Advertisement
“A dream you dream alone is only a dream; a dream you dream together is reality.” — Yoko Ono
Aug
1
“Causing Sexual Contact”?
Filed Under media, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls | Posted by Cara |
I have on numerous occasions, the most recent being during the Day of Blogs, railed against the use of language other than “rape” to describe rape. This includes everything from “have sex” to “take advantage of.” But here’s one that I don’t think I’ve ever seen before (emphasis mine):
A health-care provider accused of causing two patients to have sexual contact with him likely will be scheduled to go to trial sometime early next year.
Alfred Laggner, 55, of 443 Ankeny St., pleaded innocent Monday in Walla Walla County Superior Court to two counts of indecent liberties.
Usually trials are set to begin within 90 days. But the Laggner case probably will be assigned a date in January or February to accommodate his Yakima attorney’s schedule. A specific date wasn’t immediately set.
Laggner is accused of rubbing the pelvic area and buttocks of a 47-year-old female patient May 13. Laggner reportedly apologized in a later phone call.
On June 19, a woman in Umatilla reported to Walla Walla police that during treatment between April 2 and May 22, Laggner stuck his hand down the back of her pants under her underwear after he said he lost a needle and started to look for it.
Now, take a look at the first section bold text and compare it with the second and third pieces of bold text. See a disconnect? Let me give you a hint: to the best of my knowledge “causing [a person] to have sexual contact” is not the legal name for any crime. And if it is, that certainly needs to be changed since “causing [a person] to have sexual contact” does not imply nonconsent. After all, don’t all sexually active people cause their partners to have sexual contact legally and with permission, while their partners do the same right back? I do believe so.
“Causing sexual contact” is not illegal, nor should it be. “Causing sexual contact without consent” should be a crime, and luckily it is and we have a perfectly good phrase for it already: sexual assault. Hmm. Doesn’t that phrase seem significantly less clunky to you? And, you know, correct? It’s almost as though there would be absolutely no good reason whatsoever to avoid using said phrase unless you’re trying to apologize for and cover up the true nature of the crime!
Thanks to Yazikus for the link.
Comments
9 Comments so far
Subscribe to The Curvature
“Men, their rights, and nothing more; women, their rights, and nothing less.” — Susan B. Anthony
Let me give you a hint: to the best of my knowledge “causing [a person] to have sexual contact” is not the legal name for any crime. And if it is, that certainly needs to be changed since “causing [a person] to have sexual contact” does not imply nonconsent.
To my mind it does the opposite – it makes the assaulted party out to be a participant.
That’s terrible on multiple levels: aside from the idiotic protection of the perpetrator through language, which you’ve already ably covered, it’s right up there with the worst uses of the passive voice I’ve encountered… I think. (The more I look at it the less I’m convinced it’s the passive voice per se, and not just linguistic backflips removing agency from the perpetrator and giving it to the patients.)
At any rate, it’s unnecessarily convoluted, and I’m inclined to agree with SunlessNick in that it makes the patients out to be participants. When I read the first half of the phrase, “causing two patients to have sexual contact…”, I expected the rest to be that he forced two patients to have sexual contact with each other while he watched. The phrasing suggests that he directed the patient or patients in actions they took. However, it’s hardly accurate to say that the patient was “having sexual contact” with him when he was the one rubbing her “pelvic area and buttocks.”
[/English-major-related rant]
Anyway, as you said, “A health-care provider accused of sexually assaulting two patients likely will be scheduled to go to trial sometime early next year” is significantly more accurate and less clunky. Fucking-A.
I strongly recommend the most recent episode of The Closer, with the understanding that it was a trigger for me, a victim of non-violent rape.
It’s getting less and less common to see this shit called what it actually is. Why the hell can’t the papers seem to print “rape”, “sexual assault”, or “sexual harrassment” anymore? I know they’ve got all the letters for it in those giant printing presses.
Why the hell can’t we call it what it is? Is anyone feeling a bit Orwellian lately?
“Causing sexual contact without consent” should be a crime, and luckily it is and we have a perfectly good phrase for it already: sexual assault. Hmm. Doesn’t that phrase seem significantly less clunky to you?
Reminds me of that Carlin bit, may he be at peace, talking about the “Shell Shocked” soldiers returning from WWI (or was it WWII) and how the language to describe that situation became muddier and longer and clunkier as the years passed. His point being, of course, that by doing that it made it easier for society to ignore the very real problem and thus, deny them sufficient treatment.
It does seem to imply a lack of consent to me. If I am a willing participant, someone else does not cause me to do anything; I do.
I disagree with you Jack, but even if I agreed, it in no way excuses the convoluted language and still attempts to obscure the nature of the crime by refusing to call it by its proper name.
Why the hell can’t the papers seem to print “rape”, “sexual assault”, or “sexual harrassment” anymore?
Oh they can – so long as they can present it as a false allegation.
[...] Is marital rape (like date rape or statutory rape) not “real” rape? Journalists’ utter inability to utter the word “rape” when it is more than appropriate needs to end, [...]