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

Wibbs

No it shouldn't, are you mad!

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Yeah... no it's not. Have another go there.

Wibbs wrote: »

You said quite clearly that in your opinion most cases of sexual assault aren't frightening when the woman is the perpetrator.

Typically, yes. Most men have probably been touched inappropriately, without consent, by some drinken ould wan on a night out. Is that sexual assault? Unequivocally, yes. Is it intimidating? I'm not going to judge anyone for whom it is -- and I'm sure it can be. But typically, for men; no.

It isn't typically traumatic, and probably doesn't merit reporting. You seem to see it as sexual assault

There's no need for any of us to reinvent the legal wheel: it is sexual assault. It's a question of fact, not opinion.

, but because of a gender bias seem to see it as a different lesser crime.

Wibbs wibbs wibbs wibbs. No. I said in *most* cases, or *typically* men won't be intimidated, so I can understand, and would predict, that it would go unreported. It probably should go unreported.

Similarly, sexual assaults where women are the victims (or the subject, if you prefer), and experience no intimidation whatever, should probably also be best forgotten, and not reported.

It's just that, due to size and strength disparities, prevalence of media coverage of sexual violence, which usually involve men, it's probably a good deal more likely that a woman will be frightened or intimidated.

And that's where your new best friend, the eggshell skull, comes in.

Wibbs

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

meeeeh wrote: »

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.

Ditto, but all too often too many do. We see this in cases of teachers and others in positions of trust who have sex with underage individuals. When it's a women perp they're are treated more leniently than when it's a male perp. This has begun to change and more such women predators are getting more gaol time, but parity is some ways away.

I think it comes down to some degree on the old idea that sex is something men do and women have done to them. That women are the "submissive" role in sex, that they agree to/choose having it done to them as it were and any taking away of that choice is somehow worse(or more traumatic, frightening and of merit in reporting). Whereas men are always up for it and will always choose to go for it if the opportunity arises. So the sexy teacher that screws her 14 year old male pupil and we have the South Park "niiiiice"/I wish I had teachers like that in my day memes, but the sexy teacher who screws his 14 year old female pupil is a deviant. Even if in both cases the victim "consented". This perception changes if they're homosexual relationships though. Both men and women in such cases are seen as deviants. Which IMHO reflects an underlying homophobia.

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.

I agree TBH. Something is off about this case. Or at least what has been publicly released. I could be very wrong, but I suspect that there is more to yer man's background and other evidence beyond he said/she said that influenced the judge and judgement.

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: »

And that's where your new best friend, the eggshell skull, comes in.

Tying yourself in knots again, but we get it, women probably a good deal more likely to be eggshells. Case closed.

BlaasForRafa

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

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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.

I didn't say anything like that, but nice try at painting me as a "bad guy".

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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

That's a nice group of strawmen you have there. At least you had the decency not to put a "what about" in amongst them.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm not seeing the sexism here boss.

Of course you don't. You implied that male pain pretty much doesn't matter and the damage a woman can do to a man is pretty much inconsequential and irrelevant. It's misandrist attitudes like that that sees women get shorter prison sentences than men for the same crimes, there's also a curious hint of benevolent sexism as well.

Wibbs

No it shouldn't, are you mad!

Wibbs wrote: »

You implied that male pain pretty much doesn't matter

No. Read it again. Pain is pain, trauma is trauma, and intimidation is intimidation, regardless of gender. If any of those ingredients are present in any material way, then the crime should not be dismissed.

All I am saying is that in cases of, say, inappropriate touching, males are probably less likely to feel that pain, trauma, or intimidation.

It isn't that male pain is unimportant. It is very important.

BUT it probably is less frequent, less typical, than intimidation felt by females, in cases like the one I'm talking about. Wouldn't you agree?

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. Read it again.

Maybe you should read it again T. You're not quoting me.

Pain is pain, trauma is trauma, and intimidation is intimidation, regardless of gender. If any of those ingredients are present in any material way, then the crime should not be dismissed.

Seems fair enough.

All I am saying is that in cases of, say, inappropriate touching, males are probably less likely to feel that pain, trauma, or intimidation.

Why? Why do you automatically assume this? Why are women more likely to feel "pain, trauma, or intimidation"? You still haven't squared away my question about a situation where it's a woman sexually assaulting another woman. Would a man sexually assaulting another man be a greater or lesser issue?

It isn't that male pain is unimportant. It is very important.

Apparently not as important as women's pain, because you automatically assume women are more vulnerable to pain.

BUT it probably is less frequent, less typical, than intimidation felt by females, in cases like the one I'm talking about. Wouldn't you agree?

I wouldn't. Or certainly not as an assumption outa the gate as you seem to. Though you also seem divided on the matter.

You. Earlier. wrote: »

Wow you sure are a REAL MAN Wibbs.

In this response you seem to agree with me. That my brushing off of such an assault is some trite macho response worthy of the lulz, but that it might not be the case for many, if not most men. So why the later contradiction?

Wibbs

No it shouldn't, are you mad!

Wibbs wrote: »

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

All I am saying is that in cases of, say, inappropriate touching, males are probably less likely to feel that pain, trauma, or intimidation.

Why? Why do you automatically assume this? Why are women more likely to feel "pain, trauma, or intimidation"?

Nothing more than a very unscientific opinion, based on personal observation, I'm afraid.

In cases of sexual assault that involve violence, it's simply my guess that experiences of fear and trauma would be more evenly distributed between the sexes. In cases that do not involve violence (such as inappropriate touching), it is simply my 'hunch' that men are less likely to feel intimidated or afraid, and part of that is due to differences in strength (again, men typically being bigger & stronger than women) and anatomy (capacity to get pregnant as a result of rape), as well as a few other reasons.

You still haven't squared away my question about a situation where it's a woman sexually assaulting another woman. Would a man sexually assaulting another man be a greater or lesser issue?

Again, a great deal would probably depend on the differences in strength between the two women. A female athlete receiving unwanted attention from a 'handsy' but diminutive older lady at a bar, seems unlikely to engender much fear or intimidation. It will probably be forgotten about as a creepy but inconsequential experience, much the same as a man who is the subject of unwanted touching from a smaller woman (or another man, for that matter), standing at a bar.

if the shoe were on the other foot, and it were the female athlete assaulting the diminutive woman, and not at a bar, but in a private setting; I can see how that could indeed be frightening, and worth pursuing.

Apparently not as important as women's pain, because you automatically assume women are more vulnerable to pain.

I wouldn't put it that way, because it isn't qualified. Not all women are vulnerable, by any means. But typically, I am guessing that most women who are the receiving end of a sexual assault, are smaller than the person assaulting them. It's simply more likely, I would surmise, that they might be intimidated, than if the guy were some scrawny, anaemic dwarf (sinister as that image is, now that I think about it).

In this response you seem to agree with me. That my brushing off of such an assault is some trite macho response worthy of the lulz, but that it might not be the case for many, if not most men. So why the later contradiction?

It was the tone of what you wrote, in its entirety, that I was taking a shot at. Probably a bit too personal on my behalf, apologies. It's something that has popped up on a few occasions on this thread... guys (in particular) describing how macho we are, and implying that people shouldn't be so 'soft' as to go running to the police.

Perhaps that's not a fair representation of your view. What I mean to say, in a less confrontational way, is that this is perhaps one of those rare occasions when we could all take a leaf out of the book used by judges when they hear these cases. They do not, and we should not, hold victims to our own personal standards. It should be about listening to the victim, listening to the extent of the very real impact that the assault had on them, and leave our own personal baggage and prejudices at the door.

namloc1980

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The jury found him guilty, and the judge passed an appropriate sentence IMO.

There was no jury, nor was there a judge for that matter. It was a magistrate who believed her story over his in a "he said, she said" scenario.

the_syco

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

that women typically aren't sex offenders

More like they don't get charged as sex offenders? Female teacher ****s a male student, student gets high fives, and she gets put into jail. Sexes reversed, the guy gets jailed as a pedophile, and her name doesn't get released.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It isn't typically traumatic, and probably doesn't merit reporting.

Rape is about power play. Afraid of been laughed at, they don't report it.

the_syco

No it shouldn't, are you mad!

the_syco wrote: »

More like they don't get charged as sex offenders? Female teacher ****s a male student, student gets high fives, and she gets put into jail. Sexes reversed, the guy gets jailed as a pedophile, and her name doesn't get released.

As a matter of fact, neither the names of male or female offenders who are convicted of sexual offences are released, unless the victim (of either gender) waives their right to anonymity. The only reason you've seen the name of the offender, Philip Queree, published in this article is because the victim, Bridget Shaw, waived her right to anonymity.

Secondly, in your example involving a putative female teacher, you mention her being imprisoned. Surely that's a statement of public abhorrence in itself, regardless of whether the student's juvenile classmates 'high five' him. Further, the hypothetical female offender is no less likely to be put on the sex offenders' list than if she were male.

Going back to the high fives, though, it is entirely possible that men are conditioned to be more resilient about non-violent sexual assaults.

Many of us will be acquainted with older men who were once abused by schoolteachers or sports coaches, and whom never made complaints, because they were told to 'forget about it'. That might not have been bad advice.

I happen to think that society's response to minor incidents of sexual violence, and our promotion (or even insistence) of the victim's trauma can be counter-productive, causing them to dwell on it where they might otherwise have dismissed it and become more resilient.

But the cat is out of the bag now, and I suppose that's a whole other can of worms that we should leave to one side, for now. All I am saying is that where any victim, male or female, is genuinely traumatised, or has felt really frightened and intimidated, we should listen to them and respect their feelings, without encouraging a sense of victimhood, especially in cases of non-violent assaults, regardless of gender.

namloc1980 wrote: »

There was no jury, nor was there a judge for that matter. It was a magistrate who believed her story over his in a "he said, she said" scenario.

In fairness, there was also some visible bruising which seems to have been introduced as evidence.

Wibbs

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.

Far from heading down a rabbit hole, victim impact reports (or more usually, the Judge simply asking the victim how s/he feels, rather than going through the formality of a prepared report) is very standard in assault and sexual assault cases.

And again, anyone who is found as a matter of fact to have repeatedly persisted in an action, grabbing someone's breasts (or indeed vagina or testicles), leaving them bruised, pleading with the perp to stop, crying...they takes their chances and my sympathy for the accused would be limited.

_Dara_

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Any amount? Give over.

So if a guy is getting a blow job and a woman uses her teeth too much, that's sexual assault because the guy didn't consent to her being so rough?? No it's not.

If she keeps using her teeth after he asks her not to, then that is certainly assault, physical if not sexual. Women can sometimes unintentionally be a bit teethy but should amend that if their attention is brought to it. If their attention is brought to it and they continue to forcefully use their teeth, there is malicious intent there.

Outlaw Pete

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I was referring to a bite that would break the skin and at least draw blood and even then it would want to be bloody deep for me to go to hospital / the Gardai and report them.

As for this girl being "injured" - give me a break. Difficulty lifting her arm because her boobs were squeezed too hard would only be because it made the bruise sore. It's still a bruise though and again we only have her word that she was bruised. But even assuming she's not exaggerating, it's still not anywhere near being an injury that would require a court case. I can't believe anyone would think it should.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So let me get this straight: The sex act in my example, when performed without consent, constitutes sexual assault - but the sex act in the article, when performed without consent, does not?

Yes.

Again: when the complaint is "degree of force" (as it was here) then how the hell could that be considered an assault? Your example would only be a fitting one if the guy had agreed to be shagged up the arse with the strap-on / dildo but the girl was doing it too hard and told her to go easy, but when she went at it again, she was still too rough for him and bruised his buttocks.

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

He had consent. She only removed consent with regards to degree of force.

There are certain sex acts which are considered part and parcel of consensual sexual activity, sure - unless one of the parties specifically states that they are not comfortable with that particular act, at which point it becomes non-consensual if the other party(s) ignores this and performs it anyway.

Absolutely. Which is why I said the following in the opening post:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that if some woman went full Catherine Tramell on me that I'd feel it okay for her to have done so given that I'd consented to have sexual intercourse with her, but surely there is a level of personal responsibility that people need to take for what happens them when engaged in sexual hi-jinks and I don't see that line was really crossed here. If he whipped out some metal nipple clamps and started dragging her round the room, resulting in her ending up in casualty.... course the guy (or girl) should be charged, and conceivably for some things not so violent to (just using that as a an example).

Of course people can consent to some sexual acts and not others but that's a much different scenario to the one we're discussing here.

Since the pegging thing is obviously considered in a different category to everything else for whatever reason, let's go again. Supposing you've only consented to a vanilla sexual encounter, you explicitly told the other person that you wern't comfortable with facesitting, and they climb onto your face regardless. Is that legitimate sexual assault in your view?

Nope. It just means that the two people are not sexually compatible and would be better off deleting each other's numbers.

Where do you draw the line, and why? It's so much simpler to just agree that any sex act which a person has explicitly stated they are not comfortable with is non-consensual if somebody ignores that statement and performs it anyway. The woman in this article told the guy she didn't want her breasts touched. Touching them after this fact constitutes a non-consensual sex act - no two ways about it.

How about french kissing then, Paddy, what if a guy says 'No tongues' but the woman keeps shoving her tongue into the guy's mouth despite his protestations. Should we hall her before the courts? Or what a man who doesn't like his arse being grabbed during copulation, but again the woman is mad for it and keeps squeezing it, resulting in bruising. Five years on the sex offenders register for her??

Jebus, even when we were kids, who hasn't received a love bite against their wishes and had to spend the next few days wearing a PLO scarf so the folks wouldn't ask questions. Just me? Fair enough. I'll pop down to the Gardai and see if I can get the little minx retrospectively charged. On my neck like a vampire she was.

nullzero

_Dara_ wrote: »

If she keeps using her teeth after he asks her not to, then that is certainly assault, physical if not sexual. Women can sometimes unintentionally be a bit teethy but should amend that if their attention is brought to it. If their attention is brought to it and they continue to forcefully use their teeth, there is malicious intent there.

It's the usual "well aren't you lucky to be in that situation" type of comments a man would undoubtedly receive upon raising the issue that would stop it ever being something that is raised.

A man grabs a woman's genitals it's sexual assault, a woman grabs a man's genitals and she's doing him a favour somehow.

One eyed Jack

nullzero wrote: »

It's the usual "well aren't you lucky to be in that situation" type of comments a man would undoubtedly receive upon raising the issue that would stop it ever being something that is raised.

A man grabs a woman's genitals it's sexual assault, a woman grabs a man's genitals and she's doing him a favour somehow.

From whom though?

Both could potentially be viewed as sexual assault (or indecent assault as it was in this case), and that's why everyone has the same opportunity as anyone else to report their grievance to the authorities.

_Dara_

nullzero wrote: »

It's the usual "well aren't you lucky to be in that situation" type of comments a man would undoubtedly receive upon raising the issue that would stop it ever being something that is raised.

Er, not to be indelicate, but in my own experience of this, charges of teethiness were very much taken on board. I'd say many women learning how to do BJs when they first start being sexually active are given pointers on how to improve. "Would undoubtedly receive"? Don't make such daft generalisations.

Prune Tracy

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

I have heard men say stuff like "I wish I could get sexually harassed" and "isn't he lucky to be getting some" though.

Think that's what nullzero means.

kylith

Prune Tracy wrote: »

I have heard men say stuff like "I wish I could get sexually harassed" and "isn't he lucky to be getting some" though.

Think that's what nullzero means.

The same mentality that has some men saying ‘niiiiiice’ when a teenage boy is groomed by an older woman.

lmimmfn

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

There should be a rule where couples having intercourse stop every 20 seconds to check with each other that its ok to proceed, that would sort it out right there

silverharp

lmimmfn wrote: »

There should be a rule where couples having intercourse stop every 20 seconds to check with each other that its ok to proceed, that would sort it out right there

i bet you thought you were wildly exaggerating to make a point, you failed

http://www.dailywire.com/news/23102/pc-gone-wild-ca-high-schoolers-taught-they-must-hank-berrien

CA High Schoolers Taught They Must Obtain Sexual Consent Every Ten Minutes

lmimmfn

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

silverharp wrote: »

i bet you thought you were wildly exaggerating to make a point, you failed

http://www.dailywire.com/news/23102/pc-gone-wild-ca-high-schoolers-taught-they-must-hank-berrien

lol, #oktocontinue

Society is fecked

SimpleDimples

Very strange case but it takes a huge amount of force to leave breasts bruised....one of the most difficult parts of the body to bruise too

kylith

There should be a rule where couples having intercourse stop every 20 seconds to check with each other that its ok to proceed, that would sort it out right there

Or just a rule that if your sexual partner tells you to stop doing something, you stop doing it.

silverharp wrote: »

i bet you thought you were wildly exaggerating to make a point, you failed

http://www.dailywire.com/news/23102/pc-gone-wild-ca-high-schoolers-taught-they-must-hank-berrien

Well, if you're going to start doing something different you should check with your partner that they're ok with you doing it. Some people don't like certain positions for various reasons.

One eyed Jack

silverharp wrote: »

i bet you thought you were wildly exaggerating to make a point, you failed

http://www.dailywire.com/news/23102/pc-gone-wild-ca-high-schoolers-taught-they-must-hank-berrien

Given that this is the same State in which legislators chose to lower the penalty for knowingly exposing partners to HIV, I would suggest it's no wonder a class of 10th graders may be confused about what may or may not be deemed acceptable sexual attitudes and behaviours!

lmimmfn

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

kylith wrote: »

Or just a rule that if your sexual partner tells you to stop doing something, you stop doing it.

What if its "No No No" followed by "Yes Yes Yes"?

DaraDali

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

myshirt wrote: »

What has it come to now?

Will we have to start signing contracts setting out the agreed details, exclusions, clauses, and talk way through the intercourse?

It's not exactly an intimacy enhancing experience to be taking out a contract while she is face down in the pillow, and asking under clause 4.2 shall I go faster or shall I maintain the same speed?

Think we will have to do this in the future for all you ppl that are agreeing this guy got what he deserved!!!

Roger Hassenforder

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

As a matter of fact, neither the names of male or female offenders who are convicted of sexual offences are released, unless the victim (of either gender) waives their right to anonymity. The only reason you've seen the name of the offender, Philip Queree, published in this article is because the victim, Bridget Shaw, waived her right to anonymity.

.

Nope.
1/10 Reading comprehension fail!
Bridget Shaw is the magistrate not.the victim.
As a matter of fact!!


"...judgement paper released by magistrate Bridget Shaw recounted how the incident happened in August 2016."

Tigger

SimpleDimples wrote: »

Very strange case but it takes a huge amount of force to leave breasts bruised....one of the most difficult parts of the body to bruise too

what ?
its the skin that was bruised i'd expect not the internal tissue
pretty much bruises the same as skin on the rest of the body

Tigger

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Nope.
1/10 Reading comprehension fail!
Bridget Shaw is the magistrate not.the victim.
As a matter of fact!!


"...judgement paper released by magistrate Bridget Shaw recounted how the incident happened in August 2016."

lol

the woman's name is Ms X which i suspect isnt her actual moniker

It sounds like a normal crime as opposed to a sex crime.. Sure it happened during sex, but isn't it abuse / physical attack?

Not that it matters. He was in the wrong and deserves to be on some register for it.