8 ms·
I've been watching these stories trickle by on HN for a few days now wondering if I should say what I'm about to say. I'm going to put up an opinion that I'm qu
by noonespecial 16y ago
I've been watching these stories trickle by on HN for a few days now wondering if I should say what I'm about to say. I'm going to put up an opinion that I'm quite certain is going to be unpopular. At length, I think the potential karma burn is worth speaking out. If you choose to downvote me, please drop in a reasonable reply as well:
We ought not to call these incidents sexual assault. It sounds too much like hyperbole.
I freely acknowledge that they bear many (most?) of the characteristics of sexual assault, but there are many circumstances in life where we must suffer the same indignities which are not considered assault. A visit to the doctor for example. The situation and the intent of the "perpetrator" seem inexorably tied up in it.(1)
Consider how we talk about air travel already: "I got to the airport and was corralled and herded through metal gates. I was unconstitutionally interrogated by some TSA goon and then sexually assaulted at security, prodded into the cattle car and then held hostage for over an hour on the tarmac. When the flight finally took off, they fleeced us for every penny during the flight for snacks and even pillows! Its highway robbery I tell you."
One of the things in the above list is a disgusting violation of our basics rights, the rest are minor inconveniences by comparison. Could an outside observer tell which one?
I'm afraid that the seriousness will be lost in the other airport security theatrics, that it makes the victims sound like the crazy ones. I'm afraid that the terrorists not only won, but handed us our asses. Mostly I'm afraid of what might happen to my wife.
You see, when she was very young, she was sexually assaulted.(2) I'm genuinely afraid(3) of this befalling her, of what wound it might reopen. I don't want to hear Leno joke about how the TSA fondled his balls, or how maybe they should take us to dinner and a movie first. I just want this shit to stop. I'd rather take my chances on the bomb.
This is the part of a good criticism where the proposed alternative solution is supposed to go. I haven't got one. But the line of people, some who are genuinely hurt (like the author) and the many who say it with a half-smirk all calling it "sexual assault" isn't really working for me. I don't know what we should call whats going on but wrong.
(1) And to be perfectly fair, the willing consent of the "victim".
(2) The fact that I'm inclined to put "the real kind" right here is part of the problem I'm having with this whole thing. I don't want to be insensitive to the victims, but I just can't quite make it cohere.
(3) Not the "I'm afraid for the direction our country is taking" afraid, the kind where my chest hurts and I can't breathe right afraid.
Edit: I'm going to go ahead and drop this in while I've still got the edit. It seems I set up a bit of a lightning rod with the "doctor" analogy. I was not trying to argue that a TSA patdown == exam at the doctor. I was grasping for the most benign example I could think of where similar actions could take place, in order to establish the idea of a specturm (based on the intents of the actors, and the consent of the acted upon, together with circumstances) with sexual assault at one end and acceptable behavior on the other. I'm sorry if this was unclear and detracted from the argument.
- biot 16y ago> there are many circumstances in life where we must suffer the same indignities > which are not considered assault. A visit to the doctor for example. If you are required to get groped by the receptionist before you are allowed to see your doctor, you might have a point.
- noonespecial 16y agoYes. Thankyou. That's why I put in footnote 1. One of the biggest problems with this is we seem to have a spectrum of consent from the "I'll make them grope my sack before going like a sheep into the nudie-pic-machine" to the author of this article who had no foreknowledge or choice in the matter. The consent factor is very important here.
- credo 16y ago>>but there are many circumstances in life where we must suffer the same indignities which are not considered assault. A visit to the doctor for example. This analogy makes very little sense. The doctor cannot stop me from visiting a different doctor (who may not insist on the same tests) and the doctor cannot compel me to cancel a trip across the Atlantic if I refuse to submit to the tests. The government can. The doctor has to convince the patient that the test is necessary. The TSA agent can ignore any evidence of the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of patdowns and doesn't need to obtain your consent.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- corin_ 16y ago"The doctor cannot compel me to cancel a trip across the Atlantic if I refuse to submit to the tests" I'd suggest that failing to discover a fatal disease would be slightly worse than failing to travel somewhere. What you mean to say is that it's OK for a doctor to do it because in that case the recipient believes he is doing it for a good reason. If everyone going through an airport fully believed that these checks are an efficient way to ensure our safety in the air, far less people would have a problem.