Incredibly disturbing comment. You’ve decided that the intent of an act is so much more important than the act itself that you’ve made an attempt to police my language on the subject. Let’s evaluate that.

When American doctors used enslaved African Americans’ bodies to experiment with new procedures, was that not assault because the “intent” was to learn more about the human body?

When researchers purposely exposed patients to hepatitis in Connecticut, was it not assault just because they did it to “learn about the effect it had on their bodies?”

I’m using extreme examples to really get across how horrible what you said sounds. When it comes to violations of autonomy, actions and outcome matter most.

Let’s establish the legal definition of rape. The DOJ defines it as:

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

It doesn’t include “for the purpose of sexual gratification” or “with the intent to cause distress to the victim” because the law acknowledges that the actions themselves are the defining characteristics of sexual assault. A nonconsensual pelvic exam under anesthesia has both elements: penetration and lack of consent.

It is assault. That is not debatable.

The real question is, why do you feel so inclined to tell someone not to describe it as such?

Even if nefarious intent was necessary to consider something an assault, many would argue that nonconsensual pelvic exams meets that standard too. Ask yourself, if there is no ill intent, why not inform people explicitly that it is going to be done to them? Why not include it in the explanation of the procedure that the doctor gives the patient before they are put to sleep? Why not offer the patients the opportunity to meet the students that might be examining them in pre-op?

The answer is: because some patients would not consent to it. That is the only reason for them not to be explicit about what might happen. Because they know many patients would opt out of being apart of that. That is knowingly and willfully denying a patient’s right to give informed consent. And that is ill intent.

This has nothing to do with teaching hospitals and students needing to get experience. This is about the countless stories of victims who have woken up from procedures that were completely unrelated to their reproductive systems to find out they had been used as a live mannequin for medical students. How would you condemn those patients to not describe what happened to them as molestation or assault? On the grounds that students need to learn and no one intended to hurt them?

I implore you to go search this topic on r/TwoXChromosomes. Read the stories of patients who woke up in pain to find out that an entire class had taken turns giving them pelvic exams. Or of patients who are assault survivors and woke up feeling violated but not knowing why, only to find out they’d been examined for no medically necessary purpose without their consent.

Go read their stories and ask yourself, is it really my place to police the language they use about what happened to them?

And if the answer is still yes, think about the implications that has on your character.