Yes. You’re doing really well.
…and he didn’t find it the first time so he went looking for it, and he didn’t find it the second time so he went looking for it, and he didn’t find it the third time so he went looking for it…
“Honest, your Honor, my client didn’t enjoy it at all”
Would your statutory definition of sexual assault be something like ‘non-consensual penetration of or by a primary sexual organ for sexual purposes’.
I would just stick with old fashioned battery.
" an intentional unpermitted act causing harmful or offensive contact with the “person” of another"
It doesn’t matter whether or not the perp got his freak on.
Just punish him dammit.
That’s why “sex crime” and “hate crime” tend to screw up our justice system. Rape is rape, murder is murder, assault is assault. If they had used a coathanger to put out his eyes, is that a lesser crime? actually, yes, which is just nutty.
How much you punish him is the question.
On a tangent but we’ve done this debate before. Hate crime legislation is in place because we as a society have generally agreed that terrorizing a group based on something like their skin color or sexual orientation or religion (etc) is a bad thing, and targeting an individual because of a characteristic like that doesn’t just harm the specific victim, it harms others who share that characteristic. So you get punished for the crimes you committed but you may also get additional punishment for the wider societal impact of those crimes.
A few years back I served on a jury in a criminal case which involved hate crime enhancements. Some of the most horrific things were done to the victim because the ringleader realized she was gay. Imagine how other lesbians felt knowing that they might have the same nightmare visited upon them because of their sexual orientation. The defendant got a huge (and entirely appropriate, IMHO) sentence based on the crimes he committed (and those sentences would have been the same no matter who the victim was - male, female, black, white, gay, straight), and several of those sentences were then increased because of WHY he did what he did and the impact that has on people other than the immediate victim.
You didn’t ask why in the OP, and my reply wasn’t intended as an argument. I was expressing my own surprise at your claim that you were surprised to learn that non-consensual anal penetration could be considered a sex crime and that you just couldn’t understand why such a law would exist.
I said I was surprised rather than accusing you of starting this thread in bad faith because I thought there was some possibility that you sincerely wished to have a serious discussion about sexual assault. As you have since admitted that this is not the case:
I see no reason why I, or anyone else, should bother answering your “fun” questions about anal rape. In fact, the next time you start a thread on any sensitive or controversial topic, I hope everyone remembers what you said here.
Cut him some slack. Even controversial, emotional conventional wisdom should be challenged often. Lance does that respectfully I think.
I was cutting him slack, until he admitted why he started this thread. As for respectful, well, we clearly have different standards there. I personally do not consider it respectful to pretend that one doesn’t understand sexual assault laws in order to trick people into trying to explain them because it’s oh so fun to keep rejecting their answers.
I think a lot of men would be sexually aroused to watch a things being being inserted into an anus even if it was not a penis. Anal beads, dildos, beer bottles, etc. So at least in some cases anal penetration with foreign objects can be sexual in nature, particularly if its sort of rapey.
Bolding mine.
Lance Could you share the news item in question? Obviously not if it’s NSFW, but if it’s news, would like to see it. Thanks.