4 ms·

Does a visit to the gynecologist count as sexual assault. Of course not, but why? Because, implicitly or explicitly, the patient has consented to being examined

by mfukar 16y ago

Does a visit to the gynecologist count as sexual assault. Of course not, but why? Because, implicitly or explicitly, the patient has consented to being examined. Do you have a particular difficulty with grasping 'consent' in the context the author narrates? edit to clarify: Of course, as far as the law is concerned, there are other factors that constitute "sexual assault" as an offense, but those can't be accurately and definitively established without the proper procedure. And even if what's going on here doesn't hold in a court of law, I think it's safe to say we all understand that we're implicitly trusting the author's words on the subject, when establishing whether consent was in fact not provided.

electromagnetic 16y ago
> Does a visit to the gynecologist count as sexual assault. Of course not, but why? Because, implicitly or explicitly, the patient has consented to being examined. In accordance with a medically necessitated test. If a gynecologist is sticking a finger in a womans vagina, whether s/he has implicit or explicit consent is sexual assault if performed under misinformation. If a doctor gropes my testicles or sticks a finger up my ass without medical justification for doing so, it is sexual asault. Given that the 'pat down' is the least effective screening procedure in an airport, it has very little reason to be performed for the reasons given. The real reason the pat downs are performed is to find drugs concealed on the body. Why is a pat down used, when a dog can more easily be used with less harassment of passengers and more verifiability in courts. Bloodhound evidence is permissible in all courts (IIRC) generally without any question because of the safe guards. The bloodhound will detect if you have an illicit substance on you, even if it is in an unverifiable quantity by an officer. If you aren't actually carrying, you won't be arrested as you're not prosecutable. So why isn't this used? Mostly because a bloodhound isn't intimidating to people who know they won't be busted. Airline security is designed to add pressure, to make people feel nervous because people with a reason to be nervous simply walking past an officer will be panicking. This allows them to catch all the one-time mules who are doing it out of desperation, it may also work on amateur (AKA idiot) terrorists. However, as we can see the 9/11 terrorists all managed to board a plane without panicking or looking suspicious, because they are all believed to have received paramilitary or military training. These trainings inevitably involve keeping calm under duress. Normally military training involves mock interrogations to train the soldier to withstand questioning and thus keep them calm about the risk of being questioned.
- ericb 16y ago
  We're hackers here. Are we convinced someone dedicated could not hide something as deadly as a box cutter in a body cavity? So without the cavity search, this is just security theater.
  - mfukar 16y ago
    Here's another possibility for consideration: trained individuals can use physical force equally, if not more, effectively for submission or harm. Do they really need a box cutter or a bomb in order to crash a plane wherever they please?
    - electromagnetic 16y ago
      No, they really don't. However, I think terrorists use weapons to try to command fear. People are afraid of knives, guns and especially bombs. Two people are almost guaranteed to take down one man with a knife, because at worst one of the two will be stabbed if you rush the guy. At best the knife is handled and the two people tackle the guy. Furthermore a box cutter isn't very dangerous. I use one daily at work, the blades are very weak (especially the x-acto style) and cannot be used fully extended or any sideways pressure would snap it (IE grab for the blade and twist your hand, or just try side swiping the blade and it would likely brake to no more than a 1/2" of protruding blade). Rigid blade box cutters (IE Stanley Knife) rarely protrude beyond 1" to 1.5". This still likely sounds very scary to 90% of people, you're still being cut by a knife. However, you're being cut by a knife that's as thin as a scalpel - IE any first aid kit can easily fix a soft-tissue injury if you got stabbed in the torso. For these blades to slash properly, you'd likely get less than a 1/4-1/2" of actual penetration. It would hurt in the aftermath but wouldn't likely cause enough harm to stop you as an initial attack. The best way to handle a person with a box cutter would likely to be a full-on body-check. If he's in the aisle, he either confronts or runs as there's not enough room for him to dodge you. If he runs, you carry on with the plan and tackle him to the ground. If he confronts you, make sure you jump for the impact. If he stabs you, you'll both still be going to the ground. When there's a bomb on the plane, you've got nothing to lose by not trying. If someone's got a gun, again, it's simply tackle them. However, a dead-rush won't likely help unless you have kevlar handy so would require a bit more finesse. However, as a group effort taking down a gunman is the best thing to do.

by mfukar 16y ago

electromagnetic 16y ago

> Does a visit to the gynecologist count as sexual assault. Of course not, but why? Because, implicitly or explicitly, the patient has consented to being examined. In accordance with a medically necessitated test. If a gynecologist is sticking a finger in a womans vagina, whether s/he has implicit or explicit consent is sexual assault if performed under misinformation. If a doctor gropes my testicles or sticks a finger up my ass without medical justification for doing so, it is sexual asault. Given that the 'pat down' is the least effective screening procedure in an airport, it has very little reason to be performed for the reasons given. The real reason the pat downs are performed is to find drugs concealed on the body. Why is a pat down used, when a dog can more easily be used with less harassment of passengers and more verifiability in courts. Bloodhound evidence is permissible in all courts (IIRC) generally without any question because of the safe guards. The bloodhound will detect if you have an illicit substance on you, even if it is in an unverifiable quantity by an officer. If you aren't actually carrying, you won't be arrested as you're not prosecutable. So why isn't this used? Mostly because a bloodhound isn't intimidating to people who know they won't be busted. Airline security is designed to add pressure, to make people feel nervous because people with a reason to be nervous simply walking past an officer will be panicking. This allows them to catch all the one-time mules who are doing it out of desperation, it may also work on amateur (AKA idiot) terrorists. However, as we can see the 9/11 terrorists all managed to board a plane without panicking or looking suspicious, because they are all believed to have received paramilitary or military training. These trainings inevitably involve keeping calm under duress. Normally military training involves mock interrogations to train the soldier to withstand questioning and thus keep them calm about the risk of being questioned.

ericb 16y ago
We're hackers here. Are we convinced someone dedicated could not hide something as deadly as a box cutter in a body cavity? So without the cavity search, this is just security theater.
- mfukar 16y ago
  Here's another possibility for consideration: trained individuals can use physical force equally, if not more, effectively for submission or harm. Do they really need a box cutter or a bomb in order to crash a plane wherever they please?
  - electromagnetic 16y ago
    No, they really don't. However, I think terrorists use weapons to try to command fear. People are afraid of knives, guns and especially bombs. Two people are almost guaranteed to take down one man with a knife, because at worst one of the two will be stabbed if you rush the guy. At best the knife is handled and the two people tackle the guy. Furthermore a box cutter isn't very dangerous. I use one daily at work, the blades are very weak (especially the x-acto style) and cannot be used fully extended or any sideways pressure would snap it (IE grab for the blade and twist your hand, or just try side swiping the blade and it would likely brake to no more than a 1/2" of protruding blade). Rigid blade box cutters (IE Stanley Knife) rarely protrude beyond 1" to 1.5". This still likely sounds very scary to 90% of people, you're still being cut by a knife. However, you're being cut by a knife that's as thin as a scalpel - IE any first aid kit can easily fix a soft-tissue injury if you got stabbed in the torso. For these blades to slash properly, you'd likely get less than a 1/4-1/2" of actual penetration. It would hurt in the aftermath but wouldn't likely cause enough harm to stop you as an initial attack. The best way to handle a person with a box cutter would likely to be a full-on body-check. If he's in the aisle, he either confronts or runs as there's not enough room for him to dodge you. If he runs, you carry on with the plan and tackle him to the ground. If he confronts you, make sure you jump for the impact. If he stabs you, you'll both still be going to the ground. When there's a bomb on the plane, you've got nothing to lose by not trying. If someone's got a gun, again, it's simply tackle them. However, a dead-rush won't likely help unless you have kevlar handy so would require a bit more finesse. However, as a group effort taking down a gunman is the best thing to do.