4 ms·

I completely agree that while she may feel violated, this is not sexual assault, and to say it is detracts from any argument about the rationality behind this n

by aneth 16y ago

I completely agree that while she may feel violated, this is not sexual assault, and to say it is detracts from any argument about the rationality behind this new policy. Sexual assault requires a sexual motive and a sexual act, neither of which occurred here. The intent and action were both to search. A doctor touching the same place in the same way would not be considered sexual assault because there is no sexual intent. The issues of notice and consent raised elsewhere are separate. If a doctor does not warn you that you will be touched, it is unprofessional, but not sexual assault. If you are committed to a prison and have no choice but to be put through a medical checkup involving touching private areas, it is non-consensual, but not sexual assault. The hyperbole in the debate around this policy threatens any rational debate and conclusion.

stretchwithme 16y ago
yeah, because it doesn't matter what the victim of an assault thinks, just whats going on in the mind of the assailant.
- noonespecial 16y ago
  Careful, it doesn't rest solely upon the perception of the victim either. Based on what my OP has already stirred up, it looks like there's a point of friction where circumstance, intent of assailant and perception of victim interesct. Lively debate will no doubt ensue because when it come to this TSA patdown thing, these variables are all over the map.
- aneth 16y ago
  Saying it's not sexual assault doesn't mean the person's feelings aren't real, or that they weren't victimized, or didn't feel violated. It simply means you can not accuse the person performing the search of sexual assault. Accusing the TSA agent, who was doing their job of searching a passenger with (I'm hoping) no sexual intent, of sexual assault creates a second victim, and is extremely irresponsible and unethical. For the most part, yes, it doesn't matter what the victim thinks when deciding whether to accuse someone of sexual assault. If I throw a wild pitch and hit you in the head, it's different than throwing an accurate pitch at your head, even if you can't tell the difference. Both are bad - but one is assault. Intent matters.
  - stretchwithme 16y ago
    the people violating our fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches are willingly creating the first victim, so I'm not too concerned they'll be mislabeled, especially when they refuse to stop after being informed of the impacts of their behavior.
- roel_v 16y ago
  No, not just in the mind of the assailant, but feeling like you've been been assaulted doesn't make it assault, either. There is a lot of case law refining the status of the relationship between the intents of the attacker and the perception of the event of the victim. (I'm not familiar with specific US examples on this, maybe someone else can fill me in here...)
- aneth 16y ago
  If it did matter what the victim thought, any patient could accuse their doctor of sexual assault because they had a bad day and felt victimized by their check-up.
  - epo 16y ago
    If they are going for a checkup and that kind of inspection is unexpected, uncharacteristic and unreasonable - like perhaps at an eyetest - then the complaint would be valid, otherwise it would be dismissed as asinine.
- wisty 16y ago
  Well, the "victim" of an overzealous security search probably thinks it's outrageous that they need to have their crotch fondled by security just to hop on a plane. That's no real problem. It's possible that they think the official is enjoying themselves. That's a real problem, maybe. And maybe the official is enjoying themselves, which is definitely a real problem. It's a thorny issue.
acabal 16y ago
At the risk of sounding cynical or aloof, I think the times when rational debate shaped the political climate and real-world policies of this country have long gone. It might be time for intelligent people to take a cue from Fox News and (dare I say?) start manipulating emotion to get what needs to be done, done.
burgerbrain 16y ago
>this is not sexual assault And tomorrow I bet we're going to start hearing claims that "she was asking for it anyway".

by aneth 16y ago

stretchwithme 16y ago

yeah, because it doesn't matter what the victim of an assault thinks, just whats going on in the mind of the assailant.

noonespecial 16y ago
Careful, it doesn't rest solely upon the perception of the victim either. Based on what my OP has already stirred up, it looks like there's a point of friction where circumstance, intent of assailant and perception of victim interesct. Lively debate will no doubt ensue because when it come to this TSA patdown thing, these variables are all over the map.
aneth 16y ago
Saying it's not sexual assault doesn't mean the person's feelings aren't real, or that they weren't victimized, or didn't feel violated. It simply means you can not accuse the person performing the search of sexual assault. Accusing the TSA agent, who was doing their job of searching a passenger with (I'm hoping) no sexual intent, of sexual assault creates a second victim, and is extremely irresponsible and unethical. For the most part, yes, it doesn't matter what the victim thinks when deciding whether to accuse someone of sexual assault. If I throw a wild pitch and hit you in the head, it's different than throwing an accurate pitch at your head, even if you can't tell the difference. Both are bad - but one is assault. Intent matters.
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  the people violating our fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches are willingly creating the first victim, so I'm not too concerned they'll be mislabeled, especially when they refuse to stop after being informed of the impacts of their behavior.
roel_v 16y ago
No, not just in the mind of the assailant, but feeling like you've been been assaulted doesn't make it assault, either. There is a lot of case law refining the status of the relationship between the intents of the attacker and the perception of the event of the victim. (I'm not familiar with specific US examples on this, maybe someone else can fill me in here...)
aneth 16y ago
If it did matter what the victim thought, any patient could accuse their doctor of sexual assault because they had a bad day and felt victimized by their check-up.
- epo 16y ago
  If they are going for a checkup and that kind of inspection is unexpected, uncharacteristic and unreasonable - like perhaps at an eyetest - then the complaint would be valid, otherwise it would be dismissed as asinine.
wisty 16y ago
Well, the "victim" of an overzealous security search probably thinks it's outrageous that they need to have their crotch fondled by security just to hop on a plane. That's no real problem. It's possible that they think the official is enjoying themselves. That's a real problem, maybe. And maybe the official is enjoying themselves, which is definitely a real problem. It's a thorny issue.

acabal 16y ago

At the risk of sounding cynical or aloof, I think the times when rational debate shaped the political climate and real-world policies of this country have long gone. It might be time for intelligent people to take a cue from Fox News and (dare I say?) start manipulating emotion to get what needs to be done, done.

burgerbrain 16y ago

>this is not sexual assault And tomorrow I bet we're going to start hearing claims that "she was asking for it anyway".