gfish | TSA bullshit

TSA bullshit

The explosion of concern about body scanners and pat-downs is leaving me with mixed emotions. I'm against them, of course, because I'm against security theater. They're guarding against a kind of threat (underwear bomb) that didn't work in the first place. We can't guarantee 100% safety of any kind, and we need to face that like adults and have a reasoned cost-benefit discussion. Even if we make air travel compeltely safe from terrorists, they'll just attack someplace else.

I went through one last month. It was a bit weird to think about, but then I shrugged it off. And I once had a fairly intrusive pat-down, which was mostly only embarrassing because it turned out to be the foil wrapper on a forgotten condom which set off the metal detector in the first place. But this isn't the kind of thing I can judge just on my own reactions. The descriptions of what the process feels like to sexual assault victims is what we need to be thinking about here. And the anecdotal evidence that the pat-downs are being used in a punitive way is pretty clear at this point. The idea that we have a governmental agency with a policy of committing minor sexual assaults in order to coerce people into using expensive (profitable for lobbyists!), privacy-intruding devices that serve little practical purpose is obscene. And the video of a little kid being screened... that was pretty horrible.

But the backlash also feels very fake in many ways. The health risks of the scanners are (predictably) being blown up far out of proportion. If you don't like ionizing radiation, you shouldn't be flying in the first place. And despite the very real mental trauma concerns, all the attention is being focused on self-righteous "don't touch my junk" guy. The crypto-homophobic side to all of it is very off-putting. Hardly the first time society has sent the message "sexual assault is pretty bad, we guess, unless it's male-on-male, then it's the worst thing ever omg", but still. Ew.

I'm also very uncomfortable with some of the suggested reactions, like wearing a kilt commando style or faking an orgasm. I don't think turning something that might be sexual assault into definite sexual assault in the other direction is morally defensible. That's all thi is, trying to guarantee that the agent is sexually uncomfortable or humiliated. Ugh. And, again, there is a lot of homophobic undertones here. "Ha, I'll make that guy touch *balls*, what could be worse than that?" I like the idea of mass opting out of the scanners, to just overwhelm them with numbers, but there can't be anything punitive about action taken. In the end, most of the agents are just poor schmucks with crappy jobs dealing with incredibly entitled people all day. Some (probably well above background rates, as with any position of power) are power-hungry jerks, but not all.

More fundamentally, if we're committing ourselves to the path of adding new security procedures against every possible threat, no matter what the cost or side-effects, we need to be very clear about where that leads. There has already been at least one unsuccessful suicide bombing attempt (well, the suicide part worked, anyway) with rectal explosives. The only way to screen for those would be full x-ray screening and cavity searches. I'd ask if we're prepared for that, but I sadly think we kind of are. Ten years ago, no, the idea would have been preposterous and Orwellian. But so would banning liquids, requiring shoes and belts be removed for the screening, strong-arming people into creepy nude pics and federal agents feeling up little kids.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

If you're forthright about the fact that you're going to make your being groped uncomfortable for them, I don't see the problem. They can always opt-out — by the time you're about to be groped, you cannot. You cannot revoke consent and leave without facing threats and intimidations that, according to TSA officials, probably won't amount to anything, but which will be used to try to scare you, which is an unacceptable bullying tactic.

There's no reason to assume that the TSA cares about the comfort of the masses, especially when opinion polls show that people don't give a shit and observing the media suggests that people only care about the bullshit reasons. There may be no moral superiority in making someone uncomfortable in exchange for making you uncomfortable, but it doesn't seem like assault since they can always turn it over to someone who doesn't mind, which is an option that you don't have. Trying to trick them into getting squicked or injured is probably wrong, but we're talking about a situation in which if you are wearing a tight skirt you can be required to go to a room and remove it for them to be groped more directly, and you cannot refuse consent to that at that point. Even if you go along with the scanners in the face of the threats of punishment to the contrary, they can still subject you to a pat-down which you cannot refuse. Responding to coercion by emphasizing uncomfortable elements seems reasonable to me. Why should you make things pleasant for the TSA, to concede to their implicit request that you not make it gross or sexual, when they will not respect your bodily integrity, gender identity, etc.? It seems to me that it takes an enormous amount of privilege to say that making someone uncomfortable who can opt-out is worse than making somebody uncomfortable who cannot, solely on the basis that one person is doing their job and that the other person is trying to exercise their right to free movement without having to sacrifice entirely other rights to bullying, intimidation and a government policy that is disproportionately uncomfortable for gender, sexual and religious power minorities.

Many TSA screeners are union (perhaps all of them are?) and it seems to me that the TSA is more likely to respond to union pressure than to what appears to them to be a small number of whiny people. Making union members uncomfortable with the screening process seems like a legitimate way to exert pressure on the TSA.

(I am speaking from personal experience that TSA screeners can refuse to pat one down and ask somebody else to do it. I don't have any reason to believe that that has changed.)

To put it another way: what's the difference between this form of non-violent protest and gay men kissing in public, nude protests, etc.? Using the discomfort of an oppressive regime that has the power to change whether they are uncomfortable to effect greater freedom for an oppressed group is fairly well-established. At its extremes, there's things like self-immolation. Protest using discomfort is pretty widespread (see also: what PETA and anti-abortion and anti-vivisection campaigners do, although there are perhaps arguments against discomfort caused by violence versus discomfort caused by sexuality, but I'm not sure I really buy them, even as much as I would like to.) And in this case, the TSA screener can choose to not touch you. You cannot choose to not be touched. Which makes it even more passive than any of the public forms of protest I mentioned.

The fact that the TSA agents can opt-out while you can't is a very important point. I was thinking about those tactics as surprises, as that was how they were presented, not in the context of warning the agent.

I agree with a lot of this.

I also disagree violently with some of it...

In the end, most of the agents are just poor schmucks with crappy jobs dealing with incredibly entitled people all day. Some (probably well above background rates, as with any position of power) are power-hungry jerks, but not all.

Every single one of them knew exactly what they were signing up for and every single one of them is equally culpable for the organization's abuses because they have chosen to abdicate their moral responsibility. "Only following orders" has never been an excuse and it isn't going to start being one now. They deserve all the punishment they can get and then some.

And you know what? As fucked up as it is that your average TSA grunt thinks touching another guy's genitalia would be horrible, I'm not going to let that fact keep me from taking advantage of his homophobia (or any other tool at my disposal) as a way to discourage his abusive lifestyle choice. Your rhetoric about turning a possible sexual assault into a definite one holds no water. When you decide to assault someone you sign yourself up for whatever retaliation they choose.

I agree, especially with my distaste for the homophobia built in.

What mostly surprises/amuses/neither-of-those-verbs-are-quite-right-but-oh-well me is that this is where the line gets drawn? For years, I've figured, okay, this is the last straw, this is where people will fight back. And for years I've been wrong.

It just seems like a weird place to finally say "HEY, ENOUGH."

Now that it's, you know, the integrity of men's junk on the line rather than the respect of the bodies of non-cis people or women, it's a real issue.

Exactly.

Edit: Welllll... while I think this really is part of it, a big part, I also think it's a little unfair, because what I think is triggering this is in part the first hints of how dehumanising all this is reaching the bored and disinterested travel majority. It's hitting personal dignity, and even if this is why that's finally being triggered, at least it finally is. I don't think I knew whether that was entirely possible anymore.

The media are already at work dumbing and downplaying it, with various claims that "81% of Americans support full-body scanners" and such. They don't need orders, they're so well trained they've already just swung into it. Unless one power faction or other decides to run with it (entirely possible), it'll all probably die down soon and it'll be forgotten by New Year's.

Edited 2010-11-18 01:50 (UTC)

I've tried to find more information on that CBS poll — do you know if they had breakdowns by whether people had flown +recently? It seems to me rather a lot like the people who cared a lot about whether we had trials for terrorists in New York City who would never set a foot in NYC given the choice. I can imagine those same people, who perhaps would never fly in the first place, being pretty thrilled about the idea of STOPPING ANOTHER NINE-ELEVEN since it's purely symbolic for them.

Edited 2010-11-18 01:54 (UTC)

No clue. Probably. And they probably didn't ask what kind of scanners. It's trivially easy to stack such a poll, as you know.

It was an insanely stupid poll on a number of levels, not the least of which was that the questions were rigged. 81% of Americans agreed that they'd rather be scanned than have an "enhanced" pat-down. Well, duh. Most sane people would rather go through some weird gate-looking thing than go through a humiliating pat-down, especially when they don't have to see the resulting picture of them standing naked with their hands up. That doesn't mean they think the whole thing is a good idea or necessary.

If they'd asked the question "Are you willing to submit to having a naked photograph taken of you, knowing that it may or may not provide any additional security on the plane than a regular metal detector?" the answer would have been a resounding Hell No.

Ugh. That's a disappointing, but altogether probably true, way of looking at it. :/

(The world makes me sad.)

I'm also very uncomfortable with some of the suggested reactions, like wearing a kilt commando style or faking an orgasm. I don't think turning something that might be sexual assault into definite sexual assault in the other direction is morally defensible. That's all thi is, trying to guarantee that the agent is sexually uncomfortable or humiliated. ... In the end, most of the agents are just poor schmucks with crappy jobs dealing with incredibly entitled people all day.

I think you've put your finger on what makes me truly uncomfortable about these types of reactions. It was making me itchy but I couldn't articulate why.

I've got my own (mostly unpopular) opinions about the whole thing, which mostly boil down to the fact that I'm really not all that worried about the scanners. I understand that others are, and I have a great deal of sympathy for folks--especially prior victims of sexual assault--who are extremely upset about the types of pat-downs being done. I object to that, especially when used punitively, but the scanners...they don't bother me, and I don't consider my reaction to them to be giving in to creepy Orwellian government coercion.

Edited 2010-11-18 01:48 (UTC)

>I don't consider my reaction to them to be giving in to creepy Orwellian government coercion.

While yes, that's a little like saying you don't mind government censorship because the stuff you say doesn't get censored. If you think it's wrong for anyone to go through this, it's most likely a problem for everyone.

I think it's wrong for anyone to go through the kind of pat-down that is being given as a consequence of refusing the scan, yes. From what I've seen of the images that come out of the airport scanners, and what I've read about the machines, I personally don't see why there's a problem. This is only my opinion; agree or disagree as you see fit.

It's awesome that you and

gfish don't have much to personally lose by having a picture of your genitals exposed to law enforcement. I fly about four times a month right now, and I'm trans. When a trans person gets outed to anyone in a position of authority, under any circumstances, things almost immediately go horrifically wrong. Did you know that it's still common for trans people to get routinely raped and beaten in jail, just because people can? Yeah. *That* is what I'm looking at when I see one of those machines, because it's a tiny, miniscule jump from "hey, look at the tranny" to "your genitals don't match the ID you're flying with" to "protective custody". Seriously. You may not believe me, but, frankly, it's spectacularly unlikely that you've got any room to even speak to the issue. Not, of course, that I expect the general population to give a flying fuck about my rights, but actually, yeah, there is some exceptionally direct harm being done by both the scanners and the assault-pat-downs.

Um, I'm against their use. See above? I only mentioned my personal reaction as a way of explicitly acknowledging my privilege while pointing out that just because it doesn't bother me, that isn't a universal response or a sound basis for policy.

As for the health risks; yeah, on paper, there's not much of a deal here. (The "less radiation than flying" isn't really true, from what I've read, but the dosage is still pretty low.)

The health problem from my standpoint is that I don't trust these fuckers to run any kind of radiation emitter. I don't trust them to do the safety checks, I don't trust them not to monkey with the machines, I don't trust the software, I don't trust the manufacturer's software processes, because the companies involved got these things installed the same way electronic touchscreen voting machines got installed (in some places), and you know all about the quality assurance in that. I have no faith in this sort of contract or company working such contracts at all. Maybe it's because of that. And maybe it's because I remember the Therac, and those machines were being used by trained professionals. And even if the emitter type does make things a lot less dangerous, even with monkeying and fuckups...

...I still don't trust the goons who are corrupt enough that Microsoft has to put up a big sign in the Company Store saying DO NOT PACK PURCHASES due to the huge theft rate from inside checked luggage to operate and maintain a radiation emitter that's going to be aimed at me. I really, really just don't.

Edited 2010-11-18 02:00 (UTC)

"less radiation than flying" isn't really true, from what I've read

Where, exactly, have you read this? Because radiation doses from flying are *enormous* and the specified doses from this stuff are *miniscule*. Like at least three orders of magnitude down. Now, I freely admit that the maintained-and-designed-by-idiots bit is worrisome but if anybody is honestly saying that the doses for backscatter machines operating as designed are even remotely comparable to doses from flying, I want to know about it.

See here. The FDA contest this here, but keep using volumetric calculations, which strikes me as a way of trying to strike down an argument by arguing against a separate issue. This usage of volumetrics may be fine - I lack enough knowledge about the absorption rates of various tissues to know. But it's not helped by various people (c.f. Janet Napolitano) lying about other elements of the scanners. So again, my trust is minimal. You are of course entirely correct that the amount emitted is much lower. The question is more one specifically of absorption over volume, which is not the same as total number of emission events.

But even in such a bad case, it's still a pretty low dosage, all things in spec. I'm not concerned about the radiation amount, assuming all things are in spec.

Edited 2010-11-18 02:15 (UTC)

Oh, and both links courtesy

hsifyppah. If this were the only concern, I'd do a lot more research and find out, but it's very much the bottom rung issue for me.

If you read the letter [pdf], the difference is that the entire dose is deposited in the skin, not in the whole body. And that accurate information from which one could determine the actual dosage isn't available.

Remember the South Park episode with the joke of the ridiculous new transport device involving pistoning penetration... and how it was still better than flying?

Those innocent days...

Anyway, I'm still not sure what to do if this happens to me while I'm flying.

I have a lot of advantages as far as being able to choose possible actions - given my profession, it's not that big a deal if I get in the sort of trouble that delays my flying for a week or two. It would suck to get barred from travel entirely, but I wouldn't be in serious financial trouble from being unable to get to work. Also, I am not likely to be personally triggered by being felt up by TSA agents, even quite gropily, unless they make editorial remarks, and the chances of that are reasonably small because they know it would hit the papers.

But I don't know how best to go about expressing strong disapproval of the situation in a way that registers on their sensors without being a massive jerk or actively trying to get arrested.

and the chances of that are reasonably small because they know it would hit the papers.

I guarantee you the TSA agents do not give a shit about anything hitting the papers. As witness all the stuff that's *already* gotten into the papers.

I haven't heard every story, but most of the things I've seen reported suggest that the TSA is at least trying to pretend that they're behaving professionally - bullying with authority rather than bullying with vulgarity. The most inappropriate personal remarks I've seen so far is reports of someone supposedly paging an agent to say "lol there's a hottie here" and then swearing the person reporting it misheard.

So I would assume the agents have been told not to make personal comments. Which doesn't say it would never happen, of course, just that I don't consider it inevitable.

(The times I've been patted down at the airport previously - I can't remember if it was twice or just once - it was all done very politely and wasn't a problem for me at all. But this was pre 'enhanced' procedure, and not being done in a punitive fashion.)

Some of us have repeatedly suffered insults, vague mockery and various other bullshit in the past from the TSA that doesn't suggest that they're going to be very good about that sort of thing — certainly the way they treat each other is shitty, like the guy who got made fun of for having small genitalia after going through AIT. Of course they're not supposed to, but they also aren't reprimanded for it very often and people rush to sympathize with them for having such an uncomfortable job and offer lots of apology for their behavior rather than pushing to create an environment in which they would behave differently.

to create an environment in which they would behave differently.

See, that's the thing; it's not that the TSA is doing a bad job of this and we should get them to do better, it's that this is a job which by definition cannot be done well and therefore must not be done at all.

IMO the DHS and TSA have really screwed up here. One, by insisting on lining the pockets of one Michael Chertoff, former head of Homeland Security, whose company apparently represented the company selling the scanners. Not that this is anything surprising, having come out of the Bush administration, but it is pretty obviously unethical. Two, by instituting a practice specifically designed to intimidate people into using said scanners, and publicly punishing and shaming them if they don't. Three, by structuring things so that pictures from the scanners can be and are saved (they claim not, but I've heard otherwise) and by not training and vetting TSA personnel a helluva lot better than they have been.

--When I have a medical scan done, the operator has been trained extensively (they generally have at least an associates degree as a scanning tech) and the machinery tested exhaustively to confirm its effect on the human body, not to mention regular maintenance testing, and lead aprons for anyone standing nearby. There are reason for recommendations that, f'rinstance, pregnant women should not get x-rays. (Anyone know what the TSA policy is on women who are or think they might be pregnant?)

--Medical personnel who might end up touching the girlparts have ALL been not only trained extensively--for years and years--but have also gone through FBI background checks before they could be hired into their jobs. TSA personnel? Not so much, unless criminal records are okay with the FBI.

--Taking naked pictures of anyone under the age of 18 is against the law. Period. (Try taking pictures of your own 3 year old in the bath and then getting them processed at a one-hour photo, and see how soon you end up talking to the police. Yes, this does happen.) Touching the private parts of anyone under a certain age (varies by state and often depends on who and how old you are) unless you are a doctor and even through clothes, is also against the law. Period. Unless it's the TSA, who thinks that anyone over the age of 8, or 12, or 13 (there's no firm age policy) should be eligible for the required-naked-picture-or-molestation security check. As a parent, I find this infuriating.

--If it's illegal for Joe-on-the-street to do it, then why the HELL should it be legal for someone in a uniform to do it? Let alone for the government to *require* me to let them do it? Let's not split hairs here; the "enhanced pat down" IS sexual assault... if it's done nonconsensually by anyone not wearing a TSA uniform. Since when is the presence of a uniform a determining factor in whether sexual assault is sexual assault?

--Janet Napolitano and the new head of the TSA supposedly had an "enhanced pat down" done to them prior to this being implemented. Really? Why do I get the feeling that if they went to an airport anonymously, the patdown they'd receive would be very different from the ones given to the heads of the TSA and DHS? For that matter, why haven't they tried doing exactly that to find out what all the furor is about?

Taking naked pictures of anyone under the age of 18 is against the law.

You are mistaken, at least in the US.

I'd add to this, repeatedly lying about what the scanners can do.
I'm copying my own post from Aug 4 of this year (http://randomdreams.livejournal.com/473419.html):
"Remember how they said the machines were unable to actually record and store the images (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/08/04/21/0253209/JFK-LAX-To-Test-Millimeter-Wave-Scanners)?
Of course they lied about that.
Remember how they said well the machines CAN store and transmit images, but only when in test mode (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/11/1950206/Airport-Scanners-Can-Store-and-Transmit-Images)?
Of course they lied about that, too (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/08/04/1530224/Denials-Aside-Feds-Storing-Body-Scan-Images)">

So at this point they could propose saving kittens by handing out $100 bills to everyone, and I'd *still* oppose them just because they have a track record of being lying weasels.

sorry about the extraneous quote and bracket. I fail cut-n-paste class.

What

caladri said. While I doubt those types of protests are going to be significantly effective, the element of choice on one side and lack of it on the other are what make the difference in my mind.

Likewise people who've compared the enhanced pat-down to a doctor's exam. You can choose a doctor, discuss things with them, check their credentials, read about their background, or just choose not to undergo that particular exam (there are health-related exceptions, but you know.)

I doubt you could request a different TSA agent if you wanted to, and how would you know you wanted to until it was too late? Some people are not even being offered the chance to have a same-sex agent do the pat-down, despite the TSA's stated policies. And you'd think that at least you could opt out of the whole shebang and just say "Fine, I'm not getting on the plane then," but apparently you can't even do that without being subject to punitive bullying. (I doubt the TSA will actually carry out that threat of a civil suit and a fine on that one guy, but intimidation as you're trying to LEAVE and NOT GET ON A PLANE is just fucking ridiculous.)

This is why it's not *only* the reactions of sexual assault survivors that's important. I am not a sexual assault survivor, and have no problem having doctors give me intimate exams, but I'm not sure I wouldn't have a pretty serious emotional reaction to one of those pat-downs.

I only meant that those stories are the context we should be thinking about this in, not some loud, attention-seeking homophobe.

But after you'd gone through the "enhanced" patdown, you'd be a sexual assault survivor.

As a side note, when did we start using "enhanced" to mean "horribly abusive"? (Compare "enhanced interrogation")

What concerns me about the character of the backlash is the number of people suggesting that the screening procedures are silly not because they are ineffective but because we all know it's those brown men with beards doing all the bombing and we're just too politically correct to send just those evildoers to the strip search room. I'm wishing for the media attention to result in a wholesale dismantling of the ridiculous theatre that has grown like a fungus since 2001, but fearful that it will just be diverted to an outwardly junk-friendly programme of explicit discrimination against visible minorities.

In my pollyanna way, I'm also hopeful that the focus on Mr. dont tread on my junk is just because it's an irresistable soundbite, while pressing sexual assault victims for tearful statements is either too distasteful or requires more of an attention span than the blogulon goes in for. (I know my desire to go in to detail about my personal psychological traumas for the purpose of internet debate with youtube commenters (or even an impassioned and sincere - but public statement of concern) is pretty close to zero.) This is probably a naïve view.

Edited 2010-11-18 03:30 (UTC)

I agree with you a lot about creepy undertones. A lot.

I will almost certain opt-out of the scanners. I'm not hugely concerned about naked pictures of me - oh, I think they're inappropriate especially as a standard part of screening - but on a personal level, meh. But if the enhanced pat downs are being used to shame and intimidate people into using the scanners, the choice seems obvious.

I'm not personally a huge fan of "shame the screener" - as in, I'm unlikely to do it myself, though I'm not going to try to convince other people not to - up until the point where I feel the person is deliberate trying to shame or intimidate me. (As opposed to doing their best to deal with a bad situation with some dignity.)

And I do think the alleged safety of the scanners is rather spurious. They may well be safe, but we know a lot less than the people marketing the devices claim. (Especially considering all the incidents of various x-ray devices being miscallibrated recently. I don't think the VA is that likely to be substantially more negligent, I think they're organized in such a way where such things are more likely to be uncovered and reported.) And I am at greater risk for breast cancer already. (Not a BRCA-1 or BRCA-2 carrier most likely - you might notice I still have breasts - but my mom had breast cancer and it's the sort of thing I keep an eye on.)

Ironically, I *do* wear a kilt commando-style (though I typically refer to it as "regimental", as the Scottish regiments are required to not wear underwear -- it's in their uniform inspection!), and I've flown, thus far, three times in the past 2 months, with another 3 flights in the next week. I haven't had to go through any of the porno scanners, but I did get a pat-down last month, due to (you'll laugh) the exact same thing setting off the scanners. The kilt actually threw them for something of a loop. I think that was right *before* the change to the more invasive scan, though -- 28 September, I think -- because they were using the back of the hand, etc.

It will be interesting to see how they react now that these rules are in place, and they'll probably think I'm being punitive by my kilt-wearing, although I simply wear them all the time.

Following orders is never a defense for morally questionable actions.

So, I think it is not inappropriate to make it socially uncomfortable for the TSA employees to conduct their deliberately punitive, bordering on sexual-assault, pat-downs.

We should not make this easy on them. Yes, they are just employees, but when *they* refuse to follow illegitimate orders, we have yet another victory.

Should Rosa Parks had worried that she was making the bus drivers life difficult? We should be shaming them until they are unwilling to do it.

There may be a matter of taste, about exactly what one can or should do to make it as socially uncomfortable for them as possible. But we are under no obligation to make it socially comfortable for them to violate us.

There is a big difference between 'make socially awkward' and 'sexually assault'. I'm all for making it awkward, taking up time, consuming resources, etc. There are plenty of valid forms of civil disobedience that don't involve tricking someone into non-consensual sexual contact, or any of the other tit-for-tat, revenge-oriented schemes that have been floated.

You can make oblique Nazi comparisons all you like -- I don't think Nazis should be sexually assaulted either. I'm pretty sure no one wins when we allow that to become a punitive measure. That's kind of the whole point here. Does that make me a radical now, like thinking no one should ever be tortured?

Not convinced.

We have already established that the pat-downs are deliberately punitive. They are intended to make people feel uncomfortable and violated--by being sexually violating. That's how they are supposed to be unpleasant. That's a deliberate psychological abusive strategy. This is institutionalized low-level sexual assault--that is the psychological buttons the TSA is trying to push.

At that point, efforts to subvert encounter that to turn the psychological tables on the abuser may very well be appropriate. Again, the screener can always choose not to touch you in that way.

That has all the moral weight of saying that you can always choose not to fly.

I'm not saying don't resist, don't make it hard, don't make them regret enforcing the policy. I'm saying don't do it through the means of sexual assault! This should not be a controversial statement, for fuck's sake.

I have to fundamentally reject your thesis that *my choice of clothing*, while *they are sexually assaulting me*, means *I am making it into a sexual assault*. Honestly, that's not very far from "she shouldn't have been wearing that skirt".

You are trying to trick them into a sexually uncomfortable or humiliating situation which they would not otherwise consent to. It's sexual harassment at the very least. And your metaphor, while nicely emotionally charged, is completely backwards.

I can think of half a dozen other ways off the top of my head to make the situation uncomfortable, awkward or embarrassing for them. Bursting out crying at their first touch, for instance. Emotionally powerful, highly visible to the other people around you, and far more photogenic. I find the insistence that we *must* use this one tactic to be creepy, short-sighted, and a very knee-jerk form of revenge thinking. We're more creative than that.

I make no such insistence nor claim that this is the One True Way. I think your proposals are also perfectly suitable. I agreed with you that it's kind of knee-jerk and that there may be better ways.

You are trying to trick them into a sexually uncomfortable or humiliating situation which they would not otherwise consent to.

I disagree with everything you say here. *They* are *forcing me* into a sexually uncomfortable and humiliating situation, explicitly *against* my consent. I'm not tricking them at all, I'm just refusing to make it any easier for them.

Hm. So, I think that killing people is, in general, bad, but that killing people in defense of one's own life is justifiable (if preferably avoidable).

Do you disagree with that? Or does the equivalence not translate to less serious offenses like sexual assault?

Killing someone before they kill you serves a direct purpose -- it stops them from killing you. I think a better analogy here would be killing someone in a way that doesn't stop them from killing you, with a time bomb or poison or something, as some kind of "from hell's heart" gesture. Which, while I fully understand the emotion behind it, I don't think can quite be justified morally.

I dunno. While I'm uncomfortable with it, I get that there could be valid institutional reasons for killing. But the idea of institutionalized sexual assault or torture is a clear, absolute moral wrong. I guess because killing can (in unfortunate circumstances) serve a simple, utilitarian purpose, while the others are inherently punitive in nature. They're revenge motivated.

I find this post to be the voice of reason.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

TSA bullshit

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject