Live data from Hacker News

I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

ourlittlechatterboxes.com

51–60 of 138 posts

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#51
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

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

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.

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#52

I am starting to wonder if perhaps there is something wrong with me, for I am not outraged as everyone else seems to be. So long as there's no groping etc going on, I'm inclined to just shrug and say to the agent, "well, you gotta do what you gotta do". I am sorry HN, but I find myself lacking the desire to board this bandwagon.

"So long as there's no groping etc going on"

That is precisely the issue at hand. A woman's libia & vagina were touched in this particular case. In other accounts, various forms of fondling and groping occurred to men, women and children of various ages from 9 years (youngest stories I can recall) to senor citizens.

I have a sister who needs to fly from time to time. I'm outraged at the possibility that she may have to endue this at some point. I am outraged that I may have to submit to letting someone who I don't want near me feeling me up in my private parts.

Today these are happening to a select few. Tomorrow these will become common security practices. It's not an acceptable tactic.

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#53
post #22

I've been watching these stories trickle by on HN for a few days now wondering if I should say what I'm about to say. I'm going to put up an opinion that I'm quite certain is going to be unpopular. At length, I think the potential karma burn is worth speaking out. If you choose to downvote me, please drop in a reasonable reply as well: We ought not to call these incidents sexual assault. It sounds too much like hyper…

>>but there are many circumstances in life where we must suffer the same indignities which are not considered assault. A visit to the doctor for example. This analogy makes very little sense. The doctor cannot stop me from visiting a different doctor (who may not insist on the same tests) and the doctor cannot compel me to cancel a trip across the Atlantic if I refuse to submit to the tests. The government can. The d…

Maybe the following example is better (maybe I'm arguing more 'state of mind' than the point the OP's post was trying to make, I'm not 100% sure).

Let's say a doctor performs an examination of the genitalia on a patient, without medical necessity. Let's say she does it without sexual intent, for example because she is still in training and wants to practice more on genital examinations (this may not make any medical sense, it's just the example) Let's also assume that we know for sure she had no sexual intent (eliminate mundane evidence matters). She convinces the patient the examination is necessary and he agrees to it. Only later he finds out the examination wasn't out of medical necessity. Is this sexual assault?

I'd argue no, and I'm quite sure the law is on my side (although I don't know how to qualify it in common law terms, at first I thought the mens rea was missing but a cursory web search seems to indicate that this is related to the 'consent' part of the assault charge, and not so much the 'sexual intention'. The literature doesn't seem to agree though).

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#54
post #17

Whilst it appears there was a pretty serious of protocol, the author's hysteria verges on trivialising real sexual assault.

Lack of consent - check (Nor even a warning, for that matter.) Touching of genitals by a stranger - check. What else needs to be there so that it constitutes real sexual assault?

Gratification? A sexual motive?

Can the people downvoting me honestly not see the difference between a person performing an act of gratuitous violence on another person to satisfy their own urges and a person doing their job badly?

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#55
In absence of a better term for this, 'Sexual Assault' does convey the emotional experience of being abused in this way.

Yes, it is clearly not about sexuality, but it is a situation where there is a massive imbalance of power. Who is there to verify that your human rights are being upheld?

It is not a situation in which you can complain, even if there was abuse - because you'll miss your flight and look like a terrorist. Then there is the social pressure to conform in front of a large audience of people who you will delay if you do complain. Not to mention the number of uniformed and armed guards present.

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#57

I've been watching these stories trickle by on HN for a few days now wondering if I should say what I'm about to say. I'm going to put up an opinion that I'm quite certain is going to be unpopular. At length, I think the potential karma burn is worth speaking out. If you choose to downvote me, please drop in a reasonable reply as well: We ought not to call these incidents sexual assault. It sounds too much like hyper…

The thing that annoys me the most about this new TSA rebellion is that Americans realized TSA policy is way over only now that people started touching (or even just scanning) their boops and junks.

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#58

I've been watching these stories trickle by on HN for a few days now wondering if I should say what I'm about to say. I'm going to put up an opinion that I'm quite certain is going to be unpopular. At length, I think the potential karma burn is worth speaking out. If you choose to downvote me, please drop in a reasonable reply as well: We ought not to call these incidents sexual assault. It sounds too much like hyper…

We ought not to call these incidents sexual assault. It sounds too much like hyperbole. I fully agree: these people should talk to someone who has actually been sexually assaulted. That would probably knock some sense into them as to the difference between their experience and actual sexual assault. Being thoroughly frisked, in public, in broad light, where nothing bad could possibly happen, is being compared to bein…

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.

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#59
post #53
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>but there are many circumstances in life where we must suffer the same indignities which are not considered assault. A visit to the doctor for example. This analogy makes very little sense. The doctor cannot stop me from visiting a different doctor (who may not insist on the same tests) and the doctor cannot compel me to cancel a trip across the Atlantic if I refuse to submit to the tests. The government can. The d…

Maybe the following example is better (maybe I'm arguing more 'state of mind' than the point the OP's post was trying to make, I'm not 100% sure). Let's say a doctor performs an examination of the genitalia on a patient, without medical necessity. Let's say she does it without sexual intent, for example because she is still in training and wants to practice more on genital examinations (this may not make any medical…

Consent is a large part of the equation with your doctor analogy. If I'm going to the doctor for an issue pertaining to, or in the area of, my genitalia, I'm walking into that examination knowing where it will go.

If I'm having pain in a testicle, I know that the doctor is going to touch my genitalia. If I'm having pain in my throat, however, I can't imagine a circumstance where a doctor could convince me that he or she needs to examine my genitalia. If the doctor forces the issue, or performs the exam without my knowledge or consent (anesthesia, for example), I'm feel like I'd be able to argue that I was sexually assaulted. The reason is that an exam of that type wouldn't be reasonably expected based on my symptoms. If a doctor had reason to perform the exam, then a) I'd most likely be informed, and b) it would no longer meet your "without medical necessity" requirement.

Also, I really doubt many doctors are in medicine to be able to fondle their patients. I know it's a common joke that men go into gynecology to be able to grope women, but the level of commitment required to get through medical school in order to do it is huge compared to the expected non-medical "benefits." I think there was an AMA on reddit a while ago, and I know I've read articles about this before, which said that you sort of get sick of seeing so much vagina. It's like working at a mint, the sort of person who sees the newly minted cash as cash and not "just the product" after their first week is the sort of person that doesn't keep their job long.

The same can't be said of the TSA. I don't know how apocryphal the references are, since I'm not American, but reddit has me believing that TSA screeners have roughly the same qualifications as the average McDonald's employee. You certainly don't need a college degree to get the job. This leaves open the possibility of people taking the job mainly for sexual satisfaction. Again I'm reference apocryphal reddit anecdotes, but there was a post recently about a guy whose whole strategy for getting through security was to stand directly behind the hottest girls in line, because they tended to be "randomly" pulled into the scan-or-grope line.

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#60

Whilst it appears there was a pretty serious of protocol, the author's hysteria verges on trivialising real sexual assault.

Could you please define "real" in this context.

Well, while the legal definition of assault is based on contact in general, I would guess that notahacker is talking about injurious violence, or at least a solid threat of it, as 'real assault'. And probably 'real' in terms of 'sexual' would mean something sexually motivated.

That's the problem with categories; a whole range of behaviors end up with the same name, and now we're wasting time with semantics instead of worrying about the rights violation.

Post reply on HN