Man squeezes woman's boobs too hard - it ends up in court - should it have?

valoren

No it shouldn't, are you mad!

valoren wrote: »

Fair enough he got a charge of indecent assault and must do 180 hours of community service. That's where it should have ended. To be placed on the register list is an extreme punishment given the details provided by both parties.

I've been slapped across the head by one loon, I've had two women bite me leaving marks which weren't welcome, I've had one woman stick her thumb up my hole and after being told to stop tried it again.

That all happened during consensual sexy time. I could have reported all of them in the same manner as the woman in that article but I didn't. I just moved on with my life.

Your entire point is already covered in law, by the fact that nobody is obliged to report a sexual/ assault on an adult.

Different people will respond to a traumatic event ... differently. For some people, it will have no impact, especially if they are not in a vulnerable position, and feel they can control over the situation. I assume you didn't feel vulnerable or threatened, so no problem.

I'm sure many of us have been the victims of crimes that we didn't bother reporting, but that doesn't ordain us with the right to determine what someone else should or shouldn't do, under different circumstances, when they felt genuine fear or pain.

hatrickpatrick

No it shouldn't, are you mad!

DrPhilG wrote: »

1 - how am I going to get a blowjob while lying face down on the bed?

Am I the only one in this thread with a weiner capable of swinging? O_o

2 - in your example, would it not be a bit daft if I receive this unexpected anal violation, object strenuously, put an end to said entry, continue on and have regular sex with this woman and then once she leaves, report her for assault?

Once sex changes to assault, you don't go back and finish the sex before you report the assault. It's ludicrous.

I agree entirely. Still doesn't change the fact that it was assault, though. She may be reporting it with an alterior motive but the fact remains that it counts as assault and in my view that's something which should be understood across the board. If somebody tells you in advance that a particular sex act is off the cards, it's off the cards. Failing to respect that is, indeed, sexual assault - regardless of any other factors short of a clearly expressed change of mind.

sbsquarepants

No it shouldn't, are you mad!

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Generally they can be moved in different directions... Is mine more flexible than most? .

Most? I don't know
Mine - Most definitely!

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

EVERY sex act is sexual assault in the absence of consent..

This.

I can understand getting carried away and overstepping the mark, especially with someone new - we've most likely all done it at some stage. I've done it myself on a few occasions - it's just part and parcel of life.
What I can not understand is doing it repeatedly when you've been already told to stop.
That's not passion or excitement, it's just a basic lack of respect for the other person. It's knowing that you explicitly do not have consent and just not giving a flying fúck because what you want is more important - commonly known as sexual assault.

Grayson

No it shouldn't, are you mad!

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Poor comprehension there, Grayson, to say the least.

How the hell could your complaint be the "degree of force used" (which is what I specified).

Did you consent to a lighter beating from them or something?

No, you didn't and so therefore your analogy is a poor one.

No, you said degree of force used could only be determined if they required medical attention.

I'm saying that you don't need to require medical attention to for a harmful level of force to have been used against you. Just because she didn't need to go to a hospital doesn't mean that it's not harmful.

Grayson

No it shouldn't, are you mad!

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah here, you position yourself as someone who has more knowledge about such matters, compared to regular folk, and then you compare a man squeezing a woman's boobs harder than she'd have liked...... to being raped?? (which it would be if the guy had refused consent to such a sex act beforehand). Laughable.

harder than she liked is putting a bit of a spin on it.

If I punched you am I trying to get your attention harder than you'd like?

myshirt

What's the next headline?

'Man accidentally says hello to feminist. Trial starts Monday'

How far is this feminist hysteria going to go? The guy honked the woman's boobs during consensual sex. They will be spraying air freshener in men's faces next. This case makes a mockery of women who have suffered quite serious instances of sexual violence.

hatrickpatrick

No it shouldn't, are you mad!

I honestly don't see the confusion here. Breasts are sexual body parts. She told him not to touch her breasts, and he touched her breasts. Ergo, he touched a sexual body part without the consent of the person whose body part it was. Ergo, he committed a sexual assault.

This really shouldn't be as controversial as people here are making it out to be.

Now, as to whether the penalties for such assaults with regard to having to sign the sex offenders registry, and whether those penalties are proportional to the degree of assault committed - that's a very valid conversation to have. Indeed, it's valid to question and debate all penalties under the justice system - those which people believe to be too harsh as well as those which people believe to be too lenient. But it's a separate issue to the question of whether the actual actions taken by the accused in this case constitute a valid count of sexual assault or not - and its this aspect of the case on which I'm saying there shouldn't be any confusion or ambiguity.

RayM

No it shouldn't, are you mad!

Next time someone on AH tries to claim that there's no need for consent classes in schools and universities, I'll point them towards the result of this poll.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

So what you lie face down, spreadeagled, erection pointing towards your feet and she goes...

I'm actually going to need a diagram or something.

Discodog

AFIK you cannot consent to assault in the UK. So BDSM is technically illegal. There was a case where a group of men, who were members of a private members only BDSM club, were prosecuted for assault even thought the "victims" had signed consent forms.

Operation Spanner

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner

myshirt

Discodog wrote: »

AFIK you cannot consent to assault in the UK. So BDSM is technically illegal. There was a case where a group of men, who were members of a private members only BDSM club, were prosecuted for assault even thought the "victims" had signed consent forms.

Was that R v Brown?

How come people can consent to getting punched in the face in a boxing match but they can't consent to another adult putting nipple clamps on them?

McMurphy

Mrs Shaw said after meeting via Tinder and getting on well during their first date they agreed to meet again two days later.

I cant believe she'd do that to me. She told me she was meeting friends. :eek:

Discodog

No it shouldn't, are you mad!

Discodog wrote: »

AFIK you cannot consent to assault in the UK.

Yes you can. There is literally a defence titled "consent".

Wibbs

I thought no but then I seen his picture and changed my mind. I know, unfair, but life's unfair.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You can analogise this fairly easily to be honest. If you consent to sex with a woman and you tell her in no uncertain terms that you have no interest in - indeed, you have a serious aversion to - being pegged, only to suddenly feel the slimy, slippery head of a lubed up strap on dildo sliding its way between your butt cheeks while you're lying face down on her bed thinking she was just going to give you a blowjob, would you not be fairly appalled?

Well unless there's a lady head shaped hole in my mattress she's got some skills, but even if there was but instead she then she starts at my arse with a Strapadicktome 3000™ I would not be a happy camper. She'd be asked in no uncertain terms to get the hell out of both my arse and gaff and numbers would be deleted. Would I run to the Guards hoping to get my day in court? No.

It's also the inconsistency in such cases. As TS noted https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/medical-student-too-bright-for-prison-is-spared-jail-for-stabbing-boyfriend-with-bread-knife-36166924.html where the woman stabs her boyfriend but walks away from it in court. She pulled the usual well worn "bad childhood/mental illness/I'm in therapy" defence. Even her university "remains supportive". Even though she has stabbed someone and has an "emotionally unstable personality disorder, a severe eating disorder and alcohol-drug dependence".

Assetbacked

[Deleted User] wrote: »

:D

We'll look back at your posts about the assault victim...

Touché.

Wibbs

No it shouldn't, are you mad!

Wibbs wrote: »

Well unless there's a lady head shaped hole in my mattress she's got some skills, but even if there was but instead she then she starts at my arse with a Strapadicktome 3000™ I would not be a happy camper. She'd be asked in no uncertain terms to get the hell out of both my arse and gaff and numbers would be deleted. Would I run to the Guards hoping to get my day in court? No.

Wow you sure are a REAL MAN Wibbs. That's nice to know, but it sort of completely misses the point.

The fact that there is no obligation to report a crime of assault is reflective of the pragmatic understanding most of us share, that victims of crime perceive their experiences subjectively.

This is why a sentencing judge will, for example, attach weight to the effect that a crime has had on the victim when she imposes a sentence.

Assuming that most men are physically stronger than women, and that women typically aren't sex offenders, most cases of sexual assault aren't frightening when the woman is the perpetrator. It isn't typically traumatic, and probably doesn't merit reporting.

When the tables are turned, however, and you're alone with someone, (a near-stranger) who is physically stronger than you, and that person assaults you when you've clearly asked them not to ... well, most people can understand that this can be a frightening experience, quite aside from the physical injuries they have inflicted.

She pulled the usual well worn "bad childhood/mental illness/I'm in therapy" defence. Even her university "remains supportive". Even though she has stabbed someone and has an "emotionally unstable personality disorder, a severe eating disorder and alcohol-drug dependence".

It's not unusual for anyone, of either gender, to make claims of prior psychiatric illness or disorder when they stand accused of a crime -- any crime. I'm not sure what this one, isolated incident is intended to demonstrate. It says no more about 'women' than this instant case says anything about 'men'.

BlaasForRafa

I can't decide. I'm on the fence. Perhaps. Maybe. Who's to say really.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Assuming that most men are physically stronger than women, and that women typically aren't sex offenders, most cases of sexual assault aren't frightening when the woman is the perpetrator. It isn't typically traumatic, and probably doesn't merit reporting.

I bet you don't realize just how sexist you sound there.

BlaasForRafa

No it shouldn't, are you mad!

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I bet you don't realize just how sexist you sound there.

I am sure it does sound sexist ... to all the people who think they can do whatever they want to a woman once she agrees to sex.

Is it sexist to say that most sex offenders are male? No
Does it imply that men are mostly sex offenders? Obviously not.
Are adult men typically stronger than adult women? Yes

I'm not seeing the sexism here boss.

Wibbs

I thought no but then I seen his picture and changed my mind. I know, unfair, but life's unfair.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Wow you sure are a REAL MAN Wibbs.

The fact that there is no obligation to report a crime of assault is reflective of the pragmatic understanding most of us share, that victims of crime perceive their experiences subjectively.

This is why a sentencing judge will, for example, attach weight to the effect that a crime has had on the victim when she imposes a sentence.

So one person who is burgled thinks what the hell, it's a pain, but insurance will cover it, while another one is left distraught by a burglary, so the criminal gets a different sentence. For the same crime? A crime for which the perp - though still a scumbag BTW - has no clue how the victim will perceive it? Interesting way to look at justice there Ted. How far down that rabbit hole would you take that? I can but imagine.

But let's descend down that rabbit hole in your own words...

Assuming that most men are physically stronger than women, and that women typically aren't sex offenders, most cases of sexual assault aren't frightening when the woman is the perpetrator. It isn't typically traumatic, and probably doesn't merit reporting.

That's all you had to say to enlighten us how you seem to think. Women are always victims, the poor dears, while men are expected to suck it up really, because well it's not really the same crime now is it? Even if it is. Preferential treatment in your version of justice based on gender. Brilliant. Though at least you're clear about your position.

BlaasForRafa wrote:

I bet you don't realize just how sexist you sound there.

Of course he doesn't. This nonsense is extremely pervasive of late and rarely goes unquestioned, even by those who are of a questioning mind in general(as Tyrant most certainly is). It's an area where questions are largely bypass and if brought up usually swiftly glossed over. Plus there is certainly an undercurrent of you can't be sexist about men.

Wibbs

I thought no but then I seen his picture and changed my mind. I know, unfair, but life's unfair.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm not seeing the sexism here boss.

In your own words: most cases of sexual assault aren't frightening when the woman is the perpetrator. It isn't typically traumatic, and probably doesn't merit reporting. If you can't read that and see the issue with it I really don't know what to say. Hell you're not so far away from stating that sexual assault by a woman on a man is of no consequence.

Let's tease it out more. Would you change your position if a woman committed sexual assault against another woman? I'd lay bets you would. You most certainly wouldn't suggest that it wouldn't be frightening, not typically traumatic and probably not meriting reporting.

namloc1980

RayM wrote: »

Next time someone on AH tries to claim that there's no need for consent classes in schools and universities, I'll point them towards the result of this poll.

Foreplay now should involve a questionnaire about what is/isn't being consented to.

Wibbs

No it shouldn't, are you mad!

Wibbs wrote: »

So one person who is burgled thinks what the hell, it's a pain, but insurance will cover it, while another one is left distraught by a burglary, so the criminal gets a different sentence. For the same crime? A crime for which the perp - though still a scumbag BTW - has no clue how the victim will perceive it? Interesting way to look at justice there Ted. How far down that rabbit hole would you take that? I can but imagine.

Look up 'eggshell skull rule'.

It's a fairly basic, long established principle in criminal/ common law in most western countries, that you take your victim as you find him. Or her.

That's all you had to say to enlighten us how you seem to think. Women are always victims, the poor dears, while men are expected to suck it up really,

Er, no. No idea where you've gotten that from.

Wibbs

I thought no but then I seen his picture and changed my mind. I know, unfair, but life's unfair.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Er, no. No idea where you've gotten that from.

No you really don't do you? TBH I'm surprised at that. As I said: Would you change your position if a woman committed sexual assault against another woman? I'd lay bets you would. You most certainly wouldn't suggest that it wouldn't be frightening, not typically traumatic and probably not meriting reporting. See it yet? In essence women are automatically "eggshells", men are not.

Wibbs

No it shouldn't, are you mad!

Wibbs wrote: »

In your own words: most cases of sexual assault aren't frightening when the woman is the perpetrator. It isn't typically traumatic, and probably doesn't merit reporting. If you can't read that and see the issue with it I really don't know what to say. Hell you're not so far away from stating that sexual assault by a woman on a man is of no consequence.

No. I'm saying that whether or not it is of consequence depends on the circumstances, and how the victim of the crime perceives it. If a man is traumatised by a sexual assault, at the hands of a woman or another man, then I can completely understand why he should and would report that.

If not, i can see why he wouldn't. Same with a woman. It just so happens that most men are bigger and stronger than most women

Let's tease it out more. Would you change your position if a woman committed sexual assault against another woman? I'd lay bets you would.

Did you bet the farm?

No, I wouldn't Wibbs. It depends completely on how the victim themselves felt, and whether or not they found it sufficiently traumatic.

retro:electro

I can't decide. I'm on the fence. Perhaps. Maybe. Who's to say really.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Wow you sure are a REAL MAN Wibbs. That's nice to know, but it sort of completely misses the point.

The fact that there is no obligation to report a crime of assault is reflective of the pragmatic understanding most of us share, that victims of crime perceive their experiences subjectively.

This is why a sentencing judge will, for example, attach weight to the effect that a crime has had on the victim when she imposes a sentence.

Assuming that most men are physically stronger than women, and that women typically aren't sex offenders, most cases of sexual assault aren't frightening when the woman is the perpetrator. It isn't typically traumatic, and probably doesn't merit reporting.

When the tables are turned, however, and you're alone with someone, (a near-stranger) who is physically stronger than you, and that person assaults you when you've clearly asked them not to ... well, most people can understand that this can be a frightening experience, quite aside from the physical injuries they have inflicted.

It's not unusual for anyone, of either gender, to make claims of prior psychiatric illness or disorder when they stand accused of a crime -- any crime. I'm not sure what this one, isolated incident is intended to demonstrate. It says no more about 'women' than this instant case says anything about 'men'.

i can't be the only one who thinks the two bolded parts here compelely contradict one another?

Wibbs

No it shouldn't, are you mad!

Wibbs wrote: »

In essence women are automatically "eggshells", men are not.

Oh, you've looked it up then, the eggshell skull rule? Good. This is progress. Do you still want to claim that's a crazy notion, or shall we leave it there.

And no, I don't consider women to be 'eggshells', I'm just making an observation that due to the typical difference in size and strength, I can see how the same assault could be more intimidating for a woman.

But then, I suppose you're more interested in deliberately misunderstanding things you don't want to hear.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

I thought no but then I seen his picture and changed my mind. I know, unfair, but life's unfair.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No, I wouldn't Wibbs. It depends completely on how the victim themselves felt, and whether or not they found it sufficiently traumatic.

Buta according to you in your own words above women will automatically perceive it to be traumatic, but men automatically won't. That's what you said. Subsequent talk about how victims feel is backtracking from that position. Like I said if you can't see the issue there. But you don't so...

Well to be fair you wouldn't be alone at all in this perception. It's very pervasive. QV domestic abuse stats are roughly equally divided between men and women, but women are seen more victimised, as being in need of more sympathy, protection and social support, hence any number of women only avenues and domestic abuse centres are to be found, but practically none for men. Hell the woman who set up the very first safe house for victims of domestic abuse originally had a near equal number of men and women seeking help, but was prevented from opening up a male only home. Indeed that same woman is now blanket banned from the very homes she set up, because she made a stink about this inequity.

Wibbs

I thought no but then I seen his picture and changed my mind. I know, unfair, but life's unfair.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But then, I suppose you're more interested in deliberately misunderstanding things you don't want to hear.

Irony all over the shop...

You said quite clearly that in your opinion most cases of sexual assault aren't frightening when the woman is the perpetrator. It isn't typically traumatic, and probably doesn't merit reporting. You seem to see it as sexual assault, but because of a gender bias seem to see it as a different lesser crime. Again the question would that same logic apply to a woman who sexually assaults another woman? I mean they're likely of the same size and strength, which seems to be your metric for deciding "trauma" and "fear" within an assault.

meeeeh

I read an article about female medical student who attacked her bf and it seemed to me she got off too lightly. I thought the same about Stamford swimmer who raped unconscious girl. I don't care what gender the assailant is.

The guy in this case seems to be a complete creep. Sex offender register is probably a bit harsh but who wants to have sex with someone like that. And yes she might not go to police if he listened to her after the sex but instead she was basically used as human punch bag. I wouldn't bother going to police but I don't have any sympathy for the man. He got himself into the mess.