My roommate was put into the hospital for trauma to the genitals, and the girl who did it not only thought it was funny, she thought I was overreacting by not speaking to her. (i.imgur.com)

AdviceAnimals

16111 ups - 13824 downs = 2287 votes

1459 comments submitted at 23:30:57 on Apr 2, 2014 by butters106

  • [-]
  • Kaleidosc0pe_
  • 9 Points
  • 01:27:36, 3 April

that isn't sexual assault. so no, it shouldn't be considered sexual assault. jesus christ.

  • [-]
  • workthrowaway902
  • -4 Points
  • 02:28:09, 3 April

She did something to his genitals without his consent. Sounds like sexual assault or abuse to me.

  • [-]
  • void_if_seal_broken
  • 18 Points
  • 02:30:13, 3 April

I think it would be considered just plain assault and battery before being considered sexual assault.

  • [-]
  • workthrowaway902
  • -5 Points
  • 02:36:09, 3 April

I think if you so much as touch someone's private parts without their consent it becomes sexual. If I go and grab a girls crotch or boob could be charged with some form of sexual abuse. What's the difference?

  • [-]
  • M3mentoMori
  • 7 Points
  • 02:58:50, 3 April

The fact that she hit him in the nuts as opposed to the, at most, rough squeeze groping a chick's tit would be.

It's like if you kicked a chick in the crotch vs slowly running your foot up her leg. Yeah, in both instances your foot is touching her vagina, but one is assault and the other is sexual assault. In short, it's the intent.

  • [-]
  • workthrowaway902
  • -3 Points
  • 03:01:59, 3 April

It's so hard to prove intent though. I think it should be less of a gray area. Anything you do to someone's genitals without their consent should be classified as a sexual assault, period.

  • [-]
  • moreteam
  • 2 Points
  • 03:34:13, 3 April

So groping a women's breast wouldn't be sexual assault? Force-kissing? If sexual assault would be about genitals, it would be called "genital assault". If you kick a women between the legs, it wouldn't be sexual assault either. It's about a sexual act, period. And if you want to say: "But, but, maybe she was sexually aroused by his pain!" - then everything could be sexual assault, including tax evasion.

  • [-]
  • workthrowaway902
  • 0 Points
  • 03:37:17, 3 April

Well ok, fine, genitals or breasts or rear ends

I just think kicking someone in that area is worse than groping them and should be treated as such. Not saying groping isn't also very bad.

We should have a specific charge for genital assault.

edited a word

edit 2 : and that's not to say that the things you mentioned such as force kissing shouldn't also be in that category. They should. And in this case the girl did take some kind of perverse pleasure from this, which I firmly believe many people do when they kick a man in the crotch for no reason. Rape is about power isn't it?

  • [-]
  • moreteam
  • 1 Points
  • 04:06:24, 3 April

> Rape is about power isn't it?

Yeah, but rape is also sexual action. Rape is not punished as a sexual crime because it's about power. It's punished as a sexual crime because it involves a sexual act. Inflicting severe pain on the other hand is - generally - not considered a sexual act. If I stab a women in the stomach I will inflict severe pain and will hurt her reproductive tract - but it won't be sexual assault. Because... it's not sexual. It's not connected to "having sex". Force kissing? Sure, kissing someone is sexual. Groping breast? Sure, massaging a breast is sexual. Rape? Sure, penetration is sexual. You see the pattern? It's the forceful execution of sexual acts, without consent of the victim. It's action that under different circumstances could be pleasurable.

I don't know about you, but I can think of no sexual act I'd like to take part in where someone kicks me in my balls. No matter how careful and gentle.

You may argue that there are people who consider severe pain sexual. While that is true, it's not part of the "generally accepted sexual cookbook". And I touched this with "if you include everything that might bring anyone sexual pleasure, you'd have to call tax eviction sexual assault". Because I'm sure there are people who can find sexual pleasure in having fooled that tax collector! I have a hard time imaging that girl going home and having a go at her private part, basking in the memory of her sexual power. It's way easier to image her finding it incredibly funny what a "wuss" that guy was. Actually you saying that you can image someone finding a perverse pleasure in kicking men in the testicles, in full knowledge of the pain inflicted, makes me not want to meet you ever in my life. That's scary.

> I just think kicking someone in that area is worse than groping them and should be treated as such.

I'm not sure where you get the idea from that "assault" is not a serious crime. It is. And seriously assaulting someone is generally punished harder than groping a breast. Only because it has more words, "sexual assault" is not automatically a more severe crime than "assault".

  • [-]
  • workthrowaway902
  • 1 Points
  • 04:17:39, 3 April

"Actually you saying that you can image someone finding a perverse pleasure in kicking men in the testicles, in full knowledge of the pain inflicted, makes me not want to meet you ever in my life. That's scary."

I'm not saying I'd take great pleasure in it. I don't know where you got that from. I'm saying that I suspect someone who would enjoy kicking someone in that area, unprovoked, is the type of person to take some sort of sadistic pleasure from it, but I get, and agree with your argument that that could apply to any crime. There are people who get off to that sort of thing though, that's no secret.

I just think it should be a specific charge because you are potentially robbing someone of their ability to have sex or reproduce, and causing great mental and emotional trauma. It's not like getting in a fight and getting a black eye or a broken nose, if I had to go to the hospital after someone kicked me in the balls I could see myself being traumatized emotionally for a long time.

  • [-]
  • M3mentoMori
  • 3 Points
  • 03:15:46, 3 April

Actually, it's quite easy.

Did the offending contact cause you physical pain? Then it's assault. If it didn't, it's sexual assault.

There's some overlap, like rape or someone being rough in their sexual assault, but for the most part, it's clear.

  • [-]
  • workthrowaway902
  • 1 Points
  • 03:23:24, 3 April

Ok, but here's the thing. Sexual assault is considered much more heinous than common assault both by the law and by society right? So if they touched your genitals without your consent AND it caused a great deal of pain why is that assault, whereas if you didn't cause pain it's sexual assault. I think the former is worse than the latter, or at least on par.

  • [-]
  • M3mentoMori
  • 2 Points
  • 04:07:20, 3 April

It's considered worse because it can and does have more far-reaching consequences. You can completely ruin someone's life by sexually assaulting them (for example, a person molesting someone else) by inflicting mental trauma, while simply punching someone in the tit or kicking them in the nuts won't have bigger consequences than infertility. (in the average person. Obviously, if you have some condition that would make a blow to the breast cause more than a bruise, it'd be worse, but that's the exception rather than the rule.).

The reason it's not considered sexual assault is, yet again, intent. With your argument, manslaughter and murder should be the same thing. But they're not, and they both carry different penalties. The difference between ending a person's life on purpose and doing it on accident is intent. It's the same with assault targeting sexual areas and sexual assault. The intent is different, the crime is different, the punishment is different.

  • [-]
  • void_if_seal_broken
  • 3 Points
  • 02:41:47, 3 April

I agree that you would be, but I think that's a double standard. Also, just grabbing someone's genitals is a lot different from hitting them. I think sexual assault should be limited to those cases where the intention is sexual. Granted, it's a bit of a gray area, but if it's obviously not sexual and strictly violent in nature and intent of the perpetrator it shouldn't be considered sexual assault.

  • [-]
  • workthrowaway902
  • -2 Points
  • 02:43:43, 3 April

It shouldn't matter the intent, you touch me down there without my consent you are sexually violating me.

  • [-]
  • void_if_seal_broken
  • 4 Points
  • 02:46:05, 3 April

Honestly I'm more concerned with the fact that you can die by getting kicked in the balls than the fact that somebody just touched my "no-no square".

  • [-]
  • ahpuchalypse
  • 3 Points
  • 03:09:40, 3 April

This is the weird thing about rape and molestation in our society. Because women were once property and 'defiling' them was a big deal, rape is actually a bigger taboo than murder. You can joke about murder, represent murder in a comical way, but a rape joke will usually get you in huge shit. It's completely absurd. I guess dead people complain a lot less though.

  • [-]
  • workthrowaway902
  • 1 Points
  • 02:53:27, 3 April

Well yeah obviously that's the main concern I just think it's a sick perverse thing to do to someone (outside the context of self defense of course) and people who do it should be on a registry and treated like a sex offender because in my mind that's what they are.

  • [-]
  • MaryMagpie
  • 4 Points
  • 02:49:14, 3 April

If you walk up and punch a girl in the tit, you would be charged with assault, not sexual assault. If you walked up and grabbed her boob and tweaked her nipple, that is sexual assault.

If you slice off a womans' nipple, it's assault. If you slice off her nipple, and jerk off while you are doing it... it's sexual assault.

  • [-]
  • workthrowaway902
  • -3 Points
  • 02:54:23, 3 April

It shouldn't matter why you did something, whether it was for your own gratification or just because you wanted to hurt someone physically. You hit me in the nuts unprovoked, you're a sick POS and should be treated as such.

  • [-]
  • MaryMagpie
  • 2 Points
  • 03:15:32, 3 April

Right, but there is a huge difference between assault and sexual assault. Just because it was a persons' crotch, doesn't mean it was sexual. I could throw a football and hit a woman in the crotch and it wouldn't be sexual assault.

  • [-]
  • workthrowaway902
  • 1 Points
  • 03:21:33, 3 April

I just don't see why if you touch it gently that's sexual assault, which is in the court of public pinon pretty much the worst thing you can do to another human being, but if you hit it really hard, potentially causing permanent damage that's just common assault which is not as much of a big deal and doesn't require those convicted of it to be on a registry. If it's not sexual assault it should have it's own category of charge. Hitting someone in that area has unique consequences, it shouldn't be in the same legal category as punching someone in the stomach.

  • [-]
  • MaryMagpie
  • 1 Points
  • 04:09:55, 3 April

I'm not saying it shouldn't have severe legal consequences, I just think the reasoning behind the touching determines whether it was sexual or not. I totally agree that causing such intense pain in such a private area, and possibly causing reproductive damage, or even loss of a testicle should have major consequences. I for one, have never, and will never purposefully hit a man between the legs unless I really fear for my life. It's just not cool. Girls (or anyone else) who do it for laughs are fucked up in the head.

  • [-]
  • workthrowaway902
  • 1 Points
  • 04:25:29, 3 April

Yeah I'm starting to understand the distinction. I just thought that anything you do to someone's privates without their consent was a form of sex abuse or sexual assault, but I can see where intent comes into play. I don't know if I've completely changed my stance but I see the differences.

  • [-]
  • ahpuchalypse
  • 1 Points
  • 03:07:41, 3 April

Legally, you are correct.

  • [-]
  • workthrowaway902
  • 1 Points
  • 03:17:43, 3 April

I should hope so. I'd want those kinds of charges laid if someone maliciously kicked me in that area. It's much worse than a common assault. Bruises, cuts, broken bones all heal, genitals don't always.

  • [-]
  • threeofbirds121
  • 2 Points
  • 04:20:23, 3 April

It's not sexual assault. Sexual assault needs to be sexual in nature. If some dude punched me in the boob it wouldn't be sexual assault, just assault.

  • [-]
  • workthrowaway902
  • 1 Points
  • 04:26:25, 3 April

Yeah I'm starting to see the difference.

  • [-]
  • MCPB
  • 1 Points
  • 04:22:34, 3 April

I think there's an interesting argument to be made for this. The woman knew that doing damage to his balls was going to inflict maximum damage. She would probably have no equivalent if she was trying to harm a woman.

I think the difference is that sexual assaults are sexually motivated, like for pleasure / what not, and from what OP has said, I don't think there's any reason to believe that's the case here. But I would probably agree that this is something more than battery.

  • [-]
  • workthrowaway902
  • 1 Points
  • 04:28:40, 3 April

Yeah I guess. The problem I have is that intent is so hard to prove. How do we know she didn't get off on it? If it was just for a laugh surely there are other ways to get a laugh that don't involve that very specific act. I suspect that people who do this to others for no apparent reason get some type of pleasure from it, maybe not sexual but some kind.

  • [-]
  • ahpuchalypse
  • -3 Points
  • 03:06:45, 3 April

Well, you know, except for the fact that there are many cases where women being hit by a man have been considered 'sexual' assault, especially when they're hit in the breast or genital. I'm 99 percent sure if I were to punt you in the vagina as hard as I could that it would be considered a sexual assault, especially if a likely result of that was you never being able to have babies.

  • [-]
  • Dirt_McGirt_
  • 5 Points
  • 03:38:52, 3 April

I don't know what's worse- your grasp of the law or your grasp of biology.

  • [-]
  • ahpuchalypse
  • 2 Points
  • 04:21:09, 3 April

Wow, great ad hominem, my socially retarded friend. I was not suggesting that being punted in the vagina could make a woman sterile. I was suggesting that to understand why it was sexual assault, you had to understand that this could technically neuter a man. Not only that, but, yeah. Violence directed intentionally at a sexual organ is pretty cut and dry sexual assault. I hope your law degree was cheap.

  • [-]
  • Dirt_McGirt_
  • -2 Points
  • 04:26:20, 3 April

I apologize for misunderstanding your poorly written sentence. I retract the biology part. Let me try again.

I don't know what's worse- your grasp of the law or your grasp of logical fallacies.

  • [-]
  • ahpuchalypse
  • 0 Points
  • 04:32:38, 3 April

Oh, your personal opinion is wonderful. Thank you so much for sharing it with me. One day, when you can get therapy for whatever social issue you have, you'll realize that your opinions aren't facts.

  • [-]
  • Dirt_McGirt_
  • -1 Points
  • 04:39:03, 3 April

> Violence directed intentionally at a sexual organ is pretty cut and dry sexual assault.

No. It's not. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Just stop.

  • [-]
  • ahpuchalypse
  • 0 Points
  • 04:54:48, 3 April

So, are we talking federal law or state law here? And exactly what is the issue? That I'm calling it 'sexual assault' instead of 'aggravated sexual touching' and 'battery'? Because in several states, this is sexual assault. Federally, it's the things I listed above. You can find this information on http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920, where these terms are discussed. Not that you were helpful in any way, so I somehow doubt your response was due to anything other than a misplaced superiority complex or some kind of deep social trauma.

  • [-]
  • Dirt_McGirt_
  • 1 Points
  • 04:58:47, 3 April

Either you didn't read that link or you think that punching is a "sexual act".