![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
All this TSA shit
Dec. 2nd, 2010 10:35 amSo I've been trying to figure out why the TSA is still being allowed to do it's "enhanced patdowns" considering that they meet every common-sense definition of sexual assault I can think of. After much searching, I think I have found it. It seems most states take their definitions from the US Code. And US Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 109A defines "sexual contact" as follows:
(3) the term ``sexual contact'' means the intentional touching,
either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus,
groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent
to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the
sexual desire of any person;
Notice that there is no mention of consent there, but there is a mention of *intention*. In other words, it's not sexual abuse if the other person doesn't *intend* to abuse, humiliate, or degrade the victim. Doesn't matter if the person *feels* abused, humiliated, and degraded. As long as they can claim their intention was something else, they seem to be covered.
Dammit.
(3) the term ``sexual contact'' means the intentional touching,
either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus,
groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent
to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the
sexual desire of any person;
Notice that there is no mention of consent there, but there is a mention of *intention*. In other words, it's not sexual abuse if the other person doesn't *intend* to abuse, humiliate, or degrade the victim. Doesn't matter if the person *feels* abused, humiliated, and degraded. As long as they can claim their intention was something else, they seem to be covered.
Dammit.
