[phoboser]

	Originally Posted by Icristhus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Then, by your reasoning, sexual intent or consequence is completely irrelevant?

I edited that. I meant to include sexual assaults with the intent to humiliate rather than to get one's jollies off.

	So, forcibly videotaping another person's body parts typically considered functional for sex by consensus opinion (the penis, in this case) would, absolutely, fit your definition of 'sexual'.

Only if the intent was to depict those body parts in a sexual light. But here you're using sexual to describe the videotape, and then stretching to apply it to the physical assault.

	Meanwhile, by your logic, Domestic Assault doesn't exist either. Unless it's vandalism, anyway - because that's the only time we're 'assaulting' a person's home, right?

I don't get your analogy. Domestic, in domestic assault, refers to the place and context of the assault and relationship between the victim and assailant. Sexual, in sexual assault, refers to assaults on sexual body parts of a sexual nature.

	In short, you're getting into silly details and wording nitpicks, while defeating your own argument. Is there a word you can think of that fits better than 'assault' for someone being forcibly wrestled to the ground and held in place?

Assault is fine.

	Or 'sexual' for having their sexual bits forcibly revealed to the neighborhood, captured on video tape, and then posted to the internet for all the world to witness?

Nude is a better adjective.

[Icristhus]

	Originally Posted by CharlieBrown To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A quote from The Escapist forum OP linked: Apparently, society holds that we, as males, are supposed to enjoy every sexual activity. After all, our highest disposition is towards sex and all that comes with it. If a male doesn't enjoy the sexual activity there must be something wrong with him. Let the accusations fly, must be gay or something.

Heh, I said a similar thing to a friend about this news story. I speculated that he's no doubt getting all sorts of grief from the other kids and adults in his life right now for being a 'little fag' or something to that effect.

After all, if they had three girls fighting to undress them, they'd just bask in the glory.

I always find it fascinating that people will insist that they, themselves, would react to a frightening, stressful, or emotionally-charged situation in a way completely different from the victim. Even though they almost certainly would be just as overwhelmed by their own emotions in similar fashion.

[plotthickens]

Unacceptable. Why are the idiot police not being scrutinized?

[phoboser]

	Originally Posted by Icristhus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It has more to do with the locale, the motivations, and the fuzzy social things involved - which are /incredibly/ important.

How are the locale and motivations in this case sexual? Are you admitting that your justification for calling it sexual assault is fuzzy?

[tp6626]

I think societies mindset is one of:

Boys like sex, therefore if they do this, it's sexual assault and perverted / deviant.
Girls don't like sex, therefore if they do this it isn't sexual assault, it's more motherly / prankish.

But when a man gets raped, his thoughts will be "I'm gonna look a right wuss if I report it", because a) does he not like sex? b) is he so weak that he couldn't stop it, c) is he such a puff that he's bothered about it afterwards and can't get over it.

Many people simply won't accept that a man even can be raped or sexually assaulted. They think its impossible. That's how ingrained it is.

[CharlieBrown]

Originally Posted by Icristhus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Heh, I said a similar thing to a friend about this news story. I speculated that he's no doubt getting all sorts of grief from the other kids and adults in his life right now for being a 'little fag' or something to that effect. After all, if they had three girls fighting to undress them, they'd just bask in the glory. I always find it fascinating that people will insist that they, themselves, would react to a frightening, stressful, or emotionally-charged situation in a way completely different from the victim. Even though they almost certainly would be just as overwhelmed by their own emotions in similar fashion.

That might be the reason as to why his mother seems so apathetic about it, ashamed even, that this was brought to light. He's eleven, he's a child, yet somehow, based solely on his gender, he is supposed to enjoy what they did to him. Would a different person have enjoyed it? Perhaps, but that's a different person. Lovely hypocrisy.

[Icristhus]

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	How are the locale and motivations in this case sexual? Are you admitting that your justification for calling it sexual assault is fuzzy?

Actually, if you look further down in my post you'd see that I said 'The why, the how, and the where are all more important'

In this case, the how is an act that can be defined as sexual - stripping him naked and videotaping it.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(perhaps not the best possible source, but still) says:

	sex·u·al (sksh-l) adj. 1. Of, relating to, involving, or characteristic of sex, sexuality, the sexes, or the sex organs and their functions. 2. Implying or symbolizing erotic desires or activity. 3. Relating to, produced by, or involving reproduction characterized by the union of male and female gametes: sexual reproduction.

Notice category 1 fits rather nicely, as I believe both nudity and penises fit somewhere in there, if only being characteristic of, involved with, or related to sexual organs.

Anyway, I looked up the definition of 'sexual assault' while I was at it, and by and large it seems to agree with you - that it's more worried about molestation and rape. So I'll instead pose the question: Is there any offense this fits better with, while retaining its seriousness?

Also, a bit of evidence for a legal definition of 'sexual assault' that could qualify this, from the National Center for Victims of Crime:

Someone touching, fondling, kissing or making any unwanted contact with your body;

(
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)

Edit to add: Yep, agreed Charlie. Still fascinating in a morbid sense, though.

[phoboser]

	Originally Posted by Icristhus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Anyway, I looked up the definition of 'sexual assault' while I was at it, and by and large it seems to agree with you - that it's more worried about molestation and rape. So I'll instead pose the question: Is there any offense this fits better with, while retaining its seriousness?

Aren't there harsh sentences for those perverts who videotape women going to the bathroom without their consent? Or surreptitiously filming upskirt?

	Someone touching, fondling, kissing or making any unwanted contact with your body;

By that definition any assault is sexual assault.

[Icristhus]

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Aren't there harsh sentences for those perverts who videotape women going to the bathroom without their consent? Or surreptitiously filming upskirt? By that definition any assault is sexual assault.

Yes to both.

In the first case, voyeurism is defined as being without their knowledge or consent. In this case, he had knowledge even if no consent was given (or could even be legally given).

In the second case, that's why we have lawyers and judges to interpret the law. Yes, technically so much as touching a hair on your head without your consent could be called sexual assault. That doesn't mean a judge would take it seriously or a lawyer would attempt to use that claim.

Laws and legal definitions are imperfect, subjective things - hence why we have such a robust system to bend them, break them, and screw each other over with them.

Would you prefer if we advocated charging the girls with child pornography - the act of capturing images of a nude minor?

Quite honestly, we have no perfect legal definition of such sexualized public humiliation. But we do have defined terms that are close enough to work with. Such things are why there are limits and ranges for the prescribed punishments in laws, rather than an exact formula to follow every time.

[CharlieBrown]

Also, why is it acceptable for the new media to broadcast the footage of this assault? Did I miss something?

[JTG]

Re: assault vs sexual assault

Keep in mind that "sexual harrassment" in a workplace setting includes something as minor as making a dirty joke, or commenting on somebody's appearance in a sexually suggestive way. I don't think it's a strong argument that forcibly stripping somebody in public isn't a sexual attack. The intent of the attackers may not have been sexual, but the humiliation endured is definitely of a sexual nature

[Icristhus]

Originally Posted by JTG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Re: assault vs sexual assault Keep in mind that "sexual harrassment" in a workplace setting includes something as minor as making a dirty joke, or commenting on somebody's appearance in a sexually suggestive way. I don't think it's a strong argument that forcibly stripping somebody in public isn't a sexual attack. The intent of the attackers may not have been sexual, but the humiliation endured is definitely of a sexual nature

Ah, thank you. That's the gist of what I was going for in my original post trying to explain it. I just got sidetracked with the more interesting, sparkly bits rather than the actual explanation bits.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Amphorian]

I think what is worse then the young girls not getting appropriately punished is the fact the young boy will probably continue getting humiliated. He's probably going get made fun of in many ways from people of all ages around him. Like calling him a 'wuss' or 'chicken' for screaming out for his mother, and if his mother presses charges, as well as perhaps 'gay' for not enjoying it. It is peer pressure by society which can be quite strong and highly influencing and later on very damaging.

[Eridal]

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	How was it sexual assault? They didn't touch any of his no-no places, nor force him to touch any of theirs.

What constitutes a sexual assault is determined by the laws of the jurisdiction where the assault takes place. These vary considerably and are influenced by local social and cultural attitudes.[citation needed] While sexual assaults are associated with the crime of rape, the category includes assaults other than rape.[2] Sexual assault may include rape (such as forced vaginal, anal or oral penetration), inappropriate touching, forced kissing, child sexual abuse, or the torture of the victim in a sexual manner.[3]

#3 Fits the definition of a sexual assault which is torture of a victim in a sexual manner. By exposing his body the point was to humiliate/degrade him sexual since it involved showing off sexual parts of his body. We wouldn't even be having this discussion about whether it was a sexual assault or not if it was a girl involved in this exact situation. The point is they don't have to touch him directly sexually for it to be a sexual assault only has to involve sexuality which this case clearly does since they stripped him naked and filmed him.

[phoboser]

	Originally Posted by Icristhus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In the second case, that's why we have lawyers and judges to interpret the law. Yes, technically so much as touching a hair on your head without your consent could be called sexual assault. That doesn't mean a judge would take it seriously or a lawyer would attempt to use that claim.

In order to characterize this as sexual assault you had to use a definition that includes touching the hair on one's head. That should tell you how shaky your argument is.

	Would you prefer if we advocated charging the girls with child pornography - the act of capturing images of a nude minor?

No, do you? This does qualify as distributing child pornography as the laws are written now, right?

[Icristhus]

The thing is, I'm quite content with the common perception of sexual assault and harassment: unwelcome acts which have sexually demeaning, humiliating, or injuring consequences or motivations.

Thus, sexual assault.

Anything past that and we're really quibbling about nothing. Do you disagree that an act's consequences upon the victim should be irrelevant to the consequences upon the perpetrator?

[Crazyblue]

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In order to characterize this as sexual assault you had to use a definition that includes touching the hair on one's head. That should tell you how shaky your argument is. No, do you? This does qualify as distributing child pornography as the laws are written now, right?

Would you really be using this as your argument if 3 boys were undressing a girl?

[CharlieBrown]

	In order to characterize this as sexual assault you had to use a definition that includes touching the hair on one's head.

I think you missed Icristhus' point. As a society we have to work within the confines of law. Sexual assault applies to this case due to the nature of the attack. If a woman were forcibly stripped in public, those performing the act would be charged with sexual assault.

Edited:

	Only if the intent

Intent is irrelevant. If you play with matches and inadvertently burn down your neighbor's home, you're going to be charged with arson regardless of your intention.

[phoboser]

	Originally Posted by Icristhus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The thing is, I'm quite content with the common perception of sexual assault and harassment: unwelcome acts which have sexually demeaning, humiliating, or injuring consequences or motivations. Thus, sexual assault.

By "common perception".

	Anything past that and we're really quibbling about nothing.

Legal definitions aren't nothing. Eridel makes a good point, not that I buy it.

	Do you disagree that an act's consequences upon the victim should be irrelevant to the consequences upon the perpetrator?

No, sentencing should reflect those consequences, not charging a person with a different crime than what was committed.

---------- Post added 06-10-2011 at 08:56 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Crazyblue To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Would you really be using this as your argument if 3 boys were undressing a girl?

Yeah.

[Crazyblue]

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yeah.

Alright then. I disagree with your assessment of the situation and what crimes it violates, but it's really up to a lawyer to prove this specific case with the evidence to a jury, so it's fruitless to discuss this topic online.

[Icristhus]

My main point here is, legal definitions are open to interpretation, and are constantly being reinterpreted in such cases as these.

Simple, really. If we don't have a definition that fits this occasion perfectly, we use the next best example - in this case, either sexual assault or child pornography. CP has already been suggested by one of the attorneys involved. Myself, I'd have figured Sexual Assault fits better.

But either way, law is open to interpretation and re-interpretation. Else we would have absolutely no need or use of the judicial system - we would need only legislators and executives. The Law and its Enforcement.

The thing is, we have an additional side of government: Interpretation of Law. This falls easily into their domain. My opinion is of one possible interpretation; yours is of another.

Simple enough, right?

[phoboser]

	Originally Posted by CharlieBrown To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think you missed Icristhus' point. As a society we have to work within the confines of law.

I understood his point. He had to use the most broad definition of sexual assault that he could find, one that includes any assault regardless of whether or not it has sexual overtones, so that the confines were so expansive that whether or not an assault is considered sexual is entirely up to opinion.

	Intent is irrelevant.

I don't know if that's true with regards to arson. But intent is not irrelevant in deciding which crime a person is charged with.

[Icristhus]

Hm. Either way, I'm content to agree to disagree. I suspect we've said about all that can be said for either side of the debate.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[CharlieBrown]

Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I understood his point. He had to use the most broad definition of sexual assault that he could find, one that includes any assault regardless of whether or not it has sexual overtones, so that the confines were so expansive that whether or not an assault is considered sexual is entirely up to opinion. I don't know if that's true with regards to arson. But intent is not irrelevant in deciding which crime a person is charged with.

I know the analogy is flimsy, but I used it to demonstrate my point. Whether the girls intended to derive sexual satisfaction from stripping the boy or not; the ramifications of their doing so are of a sexual nature. They sexually humiliated the boy, that's how this situation is interpreted in Western society. Whether or not you agree with that assessment is up to you. We both have differing opinions regarding the application of law in this situation and arguing over them in this mode of communication is futile at best. Enlightening, but futile. Thanks for the discussion, phoboser.

[Sk8ordude]

I cant imagine that a long trip to detention wouldn't be in store for the victimizers if the genders were the reverse. Even if the victim or victims parent didn't press charges, the state would still charge the boys.