Content note: sexual assault, non-consensual sexual activities.
Been a while, I know. This story reignited the RAGE BLOGGER in me, and this is a good thing, because I’ll need the warmup for what I’ve got rattling around in my head the past few days.
Apparently, in Tokyo, a man responsible for ejaculating on non-consenting, unaware women over a hundred times on Tokyo’s train system has finally been caught.
A middle-aged man, Tetsuya Fukuda, 40 has been arrested for the attacks on crowded trains between Kinshicho and Akihabara stations in the capital Tokyo.
When arrested, he said, ‘I get excited when in close contact with a woman on a crowded train.’
He is thought to have cut holes in his jacket pockets so he could pleasure himself.
He was caught after DNA tests on semen found on a teenage schoolgirl’s skirt.
I cannot fathom the mindset where you are so turned on by random women that you’d ejaculate on them, but so incapable of standard human interaction that you would not first negotiate this transaction. The idea is so alien to me as to frighten me more than a little.
And lest you think this is somehow a uniquely Japanese phenomenon, there’s this case from Blaine, Minnesota wherein a man repeatedly ejaculated into a woman’s coffee and onto her desk, and has been cleared of all charges by the judge because apparently sexual battery would require direct contact. Never mind that she evidently drank said coffee repeatedly, thus had direct physical contact through ingestion. She thought the milk had been spoiled.
I will leave you a moment to contemplate the implications of this — that despite some states having laws on the books that makes spitting into your food assault, some other states do not make illegal putting your cum in someone’s coffee as some sort of twisted tribute.
I think the reason I’m so squicked by this is because I am, like the vast majority of us, capable of the level of empathy wherein I can imagine what it would be like to be on the receiving end of the transaction. Being in possession of a sense of empathy, though, makes it difficult to imagine myself as a person without it — to imagine that I care so little about others’ reception of my actions that I would perform them without their consent.
Society has made rape and sexual battery very strongly punished crimes, even where their perpetrators are so very rarely met with actual judgment. But even given how underreported sexual assault is, and even given how difficult it is to prove — not every case of sexual battery is as demonstrable as the two above — we’ll take cut-and-dry cases and probably let the guy get off on the charge of getting off on non-consent. Some judges won’t consider it a crime.
This is why we ‘feminazis’, we sexual buzzkills, we who will end the human race by curtailing naughty funtimes, fight so hard for educating people as to what sexual assault actually is, and what it isn’t. It should be simple, but since people don’t get it, it bears repeating. Any sexual contact or sexual act in which not all parties consent is sexual assault, at minimum.
Consent is paramount. You can do any damn thing you please, with however many people you want, as long as all parties are informed and capable of uncoerced consent at the time the proposed transaction is negotiated, and as long as that consent is not revoked in the moment when circumstances change.
What scares me about this is that there are people who will “rules-lawyer” around such simple, clear rules.