I've been watching these stories trickle by on HN for a few days now wondering if I should say what I'm about to say. I'm going to put up an opinion that I'm quite certain is going to be unpopular. At length, I think the potential karma burn is worth speaking out. If you choose to downvote me, please drop in a reasonable reply as well:

We ought not to call these incidents sexual assault. It sounds too much like hyperbole.

I freely acknowledge that they bear many (most?) of the characteristics of sexual assault, but there are many circumstances in life where we must suffer the same indignities which are not considered assault. A visit to the doctor for example. The situation and the intent of the "perpetrator" seem inexorably tied up in it.(1)

Consider how we talk about air travel already: "I got to the airport and was corralled and herded through metal gates. I was unconstitutionally interrogated by some TSA goon and then sexually assaulted at security, prodded into the cattle car and then held hostage for over an hour on the tarmac. When the flight finally took off, they fleeced us for every penny during the flight for snacks and even pillows! Its highway robbery I tell you."

One of the things in the above list is a disgusting violation of our basics rights, the rest are minor inconveniences by comparison. Could an outside observer tell which one?

I'm afraid that the seriousness will be lost in the other airport security theatrics, that it makes the victims sound like the crazy ones. I'm afraid that the terrorists not only won, but handed us our asses. Mostly I'm afraid of what might happen to my wife.

You see, when she was very young, she was sexually assaulted.(2) I'm genuinely afraid(3) of this befalling her, of what wound it might reopen. I don't want to hear Leno joke about how the TSA fondled his balls, or how maybe they should take us to dinner and a movie first. I just want this shit to stop. I'd rather take my chances on the bomb.

This is the part of a good criticism where the proposed alternative solution is supposed to go. I haven't got one. But the line of people, some who are genuinely hurt (like the author) and the many who say it with a half-smirk all calling it "sexual assault" isn't really working for me. I don't know what we should call whats going on but wrong.

(1) And to be perfectly fair, the willing consent of the "victim".

(2) The fact that I'm inclined to put "the real kind" right here is part of the problem I'm having with this whole thing. I don't want to be insensitive to the victims, but I just can't quite make it cohere.

(3) Not the "I'm afraid for the direction our country is taking" afraid, the kind where my chest hurts and I can't breathe right afraid.

Edit: I'm going to go ahead and drop this in while I've still got the edit. It seems I set up a bit of a lightning rod with the "doctor" analogy. I was not trying to argue that a TSA patdown == exam at the doctor. I was grasping for the most benign example I could think of where similar actions could take place, in order to establish the idea of a specturm (based on the intents of the actors, and the consent of the acted upon, together with circumstances) with sexual assault at one end and acceptable behavior on the other. I'm sorry if this was unclear and detracted from the argument.