So I have noticed that in the last few years that news media stopped reporting that a woman was "raped." Instead, you frequently hear that a woman was "sexually assaulted." I don't understand what that means, do you?
Merriam-Webster defines "assault" as :a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact.
Legally, "assault" means an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.
So if I string all that together I take "sexual assault" may mean threatening or attempting to inflict harm in sexual manner. It doesn't seem to me that "sexual assault" means someone inflicted harm by committing unconsensual sex.
However, when you listen to the news media, the context makes it pretty clear that they use "sexual assault" synonymously with "rape." It seems like the news media decided the word "rape" carries harsher tone so they decided not to say that anymore. Which is cowardly and unjust to rape victims. Rape is a violent and, in my humble opinion, an unforgivable crime. Why soften that up for criminals who commit rape? Why belittle what happened to rape victims by softening up by using words which do NOT literally translate to rape?
I say, if someone actually commits rape, call it as it is -- it's rape. If someone "intends to do harm by creating fear of committing harm by using sex," then call it "sexual assault." And describe how that person did that to fully and accurately report how the person created the apprehension. Did the person say he was going to commit rape? Did the person bind and gag a victim, stripped himself so it appeared he would rape but did not actually commit rape? Don't let criminals off easy by erasing the word "rape" from our news vocabulary.
2 comments:
Just come across this when I was googling, and had to comment.
A few weeks ago, on UK news, there was a report about a young teenager raping a young boy. They did use the word rape.
It was only 6pm news and it struck me that I am sure they would have previously used to word "sexual assault" even though we knew what they used.
Is it okay to use the word "rape" before 9am, especially in this context.
My 11 year old son, who clearly knows what the word rape means, having done sex education in school, but is not yet versed in how male sexual intercourse happens (I think they're still not allowed to "promote" homosexuality in schools, so sexual practice would not be discussed, and he is only eleven, and still a child as he should be) - he asked "how is a possible to rape a boy?"
I remembered hearing many news stories where indeed, they use the word sexual assault. Sometimes it would be preferable for the sake of our children. Or should I not let him watch the news?
(incidentally, this is not against what you are saying about the gravity of the words used - just an observation).
I think it's a shame that children have to learn about any crime. And it's sad that if left to watch the news, kids would inevitably encounter recitation of crimes because that's what our news seem to revolve around.
Perhaps if we, as society, want to protect the innocence of childhood, kids shouldn't watch news.
I think my point was geared toward full reporting of the crime as is... no matter how harsh and the audience. Because crime, any crime, is awful. We should feel appalled and mortified. If we don't, I would be sad that we as society didn't care as much. Murder hasn't been erased from the news vocabulary. Rape should not either.
Incidentally, for some odd reason, I noticed that I have noticed more news reporting rape as rape since this blog post. I hope that by feeling appalled we also move toward prevention of the crime, justice against the criminal, and feel empathy for the victims...
Post a Comment