He didn’t know that, hence the sneakiness. Not to mention, why do so many men just think they have the right to touch our bodies? I can honestly say it never crossed my mind to reach out a grab a guy’s junk while he was sleeping if we hadn’t already been at that point while awake many times and I knew he’d be fine with it. I just don’t feel entitled to access to their bodies. 

Did he asault me? Yep. I would never do anything to him, but the situation was not okay. I didn’t know enough to be upset that a man was doing this to me, and he didn’t know enough to understand why what he was doing was a profound wrong. We were both badly served by the times we grew up in. I was harmed, but I didn’t even have enough sense of bodily autonomy to know I was harmed. The damage done wasn’t apparent at the time, but the concept that men have access to my body was reinforced in a damaging way even though I didn’t recognize it. 

We may think we weren’t really affected by some of these more minor violations, but we were. That doesn’t mean we need to file police reports now or do anything, but I don’t think we should deny that they reinforced unhealthy ideas about male access to our bodies. As long as we shrug off men accessing our bodies without our enthusiastic consent, we make it easier for worse things to happen.

(I’m not addressing anyone in particular on this thread - just preaching to a general audience! “We” means all women.)

editing to add when I say we make it easier for worse things to happen, that isn’t meant to be victim blaming. I just mean we help perpetuate an environment where men think they have more access than they should and they shouldn’t have to face consequences.

 

Do you think that he would be aware of what he did or able to see that what he did was non-consenual?  I would respect a man more for accepting what he did was wrong than doubling down and insisting he’s innocent of any and all wrong doing.  Too many men, on having this pointed out to them would say that sleeping with him meant it was consensual or they would lie and say “I never did that”.  

[Murphy101]

One problem is the onus always seems to be in the women to make her discomfort clear and that’s unrealistic for a couple reasons that our society refuses to accept. While I would damn near stand up and applaud my daughter for kicking a guy in the nuts for touching her - the reality is my daughter is far more likely to be like me. Dumbfounded into inaction and or confused and too brain fried to respond in the moment.  Flight or fight is strong and usually flight wins if it’s an option.  Any guy not a complete dumbass jerk would know she wasn’t into him, but guys who are complete dumbass or jerks are not known for taking subtle or polite hints. To girls who are self conscious and tend to want to be kind first - being polite is our default knee jerk response. And daaaamn. It is HARD to fight social conditioning in the moment.  I had an minor verbal incident just last week that I posted on FB where I froze and I was so crying furious with myself within moments of leaving the situation. Fat lot of good that did in the moment though. I’m still ticked at myself for not responding the way I would have preferred.

[KathyBC]

1 hour ago, OKBud said:

 

Thinking about this with no board-related context.... Over the past few years I have had an ALARMING number of conversations with men who are keen to advance the idea that the whole concept of sexual assault (of any severity) is a social construction. That is to say, that there is no absolute right or wrong in that area. That women themselves would be fine with what we call rape if they were socialized to think of that kind of encounter as no big deal. They wouldn't even, then, call it rape. 

Like how the males would "give the signal" in Clan of The Cave Bears and the females would immediately drop down on all fours. 

They say that the only reason women get upset by sexual assault is because we live in a society that tells them it is wrong. 

 

These half-baked ideas are being touched on in increasingly legitimate circles (not just angry fringe MRA groups). It goes without saying that this POV does not center women, or even consult them en masse. Nor does it use any critical thinking of the sort that we talk about when we talk about feminist analysis. Or even psychological analysis. Though these people often use the language of psychology to advance their points. 

I am so afraid of the men that say these things. And the men who think they make some good points. 

Where on earth or with whom are you having these conversations??? I really want to know, that is not rhetorical.

[Amy in NH]

21 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

One problem is the onus always seems to be in the women to make her discomfort clear and that’s unrealistic for a couple reasons that our society refuses to accept. While I would damn near stand up and applaud my daughter for kicking a guy in the nuts for touching her - the reality is my daughter is far more likely to be like me. Dumbfounded into inaction and or confused and too brain fried to respond in the moment.  Flight or fight is strong and usually flight wins if it’s an option.  Any guy not a complete dumbass jerk would know she wasn’t into him, but guys who are complete dumbass or jerks are not known for taking subtle or polite hints. To girls who are self conscious and tend to want to be kind first - being polite is our default knee jerk response. And daaaamn. It is HARD to fight social conditioning in the moment.  I had an minor verbal incident just last week that I posted on FB where I froze and I was so crying furious with myself within moments of leaving the situation. Fat lot of good that did in the moment though. I’m still ticked at myself for not responding the way I would have preferred.

 

Fight or flight aren't the only two adrenal responses to a perceived danger. 

It is often called:

fight, flight, freeze, or fawn

OR

fight, flight, freeze, or appease

I think a lot of us have the freeze or appease response, which sets us up for accusations of consent because we didn't fight or flee.

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

Just FTR, and just putting this out there - I’m pretty sure I am one poster that may have been interpreted as saying sexual assault is no big deal. Hopefully I have adequately cleared that up in this thread. I don’t harbor any ill will towards Amira or ktgrok if I am the poster alluded to. 

I was thinking of your post and I don’t think you are dismissing sexual salt in general, just that what happened she wasn’t dramatic to you. I also didn’t want to copy and paste like someone ask me to do because I respect you greatly and didn’t wanna call you out. Still friends, right?Oh and your clarification did help. That you were talking about then versus now. Not that you still think it is normal now. I still don’t agree, but I totally get what you’re saying now.

[livetoread]

35 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

 

Do you think that he would be aware of what he did or able to see that what he did was non-consenual?  I would respect a man more for accepting what he did was wrong than doubling down and insisting he’s innocent of any and all wrong doing.  Too many men, on having this pointed out to them would say that sleeping with him meant it was consensual or they would lie and say “I never did that”.  

He was a kind person when I knew him. If I had to guess, I would think he now knows it.

We were both part of a conservative Christian denomination at the time. He has stayed; I left. That culture told us both that what he did was wrong, not because of it violating my autonomy but because any petting before marriage was wrong. We have some overlapping friends, so I hear about him from time to time, and there is nothing that makes me think he is not the overall kind guy who did something wrong once. What he thinks about it now probably depends more on what experiences he has had outside of that culture though, versus the kind of person he is (if that makes sense).

Then again, I’m not someone who thinks I ever know someone well enough to say, “Oh, he or she would never do x.” I can say that about my dh and a few family members, but nothing anyone else might do would surprise me. Call me cynical, lol. If I heard he had spent years feeling up his female students, I’d nod.

[unsinkable]

2 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

I was thinking of your post and I don’t think you are dismissing sexual salt in general, just that what happened she wasn’t dramatic to you. I also didn’t want to copy and paste like someone ask me to do because I respect you greatly and didn’t wanna call you out. Still friends, right?Oh and your clarification did help. That you were talking about then versus now. Not that you still think it is normal now. I still don’t agree, but I totally get what you’re saying now.

That "someone" was me. And the purpose wasn't to "call <anyone> out." I also said quote the posts, not the posters.

It was so everyone was reading the same thing, not relying on generalities.

 

[unsinkable]

In a few weeks, some posters will say that people on this board blame sexual assault on Satan. 

[Lady Florida.]

3 hours ago, HeighHo said:

 

When is it not a problem? young child, impulsive...kinder kissing classmate type of thing.

When our 6yo grandson was in preschool (4yo) he got in trouble for hugging and kissing some of the girls. Dss and ddil asked why he did it and he said, "Because I love them and want them to be my friend". They were mortified but immediately talked to him about appropriate ways to show you want to be someone's friend. A lot of people have the reaction that it's so cute, but really teaching appropriateness starts early. 

BTW, he's in first grade now, his best friend is a girl, and he hasn't had that issue anymore. 

[MeghanL]

1 hour ago, LucyStoner said:

 

IHaving men yell lewd things at me is simply not the same think as being raped.  The former could be terrifying and traumatic but it’s not one and the same thing as the latter.  The impact on me is different and the legal consequences (if any) are and should be very different.  

I'd like to address this point because I do think that street/work harassment does in deed "train" women to NOT speak up. So, 1000 small sexual affronts and objectifications become the price of living in the world. So, when that line is crossed (often without witnesses) it makes it harder to say something at that point.

I agree 100% that  verbal sexual harassment and physical sexual assault aren't the same thing, so I'm not trying to argue that. Just that the daily/weekly/monthly smaller violations reinforce that 1) no one will ever care if you do speak up and 2) this is just the way the world is.

Edited October 9, 2018 by MeghanL
I edited for clarification and left out the word "and" making my sentence not make any sense at all.

[J-rap]

2 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

In our culture there is a strange tendency to minimize the sexual assault of children by calling it molestation or abuse rather than rape.  We also also have tendency to minimize rapes that are faciliated by coercion rather than blatantly physical force even though both are very much violations of someone’s bodily autonomy and freedom.  So called “forcible rape” has become a dog whistle term for parsing between survivors and that’s problematic for me.  I find it very distasteful.  

I also would point out that not feeling traumatized by a rape or sexual assault doesn’t make someone strong and feeling traumatized doesn’t make someone weak. Not feeling traumatized may just mean someone is compartmentalizing or rationalizing what happened.  Or that someone has been deeply traumatized in other ways.  In my situation I vacillated between attempting to convince myself that what had happened had not happened (despite knowing full well it had) and denying that it impacted me to the degree that it did.  I tried to frame myself as not a victim.  

Before I had the chance to confront my rapist, he did the world a favor and died.  I know he must have continued after me and I feel profound anger that we live in a world where it is just not safe or feasible for girls to always report their abuse.  It is really common for survivors to not be believed by their own families.  My immediate family believed me but part of my extended family did not.  This provided me a handy dandy cheat sheet of who in the family wasn’t safe to be around.  I’ve saved myself a lot of grief cutting off people who defended him.  I’ve probably also substantially reduced my sons’ chances of being sexually abused or raped as children by cutting off the people who would either do that or defend anyone who would.  One of the ways cycles of sexual violence in families are perpetuated is when people try move past it like nothing ever happened.  

 

  

My interpretation of that is that the different words -- molestation and sexual abuse -- imply that it is, if anything, even more horrific, not less.  I think it often implies an ongoing event as well, not a one-time event.  Maybe in different parts of the country this has different interpretations. 

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, unsinkable said:

In a few weeks, some posters will say that people on this board blame sexual assault on Satan. 

No, only the Duggars do that. ?

[SKL]

3 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Several times it was mentioned in the other thread that grinding on someone without consent, grabbing them, etc was just how boys were in high school and not something worth getting upset about. 

Actually, it was stated that non-consensual touching by a minor on a minor one time should be dealt with ASAP and not brought up decades later.

[Liz CA]

3 hours ago, Katy said:

I think this is the central question to the Kavanaugh issue. I honestly believe that every Republican on the judiciary committee believed Dr Ford, if none of the other allegations, and no matter what they openly said. But if you look at it through his lens rather than hers, it was groping, not rape or attempted rape, and who gets out of high school without getting groped at least once? Especially 35 years ago.  I doubt Kavanaugh would even remember it, it wasn't important to him and it wasn't a big deal. To her though, who was sure she was going to get raped and possibly killed, it was a VERY big deal. I honestly think the people who voted to confirm him didn't think groping a girl 35 years ago was grounds to keep him out of the court. What was acceptable then has obviously changed, but I suspect the entitled behavior that would lead someone to grope a woman then is a character defect that will remain.

I'm under the impression that in some states sexual assault = rape or something akin to rape, but in other states assault = something much less, rape is a more serious charge.

 

Years ago, I was wondering about this distinction as well.

CA law:

• Rape is any form of unwanted penetration including anal, vaginal or oral.
• Sexual assault is any form of unwanted sexual contact. This can refer to molestation and fondling, but also includes rape.

 

California, as a state, prohibits any unwanted touching of another person’s intimate parts with their sexual assault laws. These “intimate parts” cold be the victim’s sexual organ, anus, groin, buttocks of any person, and the breasts of a female. When the sexual assault further includes nonconsensual intercourse, it is charged as rape. Rape, therefore, is an aggravated crime of sexual assault where sexual intercourse has occurred without consent through the use of force, violence, threats or deceit.

Edited October 9, 2018 by Liz CA

[J-rap]

4 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Several times it was mentioned in the other thread that grinding on someone without consent, grabbing them, etc was just how boys were in high school and not something worth getting upset about. 

 

I didn't participate in the other threads because I was scared away by all the hate toward each other.  Also, because I actually believe that we agree on far more than we realize.

But, what you say is absolutely true.  That is what I, myself, thought in high school.  That was in the 70's.  We just grew up thinking that (some) boys were like that.  You went to parties, you drank a little, and some boys became "a little forward."  No one actually thought it was outright wrong.   It just was the way it was, and even seemed quite normal.

I imagine this was the scenario that Kavanaugh and Ford grew up in.  It is easily a scenario that someone like BK could have completely dismissed and forgotten.  

We've come a long way since then.  It's really a completely different time.  Now we understand that it was very wrong.  Boys are taught differently now.  Wow, sometimes I wish I could do high school again today.  I'd have such a different attitude.  As shocking as it seems, we truly just didn't know.

Edited October 9, 2018 by J-rap

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Amy in NH said:

 

Fight or flight aren't the only two adrenal responses to a perceived danger. 

It is often called:

fight, flight, freeze, or fawn

OR

fight, flight, freeze, or appease

I think a lot of us have the freeze or appease response, which sets us up for accusations of consent because we didn't fight or flee.

I think this is really useful and something we should talk to our daughters about.

[goldberry]

2 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

I also would point out that not feeling traumatized by a rape or sexual assault doesn’t make someone strong and feeling traumatized doesn’t make someone weak. Not feeling traumatized may just mean someone is compartmentalizing or rationalizing what happened.  Or that someone has been deeply traumatized in other ways.  In my situation I vacillated between attempting to convince myself that what had happened had not happened (despite knowing full well it had) and denying that it impacted me to the degree that it did.  I tried to frame myself as not a victim.  

...

One of the ways cycles of sexual violence in families are perpetuated is when people try move past it like nothing ever happened.  

  

 

2 hours ago, livetoread said:

The damage done wasn’t apparent at the time, but the concept that men have access to my body was reinforced in a damaging way even though I didn’t recognize it. 

We may think we weren’t really affected by some of these more minor violations, but we were. That doesn’t mean we need to file police reports now or do anything, but I don’t think we should deny that they reinforced unhealthy ideas about male access to our bodies.

 

1 hour ago, Amy in NH said:

fight, flight, freeze, or appease

I think a lot of us have the freeze or appease response, which sets us up for accusations of consent because we didn't fight or flee.

 

1 hour ago, MeghanL said:

I'd like to address this point because I do think that street/work harassment does in deed "train" women to NOT speak up. So, 1000 small sexual affronts and objectifications become the price of living in the world. So, when that line is crossed (often without witnesses) it makes it harder to say something at that point.

I agree 100% that  verbal sexual harassment and physical sexual assault aren't the same thing, so I'm not trying to argue that. Just that the daily/weekly/monthly smaller violations reinforce that 1) no one will ever care if you do speak up and 2) this is just the way the world is.

 

50 minutes ago, HeighHo said:

They are both domination routines, intended to put a woman in 'her place'...a second class person, to be used at the will of the dominant. 

 

So much wisdom in this thread!  Had to quote these for truth, and so I would remember them all!

[SKL]

State law differs a lot as far as the terminology of sexual misbehavior.

As for then vs. now, I just don't think people thought in terms of "consent" back then (generally). 

Most men both then and now did not engage in predatory behavior - either they were too shy or respectful or it didn't occur to them.  I have always felt generally safe except for a few rare times when someone was giving me "that look" or a couple of times when an impulsive boy reached out and grabbed as if it was funny.  I mean, I don't think men/boys in general feel like women are theirs to touch as they please.  But for some, there is apparently some gray area.

I like "consent" because it kind of makes things black and white.  If it cools things down a bit in a mutual "heat of the moment," I have no problem with that.  I do believe it should be applied equally to both sexes.

Another thing I'll say about "then."  I was growing up during the sexual revolution when the media and other agents of cultural change were really encouraging girls to relax and let loose and be open or however you want to say it.  Movies, music, etc. made it clear that any boy who didn't "try" was an idiot, and even that girls were offended if they didn't try.  The people who tried to convince both boys and girls to wait were considered backward and even misogynist.  So that was a factor, and I would like to think the pendulum is swinging back.

Edited October 9, 2018 by SKL

[LucyStoner]

1 hour ago, MeghanL said:

I'd like to address this point because I do think that street/work harassment does in deed "train" women to NOT speak up. So, 1000 small sexual affronts and objectifications become the price of living in the world. So, when that line is crossed (often without witnesses) it makes it harder to say something at that point.

I agree 100% that  verbal sexual harassment and physical sexual assault aren't the same thing, so I'm not trying to argue that. Just that the daily/weekly/monthly smaller violations reinforce that 1) no one will ever care if you do speak up and 2) this is just the way the world is.

 

I agree that sexual harassment feeds the overall rape culture and enables assaults of all kinds.  Absolutely, no question.  

[LucyStoner]

1 hour ago, J-rap said:

My interpretation of that is that the different words -- molestation and sexual abuse -- imply that it is, if anything, even more horrific, not less.  I think it often implies an ongoing event as well, not a one-time event.  Maybe in different parts of the country this has different interpretations. 

 

I can see your point about abuse, on an ongoing basis especially.  Molestation however, not so much.  

Child molestation and molester sound quite different than child rape and rapist.  Molestation could be anything, yet assaults on women that we would call rape we call child molestation when the victim is a child instead of a grown woman.  

That’s my take on it anyways.  

[Bluegoat]

5 hours ago, Amira said:

Maybe this was already rehashed enough for some in the other thread, but it seems there are some significant differences of opinion on what sexual assault actually is and whether it’s a big deal. The US Department of Justice currently defines sexual assault as “any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by Federal, tribal, or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent.“ Do you agree with that definition?  If you don’t, what definition would be better?  A previous DOJ definition said sexual assault is “any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.”  Does this definition work?  

And when does sexual assault become a problem?  Only if the victim cares, or if they report it, or should it always be considered a problem?  

 

 

I think there is reasonable variation in the way people use the term, so sometimes you have to be willing to clarify what you are talking about or use another person's language.

Generally speaking, I think of it most as a legal definition, I think that is fairly simple and clear.  In line with local laws I tend to think of it as covering a variety of instances, up to and including rape of various kinds.  I think the definitions you quoted both make sense.

I don't think all sexual assault is the same or equal - some can be much more serious or significant than others.  I think this is pretty similar to the way we think about other sorts of crimes.  There are also varying degrees of effect on the victim and culpability by the perpetrator.  Perhaps in some cases criminal charges aren't the best approach - again, I pretty much think the same thing about all kinds of crime including violent crime.

It does become a bit more tricky in some ways to talk about assault in contexts where the law or approach is very different than ours - so in a place or in the past where the legal thinking was quite different, or the way people thought about things like consent.  So - the idea that marriage implied pretty much permanent consent - in the medical period we see people actually tae legal action against spouses for refusing sexual access - I tend to think it doesn't work to talk about that as sexual assault, even if it doesn't meet our understanding of bodily autonomy.    On the other hand in that same historical contexts other incidents might work to discuss it as assault.

I generally think we need to be very careful about calling other kinds of incidents assault.  Things like being nagged into a sexual encounter, or feeling pressured, I think there is a real of impaired consent which is very difficult to navigate but on one end doesn't meet the definition.  By lumping them together I think it makes it difficult to treat assault properly, and it makes people think of it as much less significant.  I especially don't think all touching should be considered either sexual in nature or assault - I think that is a very bad idea.

The question of whether we should care if the victim doesn't is an interesting one.  I think the only real answer is that it depends.  In general if crime is allowed to go on without being dealt with, it isn't good for the culture, and it lends itself to corruption in the law as well.  If it happens a lot that people don't feel assaulted, I suppose it could mean the definition needs rethinking, or somehow there is something important missing.  On the other hand it can be difficult to manage every kind of instance - I think there are things that go on in many marriages that in people who had just met would be considered assault.  Or with the historical question, if consent is seen to apply in a different framework, for example with the agreement to marry, that seems more of an ideological difference, and I can't really see it as incoherent or especially disrespectful in itself.  There is also a subjectivity inherent in the idea of consent, which means there is room for difference of perception in the observing and person involved.