No, that’s pretty much it, at least as it relates to this specific incident. My position here is much like Miller’s. It’s not rape, it’s not sexual assault, it’s just a stupid prank.
Not in KY. It would, though, be sodomy in the first degree.
I’m glad that you prefaced that you were directing your comment at the dudes, rather than malk, because she would have a hard time placing her bare scrotum on the faces of any of her friends.
Yes, darn right difficult.
I can’t say harmless or fun, but I dare say (absent the involvment of minors) you would hard pressed to find 1 in 1,000 males willing to press a charge.
no. on a related note: a boob is not a sex organ and the assailant’s organ’s didn’t participate (if your confused, the assailantg is the one assailing – i.e. the attacker).
guys, you’ve had a couple of attorneys, familiar with such statutes and their application, tell you this probably isn’t going to be prosecuted as a sexual assault. if you want that to change, lobby your legislature. to review, intercourse will probably, at the minimum, require penetration. this sort of prank is not the sort of thing sexual assault laws were meant to address, for good reason, other laws laws punish unwelcome touching of a non-sexual nature. tea-bagging, as described, is no more sexual than rubbing ball sweat on someone.
Her mouth was open.
Are you really sure that no part of the scrotum went into her mouth?
Gravity being what it is, I’d bet that his scrotum “penetrated” her mouth, at least to some extent. And regardless of whether it actually went in or not (and we have no way of knowing), it is reasonable to assume that when placing a scrotum on the open mouth of an unconscious person, some slippage is likely to occur.
In other words, the teabagger had to know that there was a good chance his balls would go into her mouth. If he really didn’t want his scrotum to go into her mouth, then he wouldn’t have put it on her mouth in the first place.
The “on not in” argument is just silly.
The “it’s not sexual, it’s just hazing” thing is silly, too. If some fratboy teabags his fratmate, it’s sexual. If his intention was just to humiliate him, he’d just shave off an eyebrow or put his hand in warm water to see if he pees or something. I mean, taking out your genitals is not a normal response to a non-sexual practical joke situation.
capybara I was thinking about Abner Louima, too.
Ok, I am baffled here. So, if it’s just a “stupid prank” than why should it matter if a woman is charged or not? If you don’t think a man should be charged for something like this, than why does it matter if a woman isn’t as well?
It’s more than a stupid prank-it’s a demeaning, crude act against a defenseless person. It would be loathsome if a woman stuck her labia in a man’s face. It’s horrid any way you look at it. The guy who did it was an A class jerk, and his buddies are assholes as well. Dismissing it as stupid hardly helps either males or females unfortunate to find themselves in such a situation in the future. It is sexual, if only because it is done to establish dominance. That alone likens it to rape (I understand it is not rape)–and makes it more appalling.
But I guess it’s just a big joke. April Fool’s! Or no big deal. Wrong on both counts.
Just out of curiosity, at what exact point does touching an unwilling person with your genitals become something more than a stupid prank?
whole bean, you’re probably right, but IMO that’s exactly because no matter how violated he actually felt, he’d prefer not to listen to someone like you or **yBeayf ** would tell him that it’s just a stupid prank and not to be such a fucking pussy. Thing is, that doesn’t mitigate the malicious intent of the act.
yBeafy -just to clarify, I am not directing my anger at you. This whole situation makes me very angry. The dismissive attitude shown by the attorneys here also angers me. If the courts dont’ want to deal with these messy issues, I hope that at least the colleges or workplaces do.
the “not in” argument is the very edge of a technical definition. a threshold as it were. if penetration is an element of the crime, it’s an element. don’t like it. lobby your state legislature.
and you’re right, I can only knwo what the offending poster wrote “on her open mouth” not “in her open mouth.”
as for the “gentials and non-sexual practical jokes” part of your post, you’re simply wrong. I give you streakers. Are you saying all those “streaking” traditions are sexual or just a way of flouting taboo?
depends on jurisdiction, of course. In Michigan, non consensual contact of the breast, buttocks, thighs or genetailia is (depending on other factors) either Criminal sexual contact in the second or fourth degree (2nd degree is a felony, punishable by, I think, up to 15 years, the other is a misdemeanor). statute does say contact for sexual gratification, but I cannot concieve of a defense to deliberatly placing genetalia onto some one else that would not be assumed to be somewhat of a sexual nature.
so, in MI, the person would most likely be charged w/csC in 2nd degree (victim incapacitation).
because rape is a serioous fucking charge with hefty penalites undeserving of this sort of conduct. for fuck’s sake folks, get some goddamn perspective.
and your failure to read angers me. show me an attorney who’s condoned this conduct. you can’t. show me an attorney who says there is no remedy for this wrong. you can’t. rape isn’t the only fucking law in the criminal code. assault, indecent exposure, disorderly conduct, Christ almighty. read and you will see this conduct condemned, but not with the stiff penalites of a rape/first degree sexual assault charge. maybe some criminal codes have fleshed out lesser offenses to specifically target this contact - good for them, but it ain’t RAPE, it’s not vehicular homicide or wire fraud either, that’s all I’ve been saying.
Who’s equating it with rape?
Maybe some here have argued that it meets some legal definition of rape, but I don’t think anyone here thinks that it is comparable to some guy holding the girl down and sticking his dick in her.
Sex crime? Yes. Rape? No.
never said it was ok. never said it wasn’t criminal. in my heart of hearts I can tell you that were this to happen to me reversed, I would not seek to press a sexual assault charge. if this were to happen to me as stated, I would not press a sexual assault charge. would I seek to press some sort of charge? sure, what that would be would be prosecutor’s discretion, but I see it as an assault (commonl law battery) and that is the crime I would expect to be prosecuted.
I don’t think either should be charged. I think it’s fairly clear to most people that both teabagging and a woman putting her breasts on a sleeping man’s face are just ordinary, run-of-the-mill mischief.
<puts head in hands> It’s just teabagging. Honestly, I think quite a few of you are acting like complete ninnies. Personally, I’d be much more pissed off if someone drew on my face with a sharpie – that takes work to remove, while any lasting effects of teabagging can be eliminated with a wet paper towel. As was stated earlier, it’s just a ballsack.
DianaG,
I’d go with the general theme of these statutes and say when the act is done for sexual gratification.
And wring,
I tend to think an average (non-ninny) jury could be pursuaded that it was not with a bit of oral explanation and viewing a few hundred of the teabagging videos that are floating around various humor websites.
call it rape or call it snuggling, if it’s prosecuted as first degree sexual assault the punish met out, the reputation ruined . . . all the same.
and btw, upthread, at least one person has called it rape, twice now.
the probelm is, I see the consequences of this loose labeling; it all falls in the same bin. I have a problem with the term “sexual offense” to the extent that it captures statutory rape and indecent exposure. ruining lives and all that.
you don’t even seem to be correct in this thread, let alone in the realworld.
and from my experience in my jurisdiction, that person wouldbe serving time.
Let me amend that to also say I’d consider it to be so, when penetration of the sexual organs (including the anus) occurs, or when the other person’s mouth is penetrated by the actor’s sexual organs.
This thread does not constitute the real world. The real world possesses quite a bit more common sense.
Also, what crime would it be, under KY law? I’m honestly curious. I’ve been browsing through the KY penal code and don’t see anything that seems to fit.
A. SDMB is quite a bit more liberal (generally) than the real world, so I’d tend to believe that if this thread were going against your position in this matter, it’d be damn sight more likely to go against you IRL.
B. I don’t know KY law. I was responding to a comment thatthe action was NOT a sexual crime, and I was stating that in MY jurisdiction, it most certainly would be considered such.
So maybe I’m a ninny.
But if I woke up and discovered that some guy had dick-whipped me and put his balls on my mouth and over my eyes, I would definitely pursue a sexual assault charge. I just can’t see how it’s not sexual.
Maybe I’d feel differently if I had known that “teabagging” was commonly considered a harmless prank. Think of this from the perspective of someone who’s never heard of teabagging. Do you really think they would laugh it off?