Sexual assault was your funniest moment???

The BBQ Pit
161

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
That may be true. I’m a liberal guy, and I’m more toward the “Eh” end of the outrage spectrum than the “string him up for rape” or whatever the other end was.

The guy’s behavior was stupid and disgusting, and I wouldn’t hang out with him, but it’s about as much of a sexual assault as it would have been had she been awake and he held her down to fart in her face. If his intention was sexual, why didn’t he just stick his dick in her mouth?
[/QUOTE]

Where does this come from? No one wants him strung up for rape. But why is the sexual aspect of this so downplayed? His aim (IMO) was to humiliate her. As to your query re farting on her face–is that somehow better? More acceptable? Anyone holding anyone down at a party is suspect in my book-what the hell kind of parties are these?

162

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
Where does this come from? No one wants him strung up for rape.
[/quote]
Reading through the thread, it sure seems to me that some do.

I wonder why the sexual aspect of it is so overplayed.

No. It’s, in my opinion, on par with what he did, which is why I said that it was no more sexual assault than farting in her face was. That would also be intended to humiliate her - does humiliation equal sex? I can think of hundreds of other behaviors that would be intended to humiliate someone - would they all be sexual assault?

And they would be in mine, which I thought I made perfectly clear by saying that it would be stupid and disgusting and I wouldn’t associate with someone who did so.

163

[QUOTE=Missy2U]
This is, quite possibly, the goddamn dumbest asssed statement I’ve read in a LONG time.
[/QUOTE]

Do you normally have Der Trihs on ignore or something?
Rhetorical question for humorous effect. Do not answer this question. Do not mention the I-word.

IMO it’s all context-sensitive. I would normally object violently to having cold water poured over my genitals but this is the customary ending to a rugby-club jape known as the “Three-Man Lift” and the idea is that you just suck it up and look forward to it being some other gullible idiot’s fate the next time. In such circumstances I guess I’d’ve been expected to treat being teabagged just the same, not that it was a current prank when I was a lad. I certainly wouldn’t internalise it the same way that I would having someone’s dick stuck up my arse.

And really, you know, a nutsack is not the weapon of choice for a violent assault. :dubious:

164

[QUOTE=Jodi]
The idea that “conservatives” would find this less offensive then “liberals” is quite possibly the stupidest thing I’ve ever read on these Boards – and that’s saying something. If anything, there appears to be a gender split, with many (though not all) males deeming this a prank and women being pretty seriously offended by it.

Next up: How conservatives don’t like spicy food as much as liberals do, and how liberals like to swim more. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]

People on different ends of the political spectrum may have different attitudes about things, but to the extent a split is occurring in characterizing this behavior I think both sides of an spectrum would agree that’s it’s extremely offensive and undoubtedly deserving of an ass-kicking if you could get you hands on the offender.

The question is (I think) in looking at the overall scenario do you move this incredibly assholish behavior into the category of true "sexual assault’ and all the severe punishments attached to that label, or is it something less dire? And in this context I think you do find a bifurcation of attitudes, cleaving not so much along political lines, but more in terms of how people gauge acceptable levels of acting out in public. I think in some ways this is actaully more of social manners dispute that crosses gender and political lines, and is probably related more to how you were raised than anything else.

165

[QUOTE=whole bean]
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).
[/QUOTE]

FWIW, the “assailant” I was referring to was the teabagger in the original scenario, not the woman whose boob was exposed. I apologize if that was unclear.

I was asking whether exposing the breast of a sleeping woman (or a conscious woman, for that matter) without her consent would be considered a type of sexual assault, when (according to you) putting one’s genitals on the woman’s mouth would not.

There seems to be an effort here to define sexual assault as rape, and nothing else. Is that the accepted legal definition? yBeaf has said that aggravated sodomy doesn’t qualify as sexual assault, which seems illogical to me.

166

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
I am fairly contemptous of lawyers in general and the law as well–to argue whether this is “winnable” in terms of sexual assault turns the whole fucking thing into some contest. Look at what happened here. Ask yourself if you would want that to happen to yourself or a woman close to you.

M position on this is that it SHOULD be tried as sexual assault, and it if cannot be (and that boggles my mind-no wonder rape is under-reported if shit like this has little hope of being successfully prosecuted)–then shame on our judicial and legislative systems. As DianaG says, we are in very little danger of considering “every obnoxious act of exposing yourself” to be sexual assault.
[/QUOTE]
Hey, I’m with you - I’m fairly contemptous of lawyers too, and I am one. It’s not all the fault of the law and the lawyers, though. Part of the problem with getting a sex crime conviction here is the public perception and disagreement as to whether this was done out of a desire for sexual gratification, disagreement evidenced by this very thread. It may be clear as crystal that there was a sexual element to someone hearing about it, but if the law there is anything like it is here it requires sexual gratification to be in the concrete rather than the abstract: actual sexual arousal. Asserting dominance probably isn’t enough, else every instance of family violence assault would be a sex crime.

Whenever I voir dire a jury panel I’m always struck by how many people hold views so contrary to my own. There’s always a feeling for some reason that the jury panel will be composed of fair and right-thinking individuals (i.e., people who think exactly like I do), and the range of responses I get to questions always surprises me. You have to hold in the urge to yell out “you jerk! How can you possibly think that way?” because you want people who think that way to tell you. That’s why it’s called voir dire - “speak the truth.” It’s a lot like these boards, in a way.

People who feel very strongly one way or the other get cut from the jury, by cause or peremptory strike. You’re left with the people in the middle. During voir dire the defense attorney asks people to come up with signs that a man is sexually aroused, and in direct and cross-examination establishes that every single one of those signs is absent (did my client have an erection? Did he ejaculate? Did he appear aroused in any way at all?). Couple that with the fact that there was no penetration, no injury, and the woman would never even be aware that the incident occurred at all had not someone told her, and the jury is going to be very hard pressed with handing down the scarlet letter that is the sex crime conviction. That’s why all the lawyers here (I think) are offering up the opinion that a crime took place, but not a sex crime. It may seem macabre to discuss the legality of the act in a detached fashion “like some kind of contest,” but a trial is a contest of sorts and you do have to take a detached look if it’s your profession.

167

[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
There seems to be an effort here to define sexual assault as rape, and nothing else. Is that the accepted legal definition? yBeaf has said that aggravated sodomy doesn’t qualify as sexual assault, which seems illogical to me.
[/QUOTE]
I think what yBeayf is saying is that it could be charged as aggravated sodomy, but that the sexual gratification element doesn’t appear to be there. Aggravated sodomy itself looks very much to be a sex crime. We don’t have those distinctions here, here it’s all “sexual assault” and “aggravated sexual assault.”

168

[QUOTE=pravnik]
That’s why it’s called voir dire - “speak the truth.”
[/QUOTE]
Extreme tangent: That’s interesting. Since “voir” means “to see” and dire means “to say”, I always thought it translated more along the lines of “to see what they say,” but googling turns up more suggestion of your translation.

169

[QUOTE=astro]
The question is (I think) in looking at the overall scenario do you move this incredibly assholish behavior into the category of true "sexual assault’ and all the severe punishments attached to that label, or is it something less dire? And in this context I think you do find a bifurcation of attitudes, cleaving not so much along political lines, but more in terms of how people gauge acceptable levels of acting out in public. I think in some ways this is actaully more of social manners dispute that crosses gender and political lines, and is probably related more to how you were raised than anything else.
[/QUOTE]

Well, in my jurisdiction it could not be a sexual assault without either being one of a list of given sex acts or involving penetration, but it certainly would be a sexual battery. These are not the same crimes or even in the same ballpark; a sexual assault (technically, in this jurisdiction, a rape or sexual act committed under certain circumstances – i.e., by force, with an incapacitated victim, with a victim under a certain age) is a felony while a sexual battery is a misdemeanor.

So even if we decide to get into the legal technicalities of it, I don’t see why the choices are that either this is just “boys will be boys” good clean fun, or the guy is guilty of rape in the first degree. It’s like we start talking about outrageous behavior and suddenly nobody can see shades of gray anymore.

I don’t think there’s a big gulf here among reasonable people.

  1. Is it a completely contemptible and reprehensible act? Yes.

  2. Is it a crime under modern statutory law? Maybe; depends on the law (the statutes) in the jurisdiction in which the act occurred. (And I’m not going to speculate on Kentucky law.)

  3. Would it be considered a crime under the old common law? Yes, probably – a simple battery, which is the “intentional or wrongful physical contact with a person without his or her consent that entails some injury or offensive touching.” Black’s Law Dictionary (emphasis added).

  4. If the girl found out about it, could she sue the guy? Yes. For battery, and probably for negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress (depending on whether the guy intended for her to find out that he’d done it – if he wants her to know, intentional; if she finds out from someone else, negligent).

The point is, the law almost always has a whole host of arrows in its quiver to deal with objectional physical interactions. You don’t have to either think this is perfectly okay, even legally speaking, or it is a rape or sexual assault. There are other choices that are in the middle.

Well, right back atcha, sweetheart.

It’s not a contest; it’s a criminal trial. A crime has certain elements, X, Y, and Z. The law provides that in order to convict a defendant you must prove X AND Y AND Z – not some of them, not something that is close to them, ALL of them, and EXACTLY them. If you don’t have all of them, you cannot get a conviction, because the judge will instruct the jury to acquit the defendant if you can’t prove all of them. And once he is acquitted, he can’t be retried. So you as a prosecuting attorney have to think carefully about what you’re going to charge the guy with, because if you charge him to “high” – meaning, with too serious a crime, one you can’t actually prove – then he will be acquitted and walk.

Is that what you want? The guy to be charged with sexual assault and then acquitted? Or do you want him charged with the appropriate crime and then convicted? The shorthand of “winning” or “losing” refers to “convicting” or “acquitting”; it doesn’t turn the whole thing into a a contest. And with that in mind, you should want prosecutors who are interested in “winning” – if they “lose” and a guilty defendant walks, it’s society that pays that price.

Again, the choices aren’t “sexual assault” or “perfectly okay.” Of course no one would want this to happen to someone close to them.

Yeah, shame on us for not treating every offensive contact as a sexual assault. :rolleyes: Depending on how you define “sexual assault,” not every offensive contact qualifies, and they shouldn’t all qualify, because there is no reason to treat a woman who has been raped or violently assaulted the same as you do a woman who unfortunately has been subjected to having some drunk asshole place his nuts on her face. Both outrageous? Yes. Both deserving of punishment? Yes. Both crimes? IMO, yes, or they should be. BUT they are not equally outrageous, they are not deserving of the same punishment, they are not the same crime. And contrary to your argument, drawing such distinctions is not a failing of the justice system, it is one of its strengths.

170

It is also worth noting in light of pravnik’s posts that not all jurisdictions require sexual gratification as an element of sexual crimes. My jurisidiction does not.

171

[QUOTE=Jodi]
It is also worth noting in light of pravnik’s posts that not all jurisdictions require sexual gratification as an element of sexual crimes. My jurisidiction does not.
[/QUOTE]

I find it somewhat surprising that it would be an element in any jurisdiction. To a layman (e.g., me) it suggests that the crime must be characterized not so much on what was actually done, what instrument was used to commit the act, what effect it had on the victim, but rather… to what degree the perpetrator “got off” on it.

172

I do as well. If a guy sticks his *flaccid * dick in a woman’s mouth, is that somehow **not ** a sex crime?

173

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Extreme tangent: That’s interesting. Since “voir” means “to see” and dire means “to say”, I always thought it translated more along the lines of “to see what they say,” but googling turns up more suggestion of your translation.
[/QUOTE]

I like your tangent better than the argument! The voir in voir dire is more related to the modern word voire (meaning “indeed,” or “truthfully”), which derives from the latin verus, meaning “true.” *Voir *comes from the Latin videre, to see.

174

[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
I find it somewhat surprising that it would be an element in any jurisdiction. To a layman (e.g., me) it suggests that the crime must be characterized not so much on what was actually done, what instrument was used to commit the act, what effect it had on the victim, but rather… to what degree the perpetrator “got off” on it.
[/QUOTE]
I’m in no way a lawyer, but I remember from high school law classes that intent is a significant component of many crimes. Say you park your car in a parking lot and leave your keys in it, and someone else with the same make and model car also leaves their car in the lot with their keys in it. If you come out and drive off in the wrong car, you are not guilty of stealing the car, even though your behavior was the same as that of a car thief. You lacked the intent to steal.

By all accounts, the guy in this case lacked the intent to gratify himself sexually.

175

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
I like your tangent better than the argument! The voir in voir dire is more related to the modern word voire (meaning “indeed,” or “truthfully”), which derives from the latin verus, meaning “true.” *Voir *comes from the Latin videre, to see.
[/QUOTE]
Ah! Thanks. It makes more sense, grammatically speaking, than “to see to say” does. Although I think the concept of seeing what they have to say more accurately describes the process than the idea that potential jurors are necessarily going to tell the truth!

176

Is it sexual assault? l Looks like one attorney gets to take this argument into the courtroom.

Ripped from the morning headlines! [Chung Chung] This should hit a little closer to home for guys.

High school coach allegedly hit players in groin

177

[QUOTE=Otto]
You’re a goddamn idiot. If you can’t be bothered to read the stuff linked to in the thread, then piss the fuck off and shut the fuck up.

Definitions under Kentucky law:
The law as written does not require penetration to be “deviate sexual intercourse.” What I said, if you had bothered to read it carefully instead of seeing the R word and launching this ludicrous “He said rape! Otto said rape!” screed, was that if under Kentucky law “deviate sexual intercourse” is legally considered “sexual intercourse” then in my opinion Mister Teabag is guilty of the statutorily-defined “rape in the first degree.”
[/QUOTE]

Look, buddy, your “if” was a presumptive conclusion, why else make the statement. The defintion of sexual intercourse, that you quote, reads: Sexual intercourse occurs upon any penetration. I am not going to bother away the whole afternoon to run down the statute that deals with “deviate sexual intercourse” just to refute your “well if its this, then its that” crap, but my hunch is deviate sexual interscourse is part of an anti-sodomy law – not a sexual assault statute.

178

[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
I find it somewhat surprising that it would be an element in any jurisdiction. To a layman (e.g., me) it suggests that the crime must be characterized not so much on what was actually done, what instrument was used to commit the act, what effect it had on the victim, but rather… to what degree the perpetrator “got off” on it.
[/QUOTE]

Keep in mind that the idea that sexual assaults are crimes of power is a relatively new idea. At the common law, what differentiated an “assault” from a “sexual assault” was the desire to achieve sexual gratification – that’s what made it “sexual.” If it wasn’t done for purposes of sexual gratification, it could still be an assault – just not a sexual one. Now, recognizing that sexual assault may not really be about gratification at all, some jurisdictions focus more on the sexual nature of the assault, looking for intimate contact (involving the genitals) or other things that might indicate the crime was sexual in nature. That isn’t as easy as it sounds, since removing the “for purposes of sexual gratification” element from the crime raises the risk of exactly what we are seeing in this thread – that you may end up with crimes that are not really sexual being treated as seriously as true sexual assaults. It really just begs the question of just what we mean by “sexual” anyway. What makes a crime “sexual”? What makes anything “sexual”?

And as others have said, intent is an element of many crimes. Burglary is defined at the common law as “unlawfully entering into the dwelling of another with the intention of committing a crime therein.” (Paraphrased.) Deliberate homicide requires intent. But the relevant inquire wouldn’t be the degree to which the assailant got off, but whether he intended to.

179

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
I wonder why the sexual aspect of it is so overplayed…
It’s, in my opinion, on par with what he did, which is why I said that it was no more sexual assault than farting in her face was. That would also be intended to humiliate her - does humiliation equal sex? I can think of hundreds of other behaviors that would be intended to humiliate someone - would they all be sexual assault?
[/QUOTE]

Only because he used his sex organs. If you use your sex organs to humiliate someone, you’re committing a sex crime. I don’t see where the hard part is.

It is also stupid and disgusting. But primarily, it’s a crime.

Most days, maybe 6 out of 7, I cross a busy street between intersections. Sometimes I do this right in front of a cop. I have never gotten a ticket for it, even though it is illegal. That doesn’t mean I didn’t commit a crime, it just means that I’ve never been punished for it.

180

[QUOTE=Cervaise]
What if he, or they, had tittyfucked her?
[/QUOTE]

it might be a CRIME but not one that has INTERCOURSE (as generally defined) as an element. IT might even very well be termed some form of “sexual assault”, but probably not the same kind as the worst form of sexual assault (meant to encompass rape) defined by that code.

I am not defending the conduct. I am not “dismissing” the conduct. I am saying that: 1) it’s not rape; 2) it’s probably not even sexual assault in a lot of jurisdicitons (though a titty fuck might well be since it involves “sexual gratification”); 3) it’s most likely some form of punishable offense in every jurisdiciton.