How We Describe Sexual Assault: Times Journalists and Lawyers Respond

“Our newsroom lawyer, David McCraw, further clarifies the use of the phrase “nonconsensual sexual relationship.” In the case law, “nonconsensual sexual relationship” is often used in cases where the victim is intoxicated or drugged, and in cases where someone has sex with a policeman or prison guard and feels there is no choice but to submit because of the power relationship.” In this case, “relationship” seems like it stetches what is going on beyond credulity. In the case of prison, there could be an ongoing sexual abuse of a prisoner, but “relationship” seems like an unfair euphemism, because of the unequal power, making it illegal in black letter terms. As for a policeman, or someone who drugs a woman, or takes advantage of a woman incapacitated by drink, these are generally one time events, so “relationship” is absolutely the wrong word choice. You guys are in the communication business. This is most disappointing.

Okay. So what does it exactly mean "physical sexual contact without consent"? Is it a forced kiss considered as "physical sexual contact without consent"? How do we measure how sexual is a physical contact?

Women have been silent for decades & men have been getting away with sexually assaulting us which is a crime! Every time I read a story like this, I want to tell my story to the world. I didn't trust men except my dad a pastor & my husband. I was betrayed by a grandpa, youth pastor, raped at 17 & domestic violence came into my marriage with verbal abuse, porn & adultery.My husband's dad took his own life & both comforted themselves with women. We suffered from PTSD but didn't know it was related to the violence we went through. I was unable to start my period or conceive a child until we adopted. I know now it was related to decades of abuse. I was codependant with a male heroin addict we met in prison. We had a bad link - sexual abuse. I was as messed up as he was & realized after rescuing him several times that I needed help! In 1998 after watching Family Secrets on Oprah I finally got courage to tell my elderly mother what her dad did to me & found out he violated her too! PTSD kept us both silent. I thought I was all alone until I confronted the elderly clergy that sexually assaulted me with the support of a disciplinary committee of 8 clergy & psychologist. Even though he was in complete denial I chose to forgive him. He died seven weeks later! Writing my memoir, Listen to the Cry of the Child was the beginning of my soul healing. I will never stop telling my story anywhere & everywhere I can!

At age ten, I was "taken advantage of" by a young male old enough to have a driver's license. I was told I was gullible, stupid and naughty.

Intellectualizing your “reasons” is nothing more than rationalizing your inability to accept that you are part of the reason why rape, sexual assault, child rape, and other forms of violence are dismissed by the public. Fine. Call it “alleged rape”, “alleged sexual assault” but stop with the diminishing the acts, “alleged” or otherwise.

I would have considered that the New York Times editors would be more than aware of the power of language. Maybe I was wrong. Hopefully, even more so than the Murdoch media. Perhaps they might spend sometime contemplating this, whilst imagining if the news item they were researching and reporting involved their mother/sister/partner/daughter.

I am a Mother of two, grown adult sons. My youngest son, 29 years old, works in a engineering environment. Most employees are men. He, in a management position, has several women employees. We have talked about the issues re : harassment in the workplace, and how men can use their position to unfairly compromise women. Likely, as his mother, and a professional women, I am able to offer some ideas. As a result, he has urged his male- centric company to develop professional pathways for women to succeed on a pathway similar to the qualified men in his company. Recently they have instituted a program to develop the female engineers in his company. He is eager to lead his female employees to positions of leadership. I urge mothers, to teach their sons about workplace equality. I doubt that any young man, raised by an assertive, competent mother would ever harass and harm a female colleague.

Sexual harassment can be as benign as looking at a female the wrong way, according to her subjective opinion. People are guilty these days just by being accused. An anonymous person can claim that something 'inappropriate' occurred 20 or 30 years ago. It is basically the criminalisation of heterosexuality. Flirting is dead. Women have become too dangerous to even speak to. I'm glad I'm old and had my share of romance before this horrible trend began. It is one more step toward the death of western civilisation.

You are creating a gray area with these linguistic distinctions where there is none, and here is why it matters: apparently rapists are making the same distinction to excuse themselves. In your own article "What Experts Know About Men Who Rape," published in this paper three days ago, the piece references a startling pattern seen in research that many perpetrators will freely admit to "penetrating against consent" while also denying committing "something like rape" later in the same survey. Of course, nonconsensual penetration is the Justice Department's definition of rape. Not all varieties of sexual assault constitute rape, but in cases that do qualify, equivocating language like "nonconsensual sex" is neither truthful nor helpful. Reality is that there is no such thing as nonconsensual sex--consent is what differentiates sex from rape, and rape is violent and psychologically harmful whether it leaves physical bruises or not. How can we hope to combat the phenomenon if we fumble around with oxymorons instead of calling it out when it happens?

Why are so many getting bent out of shape over this issue. It is unlikely that the reporters or journalist who report and write about such allegations personally witness or observe the acts. Therefore, these reporters should do what good journalist do when reporting any other act that the reporter does not personally witness or observe, but nonetheless is deemed newsworthy. That is, report accurately what the accuser says. If the accuser says she was raped, accurately report what she says. If the accused says or describes whatever occurred in a different way, report accurately that, too. Let the reader decide. After all, good journalism would also include accurately reporting facts that go to the credibility and motive of both the accuser and accused, and from which the reader can make further decisions. I really don't understand what the big deal is over this issue. Be accurate. It's not the first time reporters lift word for word from police blotters or press releases, but then hopefully do further digging.

Timely article. How does the Times decide to refer to a subject of a rape as the survivor and when is the subject the victim?

Yeah, nonconsensual sex is (sexual) assault. To make this language of excuse for crime consistent, how about "nonconsensual property reallocation" for robbery, "extremely nonconsensual equipment-assisted property reallocation" for armed robbery," nonconsensual deep massage with structural realignment" for assault and battery, etc. Oh, dont forget "multiple simultaneous population reduction" for mass murder. Calling these acts crimes does make the blame-the-victim strategy harder, as "why was he out so late wearing that Rolex,"

oh dear god! do these words really imply some sort of judgement about rape?! do i think that someone who was involved in non consensual sex is somehow different from someone who raped? It is the sign of people who see a problem but would rather quibble about the words, than take any real action. By the way, if (as a man) I were forced to provide sex to a woman, its not rape, but it very much is non consensual sex. Rape has a legal definition, while non consensual sex is an accurate description. No right minded person thinks that somehow one who partakes in non consensual sex is not a rapist.

There are a few rules. One, avoid using the vernacular of perpetrators themselves ("put a notch on your belt"; "grab them by the p___"). Two, avoid using euphemisms not employed for other crimes (robbery is not "nonconsensual barter"). Three, find a way to register disgust commensurate with a human response to to a heinous act (in today's account of the Home Depot truck attack, the first paragraphs describe "plowing a ...truck" into peopl, "killing," "Terrorist attack," and in a quote, "cowardly." As you stated, you do news articles, not police reports.

Without consent, sex is often appropriated by violence or the real or perceived threat of violence. So "nonconsensual sex" often IS a "heinous crime", regardless of the forum of first impression: criminal court, civil court, the court of public opinion, or even just a bunch of people talking around the table. So, when that's what it is, CALL it what it is: rape. After all, if a plaintiff wages a battery claim in civil court, rather than a prosecutor seeking a conviction in a criminal court, it doesn't change the fact that the defendant hit her.

The NY Times, by clarifying their terms for describing rape by using tepid terms such as nonconsensual sex or forced vaginal sex, has essentially watered down the systematic demeaning of women through physical violence. Rape is rape. Call a spade a spade.

The modification of the word "sex" -- in any form -- still *implies* it was sex and implies consent. The word is rape-- use it -- regardless of where the language falls within the penal code. The victims of an assault must have to be believed first in order for there to be a wrongdoing, and thus, a story. To be believed, the wrong doing must have been rape or assault. I find it interesting that a) both this article and the editor referenced in this article are male, and b) that reference to the gender of the what journalists and what lawyers were invited to aforementioned conversation is missing. This conversation is one that needs to be had BY women primarily for the education of their male colleagues who suffer from extreme privilege in this matter.

What about when it is one of your own? https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/nprs-top-editor-accused-o... Over at the WaPo there is a story that the former NYT Washington Bureau Chief and later NPR and AP staffer has been accused from the time he was at the NYT and not a peep is on this paper's website by my search. A former Editor is quoted that the problem went up the chain to New York. -This account was confirmed by Jill Abramson, who was Oreskes’s deputy at the time. Abramson, who went on to become the Times’ top editor and is now a columnist and a senior lecturer at Harvard, said in an interview that she regretted not confronting Oreskes about his behavior. “If I had to do it again, I would have told him to knock it off,” said Abramson, co-author of a book about the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill harassment case. “I think I should have raised this with [the Times’ human resources department]. . . . Maybe confronting him would have somehow stopped him from doing it to another woman.” Abramson said she hesitated in part because the young woman didn’t want to raise the issue but did want Oreskes’s alleged behavior to stop. But Abramson said: “I don’t really feel it was in a gray area in retrospect. I should have stopped him.- So when do we get to hear the NYT statement on the matter?

I will leave others to comment on the specifics of this article, but in more general terms, NYT could you please stop with the passive voice, euphemisms, and abstractions when reporting on male violence against women? It seems on every other subject reporters follow standard journalistic practice: active voice, concrete language, but in this arena they seem to prefer to such Orwellianisms as: - "She had to flee an abusive relationship." - "One in XXX women will be raped at some point in her lifetime." - "One in XXX women experiences intimate partner abuse." I recall a mailer from a couple years ago soliciting funds for a women's shelter. Inside was a lengthy discussion of the problem of domestic violence. I counted frequent references to "wives," "girlfriends," and "women." I counted zero references to "husbands," "boyfriends," or "men." (I recall "partner" was the PC term at the time.) You would think that rape and battering arise spontaneously from the environment, like radon poisoning, and these crimes would vanish if women -- who in all this verbiage seem to be the ones responsible -- would just avoid said environment.

While it's commendable that The NYT has pointed out difficulties with how we use words to describe actions, it's really not commendable that The NYT is basically defending it's own use of the weasel phrasing "forced vaginal sex" instead of "rape". This is on par with saying "She experienced negative patient care outcome" rather than "She died".

Rape is an accurate term, not an evocative one, when describing nonconsensual or forced vaginal sex. Sex without consent is the definition of rape by the Department of Justice and should be a good enough one for the NYT. The idea that nonconsensual sex is a more clarifying term is laughable. Ian Trontz's own defense of this term is so obscuring that I still am not clear on how the NYT makes decisions about terminology (is it the alcohol? or is it yes means yes policies? campus definition? criminal definition?). As someone who works with rape victims (often helping them to navigate interactions with the police), I've found that the problem with rape is not one of unclear definitions. Rather, it is society's reticence to use the definitions we have and to acknowledge that any sexual penetration without consent is in fact rape. Obscuring and irrelevant "context" - such as the victim's use of alcohol or if they really "meant" yes or whether there was injury - is brought in for the sole purpose of trying to limit the definition of rape to one that meets society's comfort level. The NYT does the same here by bringing in context to flesh out the "complexity". Yet, as recent events show, our society is far too comfortable with victim blaming and letting rape go unacknowledged. Perhaps what we need now is not complexity but rather clarity and integrity. Finally, the tone of this piece was dismissive in parts. Using the term rape isn't about making "more interesting reading".

"Non-consensual" sex is not sex, it is violence and power over another. The motivation for such acts is not sexual greatification, it is to gain a sense of personal power, however twisted the attempt may be. The problem with the language used in the media is that is distorts the intention of the aggressor and minimizes the impact on the victim, thereby perpetuating the longstanding minimization of the whole problem and entitlement of abusers.

On language - some news reports cite "violently raped" in describing some incidents. There is no non-violent rape. It is a violent act by definition.

As others have written here, words are important. Synonyms are not necessarily equal and each word, though a synonym for another, may have a slight but significant difference in meaning and the appropriate context I. Which to use it. Despite the "states' rights" Issue , I have a problem with different states and jurisdictions being able to define murder, rape, and other felonious actions differently. There should be a federal definition of these actions so that we understand what each means but that is for another discussion. Although women are the majority of victims of unwanted/nonconsensual sexual assault/violence/rape, we know that men can too be the victims of these actions. Again, there should be consistency among all states, DC, and territories of the definition of the terms applied to these crimes to include specifics in regard to male victims.

Nonconsensual sex is a phrase that tames rape. You should not use it. If you are trying to protect the accused, which this term does, admit it explicitly. "She calls it rape; he calls it nonconsensual sex on the advice of his lawyers. The NYT bows to his lawyers."

This explanation is hardly reassuring and reveals clear double standards in the way the NYT handles rape depending on the level of sympathy they have for the alleged perpetrator (as well as in relation to other "crimes" - I cannot imagine such hoop-jumping when describing theft). The NYT is not at all shy using criminal terms like rape to describe victim accounts in the Democratic Republic of Congo or Myanmar or even in U.S. settings such as prisons. Yet when it comes to a well-educated college student in the United States, you shy away from a term that connotes a "heinous crime". Why? Nonconsensual sex is the very definition of rape, and that is a heinous crime, even when the accused did well on their SATs.

Thank you for illuminating your process. I work at the Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault and we put together a guide for journalists - while state specific in some respects that are universal concerns addressed within it. http://www.mncasa.org/assets/PDFs/MNCASA_Media_Manual_2017.pdf

Both the legal system and everyday language have many different words for different kinds of theft--from shoplifting up to armed robbery. Sometimes using the different words is helpful in being specific, sometimes the broader term theft is what communicates the point. Why should the discussion of sexual offenses not benefit from having a variety of terms for different circumstances?

Nonconsentual sex IS rape, regardless of how consent is being defined. Using that term doesn't do anything help people understand universities' policies on consent. All it does is water down a heinous act.

This is all very depressing. Don’t guys who force themselves on women realize that they reduce themselves to common burglary, creeps equivalent to car thieves - lowlife sleazes taking what is not rightfully theirs. There are plenty of women seeking intimacy and will take the initiative with men when treated with respect & kindness. How can that which is stolen, especially by force, be as satisfying as that which is freely given. What joy does a man of substance take in breaking & entering, in smashing a window & hot wiring. These “men” need to see themselves in true context. The media needs to emphasize the weakness of character, at least as much as the offense. This is not manly activity!

Why the wholesale effort to avoid the word "penetration"? Isn't that part of the legal definition?

Using the term "sexual misconduct" in several recent articles has enabled the Times to pretend at even-handedness by lumping together the abusive, predatory behavior of Weinstein and Trump with Clinton's consensual infidelities. It's the kind of typical false equivalence the "mainstream media" engage in as a fearful response to right-wing intimidation and false accusations of bias.

I would have accepted your explanation for most of the euphemistic phrasing, assuming a need for broadly applicable terms to cover a range of behaviors and their nuances, if it weren't for one phrase. "Forcible vaginal sex" is rape. And it's *only* rape. There are no nuances or confusion or subtleties for forcible vaginal sex. And your avoidance of the word rape for this act is no more excusable that it would be to describe first-degree murder as "lethal assault," or to describe burglary as "illegal taking." The mincing of words in the case of rape casts doubt on the motives for all the other roundabout descriptions.

I am an avid reader of the NYT and a retired trial lawyer. To me, there is a spectrum of meaning that fairly well matches the spectrum of misconduct being described. In order of increasing severity: "Sexual harassment" is persistent flirtatious conduct that is unwelcome, not reciprocated by a recipient, and which continues after a request that it be stopped. It is not physical in anyway but is nevertheless wrongful. "Sexual assault" is an implied or real threat of physical contact without consent. (Note that technically 'battery' is a touching without consent while 'assault' is merely the threat of physical harm.) "Sexual battery" is actual physical contact without genital contact and without consent that occurs without any implied or real threat of physical force. "Nonconsentual sex" is physical contact with the genitals of one person by another without consent but without force or the threat of force. "Rape" is nonconsentual physical contact with the genitals of the victim through the use of force or the threat of force.

Your thoughtful consideration of the many aspects of these issues is most appreciated. I note, however, that you do not discuss unwanted touches which are quite different than "forced vaginal sex (rape)." Are these actions described literally or are they included in "sexual assault" or some other term? While I do not want to take away from the long overdue acknowledgement and punishment of such behavior, my concern is that it could become easy to ruin a person's reputation by careless use of a term.

While we are on the subject, it is time to retire the term "sex slave" and find something more accurate. The word "sex" by itself sounds like something beautiful and good. The term "sex slave" contributes to sugar coating what these women have been through. How about "rape prisoners"? or "rape hostages"? or "systematic sexual terror and rape"?

"As a criminal matter, the definition [of rape] varies by state...it involves physical sexual contact without consent." '“sexual assault”...too, has a criminal connotation; in many states, the term is in the penal code...' 'We also used the term “nonconsensual sex.”' i don't have time to check the penal codes of 50 states + DC + PR + about 150 jurisdictions around the world, but i believe that sexual assault generally refers to assault--attacking using one's body or physical objects to subdue or physically harm another party--in a "sexual" manner. but note that the meaning of "sexual" or "sex" is arbitrary. (no jokes here.) rape often refers to vaginal and/or anal penetration by a penis, but not always. rape could also refer to forced oral stimulation of a penis, akin to sexual extortion, but i believe that forced oral stimulation of a penis is usually called sexual assault. rape could also refer to penetration by an object. in addition to aforementioned actions, non-consensual sex could also include to public masturbation, flashing, frottage, groping,.... some jurisdictions might call these actions sexual assault despite the lack of subduing or physical harm. and then there are verbal threats, slander and taunts. see also, extortion. despite their graphic nature, definitions matter because we need to determine what people are innocent or guilty of, and if guilty, what the punishment should be. see FBI and other law enforcement websites.

You have not made a good case for calling rape accusations "nonconsensual sex". You even give two inconsistent reasons for doing so: (1) when there has been no criminal charges filed; and (2) when the non-consenting person was drunk or otherwise intoxicated. Under any of these circumstances, the acts discussed are forcible sex without consent, which is the definition of rape. Shame on you for downplaying this, for your cowardess. Just shame!

In 1975 at our college new students were required to attend a lecture which was called introduction to campus life . One of the law professor was presenting on "dating" at college. He started his lecture by asking people in the audience to raise their hands if they had ever had sex with a partner had said no. He did not just ask just men but everyone attending and about half the hands went up. He then announced that anyone who had raised their hand had commented rape. I know I was very surprised because this was such a broad definition and yet here was a male law professor telling half the kids there that they had committed rape. No means no it is not a new concept! Ok NYT if it was that simple in 1975 why make it so complicated now.

"Despite this, we believe that “sexual assault” is an appropriate term to use because it is a term often used by colleges when investigating complaints and meting out discipline." So, the NYTimes looks to colleges who are often engaged in nothing more than protecting their reputations for proper linguistic use. A rape is a rape is a rape.

Why not replace "nonconsensual sex" with "sexual violence"? The problem with "nonconsensual sex" is that it fails to adequately convey that unwanted sexual contact is an inherently violent act.

Sorry I asked.

A cause can become a lost cause when the behaviors and inactions of its own advocates include letting the opponents choose the lexicon, diction, semantics, and the like.