Comments on: “Causing Sexual Contact”?

By: On Appeasement « The Radical Notion

On Appeasement « The Radical Notion — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:08:18 +0000

[...] 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, [...]

By: SunlessNick

SunlessNick — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 23:47:46 +0000

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.

By: Cara

Cara — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 23:03:56 +0000

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.

By: Jack Weber

Jack Weber — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 22:59:04 +0000

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.

By: Jenna

Jenna — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 09:31:57 +0000

“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.

By: Lemur

Lemur — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 08:10:15 +0000

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?

By: brenna

brenna — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 04:42:45 +0000

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.

By: Liz

Liz — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:40:05 +0000

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.

By: SunlessNick

SunlessNick — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:10:30 +0000

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.