A conversation about conversations about bigotry

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Relm Zephyrous

A. I got the topic up that was truly at hand, Snake believed that as long as there are more than 0 that think this way it doesn't matter how many do,

Here's hoping I don't word this the wrong way. Not an attack on you personally, Relm, just my position explained.

...Yes and no. That simultaneously is an accurate reflection of my opinion, and an inaccurate one.

It's accurate in the sense that, yes, so long as more than zero men believe that a woman's clothing constitutes implicit consent to sexual activity, that is disgusting and we should all be appalled and condemn that. I think that's the obvious part, though. The tricky part is next.

It's inaccurate in the sense that, there are always going to be deviants and criminals and sociopaths. Even without rape culture contributing to things -- even in a hypothetical 'perfect society' in which men and women had always been equal participants, in which accusations of rape were treated with the deference deserved...there would still be men who'd break away from the established cultural standards in this theoretical utopia and have no problem indulging in the abhorrent. I don't think even the most sterling of progressive thinkers could dare promise a world where rape simply never happened, though I'd be fascinated to read the perspective of someone who thought it could be done.

There's few groups that are as universally frowned upon as Nazis these days, but that hasn't stopped a crazed minority with their Neo-Nazi movements. Similarly, even in an ideal culture where privilege was a thing of the past, individual rape victims would still exist. I can't imagine there's realistically a way to eradicate any kind of crime, unfortunately enough. In an ideal world, the perpetrators would generally get caught, the legal penalties would be far more severe, songs and movies wouldn't celebrate rape, perpetrators would be viewed as scum of the Earth, societal standards of so-called 'romance' wouldn't dictate the existence of consent where none actually existed, everyone would be thoroughly educated to ask for consent before engaging in said activity, and all kinds of services would be available to benefit victims.

...But I imagine that, in reality, there'd always be a percentage -- a small percentage -- of men who'd just be, as I'll refer to them here, Fucking Dipshit Assholes. It doesn't matter what kind of culture you immerse Fucking Dipshit Assholes in, they'll always be Fucking Dipshit Assholes.

The key is that they should constitute a very small percentage of the population. And, under no hypothetical circumstance, should they ever constitute a majority of the populace of men -- let alone 83.5%. In any poll. Of any sub-population of men in society.

You see, the issue of semantics we're having, Relm, is that you're repeatedly questioning the authenticity of the statistical data, and I'm saying that in this case the authenticity of said data doesn't really matter. That's not because the mere existence of a single man out there, somewhere, who'd have really fucking abhorrent views on rape would be enough to send me over the edge. Oh, I'd hate that guy. We all should. But that wouldn't be enough to merit a broad condemnation of society as a whole, as I'm sure you'd agree.

The difference here is that 83.5% is such a high percentage that -- even assuming an obscenely high margin of error -- there's no justification for that percentage. Heck, I'd say ten percent -- which is a considerably smaller number than 83.5% -- is way too large a number. When you're polling regarding criminal tendencies -- and that's what this would be, insofar as men who answer the question affirmative are tacitly admitting under certain circumstances they'd view a crime as permissible behavior -- you're hoping that number is less than one percent.

The mere fact that, in apparently about 30-someodd colleges out there, 83.5% of men answered a question with "Yeah, sure, I'd argue if a girl's walking around dressed up like a slut, that means she wants to have sex and it's okay for a guy to coerce sex from her" is disturbing as all hell.

To take this one step further, imagine instead that the poll asked whether it was permissible to kill your neighbor's children if those children were trespassing on your yard. Then, imagine that in a poll -- any poll, of any neighborhood, anywhere -- indicated that 83.5% of the people thought, yeah, under certain extreme circumstances it'd be totally okay to kill a trespassing kid. Even if later inquiry revealed that the question was somewhat misleading and that half of the respondents botched the poll, that's still way too high a statistic, and we would feel comfortable making judgments upon the moral values of that neighborhood, because clearly the problem isn't just with an individual deviant or two, it's that the entire neighborhood seems to glorify killing kids. Now imagine that dozens upon dozens of other polls reinforced this general consensus, and you start to get the idea.

Taking that one statistic in tandem with all the other statistics we have available regarding rape...because statistics don't exist in vacuums and different polls can contribute to painting the same dominant picture -- it's clear that the problem here isn't just about an extreme minority of men engaging in deviant activity in an otherwise ideal society. The problem is that there's an entire culture perpetuating myths about rape, so much so that a statistically significant number of men -- including men who'd never consciously consider themselves rapists -- view coercive activity as 'acceptable' under certain circumstances.

That's a cultural problem, it's a byproduct of centuries of privilege enjoyed by men at the expense of women, and I'd hope we'd all agree that it needs to stop.

So, from that perspective, it doesn't matter whether the 'accurate' numbers are that 83.5% of men think that way, or 10% of men think that way. Even if the poll was so far off that seven out of every eight men who responded "Yeah, sure, if she's dressed that way she wants it" somehow misunderstood the question and really didn't mean that answer, that still means one out of every ten men a woman meets in her lifetime will have no problem viewing her as a willing sex participant based solely on how she is dressed. And that's far too high a percentage.

Getting back to why I found your original post, way back when, so offensive, it's because regardless of what you intended, the argument you were advancing happens to coincide exactly with the kinds of arguments used to downplay and minimize the impact of statistics concerning the prevalence of sexual assault. Claiming that the statistics are flawed really doesn't add anything to the conversation when, even assuming you are right and that specific question was worded poorly, far too many men would still answer the question affirmatively, and dozens of other polls exist that confirm massive societal misperceptions about how 'rape' and 'consent' are defined. As Nique noted, it's derailing.

Whether 83.5% -- or some lesser number, like 60% or 40% or 10% or even 2% -- of men truly do believe what the poll implies is subsequently irrelevant. That doesn't mean "it doesn't matter how many people believe this so long as more than zero do." It means that when any statistically significant percentage answers a poll that way, the only possible explanation is that our government has failed, our schools have failed, our media has failed, our legal system has failed, and we've all failed past and future rape victims, and that's simply unacceptable.

[pochercoaster]

I didn't read the last two pages.

The college aged men rape statistics are from this page of body wars. Seeing as intoxication and age is a factor in sexual assaults and that rape is generally framed as something that men in ski masks hiding behind bushes do, I don't really have a hard time believing that 8% of college males have either attempted or successfully raped. That's just besides, y'know, the personal reasons being that I know colleged aged women who have to deal with STUFF.

Campus rape is a problem. Hell, that's what spawned the slut walk- because York University is notorious for student rape and sexual assault. You have a lot of students partying and drinking and lots of places to withdraw from the crowd in a campus, opportunists are gonna show up.

Here is a thorough study done by the Department of Justice.

Over the course of a college career—which now lasts an average of 5 years—the percentage of completed or attempted rape victimization among women in higher educational institutions might climb to between one-fifth and one-quarter.

[Relm Zephyrous]

@Nique

Having the data does help, but our disagreement ultimately wasn't over the precise data. Our disagreement was over the relative importance of knowing how much of the population is biased and in what ways. As most clearly pointed out here.

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

Now can we stop pretending it makes any meaningful difference whatsoever whether 83.5%, 60% or 40% of men argue that a woman in a provocative outfit may be "asking to be raped?"

This makes it abundantly clear that what we were actually arguing about was whether it is important that we have precise information. And this isn't something we can effectively reconcile through argument, so I suggested we move to another topic.

Originally Posted by Nique

Except that the point is not that ALL MEN ARE EVIL, it's that there are huge swaths of the population affected by problematic viewpoints that are, at best ignorant, and at worst actively harmful.

Like, this kind of attitude towards women is known. There are studies. It is observable. It affects everyone. Your insistence that these statistics must be wrong is derailing, especially since they're not wrong.

To point out, I said that these statistics are wrong in that they are not precise. I never stated that the problem never existed, as you're claiming I did. I never even said that there are not huge swaths of the population that hold problematic viewpoints.
(Statistics are not accurate) ? (There is obviously no sexism issue)

Also, what exactly am I derailing? Because my 'derail' fits within the purview of the thread title still. Or is it simply that I took the conversation to a place that makes you upset?


---------------------------------------------
@Snake

Before I begin, one thing I'd like to point out.

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

It's inaccurate in the sense that, there are always going to be deviants and criminals and sociopaths. Even without rape culture contributing to things -- even in a hypothetical 'perfect society' in which men and women had always been equal participants, in which accusations of rape were treated with the deference deserved...there would still be men who'd break away from the established cultural standards in this theoretical utopia and have no problem indulging in the abhorrent. I don't think even the most sterling of progressive thinkers could dare promise a world where rape simply never happened, though I'd be fascinated to read the perspective of someone who thought it could be done.

I believe this is possible, it is actually probable we'll do it eventually. You were talking about how we're going to achieve such a world just yesterday.

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

The difference here is that 83.5% is such a high percentage that -- even assuming an obscenely high margin of error -- there's no justification for that percentage. Heck, I'd say ten percent -- which is a considerably smaller number than 83.5% -- is way too large a number. When you're polling regarding criminal tendencies -- and that's what this would be, insofar as men who answer the question affirmative are tacitly admitting under certain circumstances they'd view a crime as permissible behavior -- you're hoping that number is less than one percent.

Sociopaths alone are estimated to make up about 3-5% of the population, not less than 1%, just for clarification.Sociopaths alone are estimated to make up about 3-5% of the population, not less than 1%, just for clarification. Of course, this might be a cultural problem itself that needs fixing, but we'll leave that discussion for another time.

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

Taking that one statistic in tandem with all the other statistics we have available regarding rape...because statistics don't exist in vacuums and different polls can contribute to painting the same dominant picture -- it's clear that the problem here isn't just about an extreme minority of men engaging in deviant activity in an otherwise ideal society. The problem is that there's an entire culture perpetuating myths about rape, so much so that a statistically significant number of men -- including men who'd never consciously consider themselves rapists -- view coercive activity as 'acceptable' under certain circumstances.

That's a cultural problem, it's a byproduct of centuries of privilege enjoyed by men at the expense of women, and I'd hope we'd all agree that it needs to stop.

So, from that perspective, it doesn't matter whether the 'accurate' numbers are that 83.5% of men think that way, or 10% of men think that way. Even if the poll was so far off that seven out of every eight men who responded "Yeah, sure, if she's dressed that way she wants it" somehow misunderstood the question and really didn't mean that answer, that still means one out of every ten men a woman meets in her lifetime will have no problem viewing her as a willing sex participant based solely on how she is dressed. And that's far too high a percentage.

My original point of more than 0 probably should have been a "significant number above 0", my bad. But I think I see why we are having the difference in opinion as well as what the difference in opinion is now. You are merely looking for the threshold for moral outrage. I am looking for exactly how much of what sexism happens where, to better understand 'why' the problem occurs. Simply because I already understand there is enough for moral outrage, and everyone does. It might just be me, but repeating that "this kind of thing is outrageous and needs to be condemned over and over" gets monotonous and stops being productive discussion barring outside variables because we all already get that.

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

Getting back to why I found your original post, way back when, so offensive, it's because regardless of what you intended, the argument you were advancing happens to coincide exactly with the kinds of arguments used to downplay and minimize the impact of statistics concerning the prevalence of sexual assault. Claiming that the statistics are flawed really doesn't add anything to the conversation when, even assuming you are right and that specific question was worded poorly, far too many men would still answer the question affirmatively, and dozens of other polls exist that confirm massive societal misperceptions about how 'rape' and 'consent' are defined. As Nique noted, it's derailing.

Whether 83.5% -- or some lesser number, like 60% or 40% or 10% or even 2% -- of men truly do believe what the poll implies is subsequently irrelevant. That doesn't mean "it doesn't matter how many people believe this so long as more than zero do." It means that when any statistically significant percentage answers a poll that way, the only possible explanation is that our government has failed, our schools have failed, our media has failed, our legal system has failed, and we've all failed past and future rape victims, and that's simply unacceptable.

It does matter, because with a number of over 80% of men, you are looking at everyone in your class and thinking "what disgusting pigs". Whereas with 10% you are looking at it with a much clearer eye and not taking it for granted that you must 'cleanse' every person you know just because they are male. Perhaps slightly less powerful a message, but it is truth, and maybe its just because of how I think, but a message I can be assured is true but more modest carries far more weight than a big message that is 'uncertain'.

And your description of how we failed seems to further prove my point of how we are looking at it differently. You are saying that the societal structure has 'failed' in a moral sense in absolute certainty, in such a way as to suggest that morally failing and morally succeeding at a culture 'as free of sexism as possible' is an on-off switch. Therefore, you are just looking for it to be above the threshold for moral outrage. I am looking into just 'how much' of a failure there is, because I don't believe that the moral uprightness exists in a black-white room. (Maybe I'm misrepresenting you slightly with that, but your points really do suggest that the degree of the moral failing doesn't matter as long as it is a 'moral failing', which suggests a black and white view of the topic.)

I'll also have to ask what it is derailing from, since it seems like we got some good talking done out of this thread of conversation. If nothing else, we brought out in this long conversation that there are indeed many misconceptions about what the definition of the word "rape" means, as well as others. (Although I said this was one of the problems with the study, that I couldn't have a definition of 'rape' and thus didn't know if they meant something like sexual assault instead.)

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

Here's hoping I don't word this the wrong way. Not an attack on you personally, Relm, just my position explained.

No offense taken, this is all in good interesting debate, and we're uncovering some neat jewels of information here to talk about.

[pochercoaster]

From NPR: Myths That Make it Hard To Stop Campus Rape

Lisak started with a simple observation. Most of what we know about men who commit rape comes from studying the ones who are in prison. But most rapes are never reported or prosecuted. So Lisak, at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, set out to find and interview men he calls "undetected rapists." Those are men who've committed sexual assault, but have never been charged or convicted.

He found them by, over a 20-year period, asking some 2,000 men in college questions like this: "Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone, even though they did not want to, because they were too intoxicated [on alcohol or drugs] to resist your sexual advances?"

Or: "Have you ever had sexual intercourse with an adult when they didn't want to because you used physical force [twisting their arm, holding them down, etc.] if they didn't cooperate?"

About 1 in 16 men answered "yes" to these or similar questions.

[...]

It might seem like it would be hard for a researcher to get these men to admit to something that fits the definition of rape. But Lisak says it's not. "They are very forthcoming," he says. "In fact, they are eager to talk about their experiences. They're quite narcissistic as a group — the offenders — and they view this as an opportunity, essentially, to brag."

What Lisak found was that students who commit rape on a college campus are pretty much like those rapists in prison. In both groups, many are serial rapists. On college campuses, repeat predators account for 9 out of every 10 rapes.

[...]

Still, Lisak says these men don't think of themselves as rapists. Usually they know the other student. And they don't use guns or knives.

"The basic weapon is alcohol," the psychologist says. "If you can get a victim intoxicated to the point where she's coming in and out of consciousness, or she's unconscious — and that is a very, very common scenario — then why would you need a weapon? Why would you need a knife or a gun?"

Furthermore, if this is a yes-no survey then the wording on the last part (83.5% argue that "some women just look like they are asking to be raped") is very misleading.

You're funny. I've heard the "she's asking for it" line from so many men in my life that if I had a quarter for each one of them I would be rich. Even the police say this shit.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Relm Zephyrous

You are merely looking for the threshold for moral outrage.

...Well, I'd disagree with the 'merely' part, of course.
Also, disagree with the 'moral outrage' part there. What I'm looking for isn't a threshold for moral outrage, it's a threshold for demanding societal change.
Which, yes, is something that I am morally outraged about -- I'd hope many others are, too -- but it's also something that demands a more sustainable, permanent and structural fix than mere 'moral outrage' often tends to imply. The demand isn't just for men to behave better because they're being immoral, the demand is for our culture and the institutions that define our society to shift so that we can live in the equitable world that we all as human beings deserve.

I am looking for exactly how much of what sexism happens where, to better understand 'why' the problem occurs.

I think my response to this is that you're concentrating too much on what I'll label 'active malicious intent' upon a very narrow list of specific actors. My point is that when you cross a certain threshold, the question of 'why' can no longer be answered by addressing individual perpetrators. It's a societal problem that's engrossed in our education system, our government, our corporations, our media, our legal system (look up rape's definition at common law sometime if you'd like to be disappointed.)

Concentrating on exactly which subset of guys is 'most at danger' of being responsible misses the point given its overwhelming prevalence. As the 83.5% statistic -- even if flawed -- strongly suggests, even men who never will rape a woman still think it's totally okay to theoretically do so under some hypothetical circumstance in which it would not be okay to do so.

I also think that characterizing those who'd like to combat this as merely expressing outrage "over and over" misses the point. That's not the intent of most feminists out there who express outrage about these issues. To belittle their protests against societal bullshittery merely because their outrage might not lead to immediate results strikes me as unnecessary.

It does matter, because with a number of over 80% of men, you are looking at everyone in your class and thinking "what disgusting pigs". Whereas with 10% you are looking at it with a much clearer eye and not taking it for granted that you must 'cleanse' every person you know just because they are male.

...A-ha!
And here you prove the point I was making earlier, which was that you're coming at this from the perspective of trying to save the integrity of men, when that's not remotely what this all should be about.

You're looking at these facts, interpreting them as personal attacks on the credibility or integrity of men, and you're more worried about men's honor being aggrieved by mere association with said outrageous statistics, than you are worried about the possibility that yes, a majority of men might well ignorantly believe -- out of ignorance, if not active malice -- that women are consenting when they are in fact NOT consenting.

Do you see how this attitude to the subject could be offensive to women?

Beyond this, there's also your point that this could do a disservice to women who might distrust all men everywhere. I highly doubt that; I'm pretty sure most women know, for example, that 83.5% of men out there aren't actually rapists. No one here is saying that women should presume that all men are terrible, horrifying people, and to respond by ignoring or avoiding them all.

The statistics do not paint a picture of: "All men are rapists." Or even, "Most men are rapists." Related statistics, even provided in that same image, clearly imply that, in fact, a small minority of men (albeit, I'd presume, possibly more than 8%) have attempted it.

These statistics do, however, paint an awful picture of our culture's definition of consent, our acquiescence to enabling coerced sex to occur more than it should, the inability of our government and our legal system to convict rapists, the inability of our education system to adequately define consent, and the inability of men to comprehend how their privilege has colored years upon years of societal stereotypes about what consent looks like.

...I hope this helps clarify things? I hope this helps clarifying things.

[Nique]

I never stated that the problem never existed, as you're claiming I did.

I never claimed this. Which is further evidence of you derailing the discussion. Maybe you're not doing it on purpose, but you're doing it and the conversation is no longer productive as result (if it ever was to begin with).

EDIT: Also, Snake is like, uh, articulate and stuff.

[Premmy]

Originally Posted by Relm Zephyrous

My original point of more than 0 probably should have been a "significant number above 0", my bad. But I think I see why we are having the difference in opinion as well as what the difference in opinion is now. You are merely looking for the threshold for moral outrage. I am looking for exactly how much of what sexism happens where, to better understand 'why' the problem occurs. Simply because I already understand there is enough for moral outrage, and everyone does.

No not really. It's kind of a big issue that So few people are defining "consent" in a way that actually includes the other person consenting. and that even fewer people are willing to decry people who act on lack of conent. Essentially. not enough people count anything below "Rapist in a dark alley"(or something functionally identical) as rape.

It might just be me, but repeating that "this kind of thing is outrageous and needs to be condemned over and over" gets monotonous and stops being productive discussion barring outside variables because we all already get that.

The fact that these statistics exist in any measurable fashion is the evidence that no, we don't all get that. We get that rape is bad, for the most part. But not enough people are calling rape what it is to say "we all get that a drunk woman having sex with you is having sex with you against her consent, I.E. you are engaging in rape" which is the point there. So much so that "Going out and getting women drunk enough to have sex with you" Is a pretty standard thing and has been so ever since they invented alcohol.

It does matter, because with a number of over 80% of men, you are looking at everyone in your class and thinking "what disgusting pigs". Whereas with 10% you are looking at it with a much clearer eye and not taking it for granted that you must 'cleanse' every person you know just because they are male. Perhaps slightly less powerful a message, but it is truth, and maybe its just because of how I think, but a message I can be assured is true but more modest carries far more weight than a big message that is 'uncertain'.

Noone's coming to chop off your dick. Well I might but that's just what I do on Saturdays. No one else. No need to hide behind hyperbole.

And your description of how we failed seems to further prove my point of how we are looking at it differently. You are saying that the societal structure has 'failed' in a moral sense in absolute certainty, in such a way as to suggest that morally failing and morally succeeding at a culture 'as free of sexism as possible' is an on-off switch. Therefore, you are just looking for it to be above the threshold for moral outrage. I am looking into just 'how much' of a failure there is, because I don't believe that the moral uprightness exists in a black-white room. (Maybe I'm misrepresenting you slightly with that, but your points really do suggest that the degree of the moral failing doesn't matter as long as it is a 'moral failing', which suggests a black and white view of the topic.)

People who attack people, hold them down, and stick their dicks in them are an extreme of a societal standard that engages in actions similar to it with much less social stigma. Many people who are otherwise "good" people perform actions such as this. And would maybe even feel horrible and never do it again if they had it explained to them because they honestly don't think of it in such ways.

I'll also have to ask what it is derailing from, since it seems like we got some good talking done out of this thread of conversation. If nothing else, we brought out in this long conversation that there are indeed many misconceptions about what the definition of the word "rape" means, as well as others. (Although I said this was one of the problems with the study, that I couldn't have a definition of 'rape' and thus didn't know if they meant something like sexual assault instead.)

Nobody is going to admit to "rape" not even most serial back-alley attacking rapists. If you're trying to uncover how widespread various forms of sexual assault(Also known as rape) are and how widespread acceptance of them are. You kind of have to not explicitly call it rape. Since none of the people who both do, condone and promote it do. Specifically saying "rape" in the study would yield results directly equaling zero.

[Relm Zephyrous]

Originally Posted by Premmy

The fact that these statistics exist in any measurable fashion is the evidence that no, we don't all get that. We get that rape is bad, for the most part. But not enough people are calling rape what it is to say "we all get that a drunk woman having sex with you is having sex with you against her consent, I.E. you are engaging in rape" which is the point there. So much so that "Going out and getting women drunk enough to have sex with you" Is a pretty standard thing and has been so ever since they invented alcohol.

When I said "we all get that" I meant the people participating in this discussion. Not out of everyone ever. That said I know that there are certain acts that are sexist that do not quite measure up to being rape. These are called sexual assault. Calling acts of sexual assault acts of rape degrades the term rape to mean something less serious than it actually means.

Originally Posted by Premmy

Noone's coming to chop off your dick. Well I might but that's just what I do on Saturdays. No one else. No need to hide behind hyperbole.

... I genuinely don't understand this. I mean I think I might, but I want to hear it more precisely before I go off the wall assuming things.

Originally Posted by Premmy

Nobody is going to admit to "rape" not even most serial back-alley attacking rapists. If you're trying to uncover how widespread various forms of sexual assault(Also known as rape) are and how widespread acceptance of them are. You kind of have to not explicitly call it rape. Since none of the people who both do, condone and promote it do. Specifically saying "rape" in the study would yield results directly equaling zero.

Actually, the scary thing is that I can actually cite that previous study and say that putting the word rape does not include zero. Because one of the other questions suggested that it was a certain percent higher when the wording was changed to "force to have sex with". Which suggests that the word rape was already used in the other questions. Which suggests that yes you 'can' call it rape and people will still answer that way.


Also, since you mention it directly, I feel the need to point out that sexual assault is not rape. This is kind of like calling aggravated assault an attempted murder. Just because all rapes are sexual assaults, does not mean all sexual assaults are rapes.

(It is a bit disheartening that I feel like I need to include a disclaimer here that sexual assault it also a terrible thing, because if I don't people will assume I am making light of sexual assault.)

[Nique]

(It is a bit disheartening that I feel like I need to include a disclaimer here that sexual assault it also a terrible thing, because if I don't people will assume I am making light of sexual assault.)

I have no idea why you are expecting anything different since everyone has been explaining why your arguments are terrible and a huge derailment to the issue and providing objective evidence to that effect for like 4 pages now so ??????

[Premmy]

Originally Posted by Relm Zephyrous

When I said "we all get that" I meant the people participating in this discussion. Not out of everyone ever. That said I know that there are certain acts that are sexist that do not quite measure up to being rape. These are called sexual assault. Calling acts of sexual assault acts of rape degrades the term rape to mean something less serious than it actually means.

Okay, let's play this card.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia Article on Sexual Assault.

Outside of law, the term rape ("an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with another person without that person's consent") is often used interchangeably with sexual assault,

So yeah. Same difference.

Things that fall under the jurisdiction of sexual assault.

1. Rape: Duh
2. Attempted Rape: also duh.
3. Child Sexual Abuse: Please don't try to argue that this is "less severe" than rape. Just.. don't
4. Elderly Sexual Assault: F'real
5. Sexual Harassment:

   The legal and social definition of what constitutes sexual harassment differ widely by culture. Sexual harassment includes a wide range of behaviors from seemingly mild transgressions to serious forms of abuse, and some forms of sexual harassment overlap with sexual assault. Sexual Harassment may include leering, pressure for dates, pressing or rubbing against a person, obscene phone calls, bra snapping, wolf-whistles, lip-smacking, indecent exposure, sexual discrimination, displaying explicit materials, sexist jokes, unwanted grabbing, comments about person's body, soliciting sexual services.

   I'm pretty comfortable with saying that Sexual harassment stops being harassment when it get's violent or forceful. You know, like rape.
6. Groping: This is maybe not "rape" maybe. Mostly since a lot of what falls under groping might be just invasion of space. But that falls under the discussion of "Is forceably ramming your hand up someone's ass the same as touching it? And is the whole ramming thing rape if it doesn't involve a dick?"
   and, you know. Seriously?
7. Domestic Violence: If it's Violent, Sexual, and non-consensual I don't think it's fair to the victim to try and diminish the nature of it. Anything that might happen that falls under this distinction most likely also falls under one of the others. This is really just an odd distinction between conditions under which things occur. It's like making a distinction between "Assault" and "Assault on your Friends" There may be a bit of moral distinction, but there really shouldn't be a legal one.
8. Bestiality.: Yeah I'm good with not getting into this one.

... I genuinely don't understand this. I mean I think I might, but I want to hear it more precisely before I go off the wall assuming things.

Snake handled it pretty well.