[Asinine] Fark.com blames victim of sexual assault when stranger touches her

Fark.com collects interesting or strange links and allows people to comment on them. The editors at Fark categorize each link: amusing, ironic, dumbass, interesting, asinine, etc. In honor of their categories, I am placing this post in the category [Asinine].

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 at 5:33 PM, Fark labeled the following link as [Ironic], “Woman who can’t stop going out half-naked in public ‘furious’ after somebody pinches her bum”.

The headline, authored (or permitted) by Fark editors, links to an article by OK! magazine about an UK actress who “was in Manchester’s swanky Panacea restaurant and bar when a stranger grabbed her behind.”

Yes, the editors at Fark think it is “ironic” that this actress is upset that a stranger touched her sexually.

To remind the editors at Fark, something is ironic if it is “contrary to what was expected or intended“. I fail to understand what was ironic in this situation. Do we not expect a “half-naked” woman to be furious when a stranger touches her sexually? Or do the editors think she is supposed to like it? Maybe the editors at Fark mean that when a woman is “half-naked” that she should expect someone to touch her sexually. Or maybe the editors think that a “half-naked” woman intends for a stranger to touch her sexually. I am confused, what happened that was the opposite of what we expected?

What is “half-naked”, anyway? To a conservative Muslim, women must cover themselves so they will be “respected” and not “abused”. If a woman had her arms and hair exposed, would a conservative Muslim say that she expects to have a stranger touch her sexually? In 1868 in the US, a woman that revealed any part of her leg was immodest. To that society, a mini-skirt would have been “four-fifths naked.” If the fact that she was dressed immodestly is relevant, then it is important to remember that modesty is culturally dependent.

Whether she was “half-naked”, however, is irrelevant. Even if the women were walking through Times Square completely naked, no stranger has the right to touch her, especially not sexually. (Please, no one argue that the police have a right to touch her. They do not, at best they might have a privilege, but no one has the right to touch her. The difference is important.)

In common law countries, like the UK, an intentional unconsented touch is a crime: battery. If a naked woman walks through Times Square, and a stranger “grabs her behind”, then the stranger battered the woman. It is very simple. The stranger (intentionally) grabbed the woman. She did not consent to the touch. It is a crime. If a “half-naked” woman is touched sexually by a stranger, then it is a crime.

If she was “half-naked”, then she must have consented to the sexual touch, right? Wasn’t she “asking for it” by dressing that way? I seriously hope that the editors at Fark know that being “half-naked” does not mean that she consented to a stranger touching her sexually. Does anyone really think that this actress consented to a never-ending stream of strangers touching her while she was eating at the restaurant? If a woman is “half-naked” she might be “asking” for you to look at her, but it is absurd to argue that she was asking for a stranger to touch her sexually while she had a beer at the bar.

In the comments section of Fark, some people have argued that even if she did not consent to the sexual touch, that she must have expected it. Is this the irony that the Fark editors were looking for? The “half-naked” actress should have expected a stranger to touch her sexually, and because she got angry when a stranger touched her, that we can call it ironic? I am now really confused: a woman in a restaurant–in England–in 2008–should expect strangers to touch her sexually? Admittedly, I have never been to England, but I still think that most women expect that they will not be sexually assaulted in public.

I have a few more expectations. I expect that most people know the basics of law: touching people sexually without their permission is a crime. I expect that most people do not blame the victim. I expect that an editor knows the definition of “ironic.”

Is it ironic that I expected these things, and that an “editor” at Fark is now blaming the victim and calling the sexual assault ironic?

Liked it? Take a second to support Hunter Hogan on Patreon!