It would sure strengthen the argument that it was done for sexual gratifiction, so in Kentucky, I’d guess probably. Here in Texas, though, the answer would be a definite “yes,” because it now has the sine qua non of sexual assault - penetration. It’s an odd result; as best as I can tell, slapping the woman’s face with his penis would be simple misdemeanor assault, but the second he puts any part of it in her mouth, it’s felony sexual assault.
A few comments after reading this entire thread…
I have no idea what the legal ramifications of the behavior would be or what the technical legal term is. At this point, it’s academic anyway, because nothing is going to happen to any of these guys.
That being said, I found the incident to be disgusting, misogynistic, and generally reprehensible on the part of all the men concerned, and the fact that anyone would, in the cold light of sobriety, still find it the most hilarious thing they’d ever witnessed, and post it as such on a message board, disturbs me greatly.
Finally, any suggestion that conservatives would be less likely to be disturbed by this than liberals (or vice versa) is ludicrous, and shows an extreme lack of understanding about what either philosophy is supposed to be about.
Soooooo… [looks around] Wheres the pittee?
Isn’t it? We had a flasher who has been doing it all over town, and he is most definitely considered by the authorities to be a sex criminal. It seems that he is getting sexual satisfaction out of it, so yeah. Waving your wang at someone is a sex crime. If it wasn’t sexual, why would you use your sex organs?
I think it’s disingenuous to claim that someone just “happened” to use or expose their sex organs, so it’s not really a sex crime. The guy in the OP specifcally chose to use his balls and dick to humiliate this girl. It seems astonishingly obvious that he was trying to demean her by doing sexual things to her when she couldn’t stop him, in front of his friendns. The barely concealed misogyny of the story blames the victim (she was a bitch, she was snotty about her sorority, she used his towel). How is this even an argument?
At the library. Nose buried in some Balzac.
Yes and clarified that definition further down, in fact in the post that you quoted in #187.
So you define as sexual anything that uses your sex organs? Urination is sexual? Again, I’m not plumping for one defintion over another, just trying to get people to think about how they define “sexual” and what makes something “sexual.” Apparently, for some, just employing a particular part of the body makes something “sexual,” regardless of gratification or even intent. Use of “sexual organs” = “sex act.” This is not how “sex act” has traditionally been defined at law, which recognizes, as these broader definitions do not, that the same appendage can be used for multiple functions, not all of which are definitionally sexual.
I think you’re mighty quick to pull out inflammatory adjectives like “disingenuous.” Your definition is premised on the idea that anything involving the sex organs is therefore sexual. Not everyone may agree with your definition, and they would not be disingenuous to disagree.
Again, this depends entirely on how you are defining “sexual.” Since you apparently define “sexual” as “anything involving the sex organs,” then, yes, he was doing “sexual things to her.” A person who disagrees with your definition will disagree with your conclusion.
This is the crux, I think.
Some people would summarize AC’s post this way:
The time I laughed the hardest was when some guy was a stupid asshole and did something disgusting, rude and crude to this girl who was a total bitch.
I would say:
The time I laughed the hardest was when some guy committed sexual battery against this girl who was a total bitch.
But those aren’t contradictory. Neither of those sets of “some people” are necessarily wrong, though if “sexual battery” isn’t defined a particular way, the second set might be.
[nitpick mode]
I know you paraphrased, but I’d point out that there’s one other element of common-law burglary: it must happen at night.
[/nitpick]
It’s not relevant to the point Jodi was making, but it is relevant to the discussion here: at common law, you cannot successfully prosecute a burglar if the evidence shows he broke into your house and entered therein in order to commit a felony if the event happened during the day. A reader might dismiss these points as useless technicalities, and even inveigh against the dismissive attitude shown by the lawyers against the truly terrible crime of having someone break into your house.
But it wouldn’t change the definition of burglary under the law.
On mouth = in mouth, huh? Certainly that’s not a given. I (and any one with a mouth that opens) knows that it is possible to have something on your open mouth yet never have it enter your open mouth, right? And, you realize that any prosecutor trying to take this as a sexual assault of the pentration variety would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the nuts penetrated the mouth, right? So, how does he do that?
The folks who who think that this is equal to sexual assault of the penetration variety (generally going to be the kind that is sentenced just like what we commonly call “rape”) baffle me? Is there no concept of varying degree of wrong, harm and punishment, in your world? Does a bully that shoves a kid get tried for attempted murder? Do you honestly believe a kid convicted of putting his nuts on a girl’s mouth should be convicted of and sentenced for the same crime as someone who truly rapes, in the conventional sence, another?
And before anyone picks up the mantra of the moron – I am not suggesting that the teabagging incident was a crmiinal incident or even a serious criminal incedent.
One is inclusive of the other.
Yes, the first is inclusive of the second. So?
To add to that: the “injustice” resulting from the common law’s failure to reach conduct that we as a society want to prohibit (like day-time break-ins) has largely been erased by the codification of crimes such that today a day-time break-in probably falls into a criminally prohibited activity almost everywhere. Still, even with the codification, the elements of the crime must be proven to get the conviction. The criminal code can be expanded, within constitutional limits, to combat an activity previously not sufficiently addressed or severely punished, as has clearly happened with some of the lesser degrees of sexual assault and sexual battery already mentioned in this thread.
That’s fortunate, because you can then discard the entire strawman-stuffed paragraph that preceded this statement. Nobody has suggested that balls-on-mouth is equal to/the same as penetrative rape. Even as a non-lawyer I think I can presume, with confidence, that there is no “one size fits all” generic charge of “sex crime” for which the punishment is always exactly the same.
If you’re all in a twist because you’re worried this poor, misunderstood teabaggin’ prankster might be charged with rape, well, I don’t think he should be either. But that doesn’t, in my mind, absolve the act (putting penis and testicles onto the face of a defenseless person to humiliate them in front of others) of its sexual aspect.
A quick question.
Is it legally possible to humiliate someone who was, and presumably remains, completely unaware of being so humiliated?
Another one. Would it still have been a crime if no physical contact had been made? (If, for instance, the scrotum had been suspended just over the mouth.)
These questions, I should add, in mo way imply an endorsement of, or apology for, the conduct described.
I wish it wasn’t you with that comment, but it appears the comment is intended to be funny( to me). I’m pretty sure you don’t believe the OP should have looked at the episode as funny. So why is it okay for you to make fun out of the incident and not the OP?
I’m seriously dsisgusted by hearing about this incident. I was young once, in university, and have been to a lot of parties back in the 60s and 70s and I’ve seen a lot of questionable behavior. But I’ve never heard of teabagging until very recently or anything as nearly disgusting when unconsented . Sadly, I can only conclude that while on the one hand our young people have been instrumental in introducing humanistic attitudes as it relates to minorities and human rights, there are enough of them who, free from the restraints of previously religious attitudes particularly with regard to sexual mores, feel they can get away with this kind of behavior.
A flasher yes, but a streaker no. A streaker is doing essentially the same thing as a flasher, but doesn’t have the requisite state of mind. The key is the “why” of the weenie waving.
Astonishingly obvious to one is reasonable doubt to another. The relevant statutes appear to require that he intended not just to humiliate her but to sexually gratify himself, and that’s what may not be entirely clear to a jury.
This may sound astonishing, but in my jurisdiction this would not only not be a sex crime, it would barely be a crime at all. It would be an assault by offensive contact, which is a class C misdemeanor, same as a seat belt ticket. The maximum punishment would be a $500 fine, no jail time, and it wouldn’t even result in a criminal record. Unless there was some solid proof, like a photo, a prosecutor might not even file it.
I’m not sure it would make a good band name, but maybe an album title?
“In entertainment news, Smothered by Uninvited Pussy from Architect Chore and the Teabag Crüe drops this Tuesday.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “legally possible.” If we go with the general definition of “humiliate,” which is “to cause a painful loss of pride, self-respect, or dignity” (Dictionary.com), then no. If you’re not aware of something, then you can’t be humiliated or embarrassed by it. But if you find out about it later, you can still be embarrassed/humiliated that it occurred.
In my jurisdiction, no. “Sexual battery,” which is what this would be, requires physical contact with the other victim.