"Unwanted touching is not sexual assault" Okay, then tell me what is
- Prisha
- Oct 14, 2021
- 3 min read
Today, a very troublesome article reached me. The headline was: "Unwanted touching is not sexual assault." The author also proceeded to state that "...As well as traditional definitions of rape, it includes “forced touching of a sexual nature.” Of course, this kind of behavior is unwanted and unpleasant, but defining it as sexual assault confuses the issue." Other than my desire to throw a shoe at this woman's head, I have a desire to understand what she believes sexual assault to be, if not that. However, she does not discuss this. Let's talk about the word "sexual assault." Sexual -- relating to sex, easy enough. Assault -- "intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact." The keyword here is offensive contact. The whole definition of sexual assault basically boils down to "you are sexually touching me in a way I do not like." That's it. So actually, yes, an unwanted touch of the sexual variety is absolutely sexual assault. That's all there is to it.
Another thing about this article that struck me very problematically in this article was when the author said
"In most of the cases described by the reporters, women are assaulted while under the influence of alcohol. They wake up not knowing whether they were raped or not. That’s probably why well over half the students polled thought that alcohol and drug abuse were problems."
I'm not sure if it's clear to everyone what's happening here, but it's very clear to me. Instead of addressing the real issue at hand, which is so clearly overwhelming amounts of sexual assault, she diverges. She proceeds to shift the focus on how much they were drinking. "Oh, look at that, it's clearly her fault for drinking too much." I think it should be pretty clear that this article is full of fallacious arguments that have simply gotten too old.
To add onto this, the author also states that "...to a typical respondent, it is not clear whether the condition of “unable to consent” applies to “drunk, high, drugged,” or if “unable to consent” is a separate condition. "
By now, I'm debating whether this person really means harm or she just isn't sharp-minded. When someone is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, they are not capable of consenting to anything fully due to varied brain activity, and therefore "unable to consent" is equivalent to "drunk, high, or drugged." Because if it wasn't, date raping wouldn't be illegal, because the victim is drugged when they get assaulted.
The last thing that struck me in the article was "Far fewer but still all too many women actually are raped each year... Their trauma and suffering are trivialized by reporting that conflates unwanted touching with rape." Let's make something clear. Whether you've been groped or have been forced into having sex, they both fall into the broader category of sexual assault. It is not to trivialize trauma, but to show a bigger problem and trend. What truly trivializes trauma is saying that far fewer women are made victims. Because they aren't victims; they're made that way when they're assaulted. This is part of a bigger problem. To twist the definition of the whole problem is part of the problem. Rather than recognize the dangers women face, this article tries to mold them so they seem insignificant.
If you choose to read the article, you might be impressed and surprised. Because the author uses real statistics and sources. However, instead of using them to aid her argument, she makes her writing try to disprove these statistics. There's nothing wrong with questioning things, but it is completely wrong to try to devalue someone's experience. She's invalidating so many women who experience micro-aggressions every day and even those who experience something just short of rape; she's invalidating those who experience veiled rape, too. That's what's wrong with this article. I think it also shows us that we need to be careful; just seeing statistics does not necessarily make something true.
Things like this are a huge step back, as they threaten to destroy what so many activists have worked so hard to build. And at its most basic level, it all boils down to a lack of empathy and understanding that someone else is human, too. So today I would not only ask you not only to use your voice and educate yourself, but also try to express empathy towards others as well.
Link to the article:
Comments