[badidea]

Originally Posted by Athens 

No my problem is with applying adult laws and labels to children, the lawyers, and Sexual assault part and how overblown its being made. Kids do inappropriate things all the time. You fix it by parenting not using adult crime labels.

Well, we agree on this part then!

I know how hard it can be not to spank a child when it behaves in a certain way! I don't have children my own but I have a nephew (age 6 now) who gave me a very hard time in one particular situation!
It was christmas time and we wanted to decorate the chirstmas tree and I told him that he could do that together with me if he accepts a few rules - one was that he doesn't touch the expensive crystal balls.
HUGE ERROR!!!
That's what probably made it escpecially interesting for him - and he exclusively only wanted to put the expensive crystal balls on the tree but he was too young to handle them and I told him to stop or it's over and I will continue on my own.
In that moment he started grinning and threw the balls around, kicked the tree and other furniture and said that I can't tell him anything - only god has the power to tell him what he's allowed to do!!!
WOW...from a 5 year old!?!
He "learned" something like that just recently in Kindergarten...

And since I wasn't that experienced with parenting, I really was lost!
I just took him to the next room, told him that he can do whatever he wants but he won't have a chance against me, so it would be a better choice for him to just stop, or christmas at my house won't be a much fun as he expects it to be and left him there.
It took him a while to get less rebellious but we settled it... (I wasn't sure though if he really understood the lesson)

[finboy]

Originally Posted by James L 

If self defence is the goal TKD ain't the best art. Just saying.

I agree, but I figured it would be a less-traumatic way to start and build confidence. Personally, I'd find her a copy of "Cold Steel" and teach her how to disable someone with a fountain pen. But that's just me.

Death to bullies. Slowly.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

He raised her dress to take her panties down. He told my daughter that he would take her panties down, and under questioning by his teacher, he admitted he was going to take her panties down. The head teacher arrived on the scene with him holding my daughter's dress up while being restrained by the other boy.

AFAIK, this has been dealt with in a professional way. I would personally like to hear from their parents, but the event has been noted (they have a sort of school log that has to be submitted to some sort of higher authority, and the details are there).

If anything like this happens again first call will be to the cops.

Whatever your daughter told you happened (or maybe even her perception of it) is what has to be dealt with. The "update" sounds like revisionism to make it sound like teachers were quick on the scene, and minimize the reaction/punishment phase.

If she felt threatened it could give her nightmares down the road. YOu don't have to discuss it with her unless she comes to you, or unless you see symptoms. She might well jump past it pretty quickly.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Whatever your daughter told you happened (or maybe even her perception of it) is what has to be dealt with. The "update" sounds like revisionism to make it sound like teachers were quick on the scene, and minimize the reaction/punishment phase.

This is EXTREMELY dangerous.

Children often have rather…fluid…demarcations between reality and fantasy.

As I mentioned earlier, our daughter told us of an incident that wasn't dissimilar to this episode. It turned out that she had picked up something other kids were talking about, hypothetically. The way they talk about "throwing people in the garbage" or "putting them in the washing machine" or anything that strikes them as silly (these are four-year-olds; nothing malignant).

These delineations become clearer the older a child gets, but basing a criminal case on a child's account is questionable at best.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

This is EXTREMELY dangerous.

In terms of punishment of the perps, sure. But I was thinking about how to help her deal with it. Even if the other kids were "just playing around" that may not be how she internalizes it, and it may cause her behavior to change. Perception is reality when it comes to post-traumatic stress or new fears.

I also think that kids lie to avoid punishment, and teachers would stress the innocent explanation rather than admit that they f*cked up, but I'm really cynical. Heck, the little girl may have started it and lied after they were caught. How the hell do we know? Those are different issues. If she's struggling with it, her side of the story might help, because it reveals how she saw it (and maybe how she'll see it the rest of her life).

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Restrain crying weaker outnumbered victim in order to perform an action on them = assault. I don't know how you can deny that.


Whatever they thought they were doing, they knew it was strictly forbidden and they knew the victim was unwilling. Therefore their "attitudes" were to perpetrate evil. I don't know how you can deny that either.

There's no case to be made that the boys weren't being intentionally malicious. They unquestionably knew better, and they did it anyway. In the same spirit as you asking "really, ANY age," I will ask you: at what level of wickedness would you agree to extraordinary punishment? Can an 8-year-old really do ANYTHING and you would still think they were "just fooling around?"

Apparently I wasn't clear. I'm not debating that punishment is due. I haven't suggested even once that the perpetrators be let off the hook entirely. I'm all for punishing them for what they did. The only thing I'm debating is the sexual aspect to the incident and even there I'm only saying that none of us can be certain. I just think its dangerous to start trying to label 8 years olds as sex offenders.

Does the incident constitute assault? Yes. If it had happened between adults somewhere it would unquestionably be considered assault, but kids assault each other all the time. They punch and kick each other and they don't get locked up or sent to shrinks. Did you never get in any fights when you were a kid?
Lets not pretend everything is so simplistic and black and white, it clearly isn't. Here is another example: If two (or more) football players disagree on the pitch/field and punches are thrown, isn't that assault? The legal description says yes, society says no. Somehow sports fields have different rules, at least there is a good reason that playgrounds should.

If a bunch of guys strip the groom naked on his stag night and tie him to a lamppost, most of us would laugh. If he puts up a fight, does that make it assault? He's naked so is it sexual assault?

If I were to describe the previous example in the style of a newspaper report:
"A group of approximately 10 men in their mid-to-late twenties were seen assaulting another man late last night in the city centre. The victim was forcibly stripped naked and handcuffed to railings in the main square at around 3am where he was subsequently left before police operators watching on CCTV spotted him and had him rescued about an hour later. All the men including the victim appeared to be under the influence of alcohol during the incident. The victim was said to be cold and visibly shaken but his injuries are not thought to be life threatening."

Sounds a bit more serious put like that doesn't it?

All I've said all along is that these incidents should be dealt with according to all their specific circumstances, there is always other ways to look at things, and the less facts you have, the more ways there are.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by finboy 

In terms of punishment of the perps, sure. But I was thinking about how to help her deal with it. Even if the other kids were "just playing around" that may not be how she internalizes it, and it may cause her behavior to change. Perception is reality when it comes to post-traumatic stress or new fears.

Ah, I understand. Agreed.

[Uncle Skeleton]

You dodged my "other side of the coin" argument, so I'll restate it afresh:

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The only thing I'm debating is the sexual aspect to the incident and even there I'm only saying that none of us can be certain. I just think its dangerous to start trying to label 8 years olds as sex offenders.

Under what circumstances WOULD it be sexual (to you)? Under what circumstances COULD you be certain? Under what circumstances CAN you label an 8 year old as a sex offender?

It's just as dangerous to let yourself be blinded by your expectations of "innocence" in youth, preventing you from seeing a legitimate problem before it's too late.

You make is sound like there is a line but this doesn't cross it. To me based on what was said, it does cross it. So where is your line, or does it not exist?

Does the incident constitute assault? Yes. If it had happened between adults somewhere it would unquestionably be considered assault, but kids assault each other all the time. They punch and kick each other and they don't get locked up or sent to shrinks. Did you never get in any fights when you were a kid?
Lets not pretend everything is so simplistic and black and white, it clearly isn't. Here is another example: If two (or more) football players disagree on the pitch/field and punches are thrown, isn't that assault? The legal description says yes, society says no. Somehow sports fields have different rules, at least there is a good reason that playgrounds should.

The difference is willing participation. It is the same on or off the field. Nearly all footballers are willing participants, both to the physicality of the sport and to the escalation to fighting, when that happens. If one player were running around beating on other players who didn't willingly participate in the fight, that would be assault, and quite different from what you describe ("two players start fighting"). That doesn't generally happen in the first place.

If a bunch of guys strip the groom naked on his stag night and tie him to a lamppost, most of us would laugh. If he puts up a fight, does that make it assault? He's naked so is it sexual assault?

The way you describe it, he is friends with them, he willingly agreed to go out with them that night, and the implication is that he is willingly letting himself be pranked. If he was crying during it? Yeah I'd be pretty comfortable saying that constitutes assault.

All I've said all along is that these incidents should be dealt with according to all their specific circumstances, there is always other ways to look at things, and the less facts you have, the more ways there are.

Everyone has a certain threshold of facts required before deciding. What further hypothetical facts would change your mind in this case?

[Athens]

Intent plays a part as well.

IE
a guy pants another guy because its funny - Intent is prank
a guy pants another guy because hes sexually attracted to him and want to see his junk - Sexual assault.

Its the same act but totally different contexts which changes everything about what happened.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You dodged my "other side of the coin" argument, so I'll restate it afresh:


Under what circumstances WOULD it be sexual (to you)? Under what circumstances COULD you be certain? Under what circumstances CAN you label an 8 year old as a sex offender?

I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of an 8 year old sex offender tbh, but I couldn't rule it out. I guess it would take multiple incidents, despite discipline and re-education on the subject in between.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's just as dangerous to let yourself be blinded by your expectations of "innocence" in youth, preventing you from seeing a legitimate problem before it's too late.

Absolutely agree with this. Prevention is always better than cure for the victims, but the only way to prevent sex offenders without at least one victim is to find them guilty and lock them up without them having done anything wrong. From here its a rapid downward spiral until you get to Judge Death.
I just think if you label a kid a sex offender aged 8, he is potentially screwed for life so you better have the decency to be damned sure.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You make is sound like there is a line but this doesn't cross it. To me based on what was said, it does cross it. So where is your line, or does it not exist?

Logically there must be a line. I'm just not certain enough about this incident to say for sure it has crossed it and should be considered sexual assault beyond all doubt. I wouldn't be happy to rule either way with certainty and thankfully its not my job to do so.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The difference is willing participation. It is the same on or off the field. Nearly all footballers are willing participants, both to the physicality of the sport and to the escalation to fighting, when that happens. If one player were running around beating on other players who didn't willingly participate in the fight, that would be assault, and quite different from what you describe ("two players start fighting"). That doesn't generally happen in the first place.

I tried to be cunning so this could apply to the US and the UK, NFL and Soccer but perhaps it doesn't quite. Actually throwing punches is fairly rare, but cast your mind back to Zinedine Zidane in the 2006 World Cup Final. Perhaps the law is different in the US, but I am pretty sure your position would be plain incorrect over here. More typically, one player will get angry with another and might throw a single punch or headbutt before the incident is broken up by other players. On the street, this is more than enough to get you done for assault. Your argument of willing participation might just as well apply to the situation of someone getting annoyed at a traffic warden (do you call them meter maids? - Someone who writes parking tickets) for giving them a parking ticket. They knew they might have gotten one when they parked illegally, the warden knows that giving people tickets will piss them off and can probably expect to get assaulted if they do the job long enough. Still assault in any UK court, I suspect a US court would view it the same way.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The way you describe it, he is friends with them, he willingly agreed to go out with them that night, and the implication is that he is willingly letting himself be pranked. If he was crying during it? Yeah I'd be pretty comfortable saying that constitutes assault.

I agree, technically it absolutely IS assault. Is it sexual assault though? I don't think it is in this case. "Pantsing" someone is technically assault, but again is it sexual assault just because you leave them exposing themselves?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Everyone has a certain threshold of facts required before deciding. What further hypothetical facts would change your mind in this case?

If I were investigating the incident from the OP, I would talk to the boys involved and try to find out why they did what they did. Typically 8 year olds are not good liars, I don't imagine it would be too bough to clear it up one way or the other with a reasonable certainty.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

... was subjected to two boys holding her arms while another boy lifted up her dress and tried to take off her panties. This occurred during recreation in the school yard. The boys involved were in the same year as her which means no more than 8 years old. My daughter has been very calm this evening although she was worried that she might have nightmares.

When I heard her re-tell what happened, I could have very easily ripped the heads off of those involved, but now I'm quite calm. One does have to question how in a small school like hers, this could have happened - the playground isn't exactly large. Luckily, of the group that were watching, one went to get a teacher. I hope that this has nothing to do with her being the 'new girl', since we only just moved at the end of the summer.

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Meeting with the head of the school tonight. According to a colleague who has kids in the school (older than my daughter), one of the boys has been known to cause problems.

And yes, I'll be teaching some basic self defence, although I understand that she put up a good struggle. She seemed OK this morning, not afraid to go to school and even commented about me seeing the head teacher.

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Had a meeting with my daughter's teacher and the head teacher. 2 boys involved. There was a 3rd boy who was trying to pull my daughter away from the other two towards the teachers. It wasn't a 'planned' event apparently, the boys were chasing the girls (like tag) and my daughter was caught. One boy told another to hold onto her and lifted her dress.

I'm informed that they've both been punished, they don't suspend kids here, and that the parents of the boy who lifted her skirt was 'severely' punished. I have no idea what that means. It would be nice to get an apology from the parents, but I'm not counting on it.

My wife was impressed that I stayed so calm.

Originally Posted by mattyb 

He raised her dress to take her panties down. He told my daughter that he would take her panties down, and under questioning by his teacher, he admitted he was going to take her panties down. The head teacher arrived on the scene with him holding my daughter's dress up while being restrained by the other boy.

AFAIK, this has been dealt with in a professional way. I would personally like to hear from their parents, but the event has been noted (they have a sort of school log that has to be submitted to some sort of higher authority, and the details are there).

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Dunno about the premeditation. The teacher seems to think that the one that lifted her dress exploited the game of tag when my daughter was caught. But I agree with the twisted little brat statement, especially knowing that she was crying during the event.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I think the picture that we all have of what went on has changed somewhat from the original post (hate to say I told you so, but I'm gonna).

Strange, apart from thinking that 2 boys were holding her when in fact one was trying to pull her towards the teacher, her story, the teacher's and head teacher's stories and what I've put here seem (to me) to be fairly consistent. Maybe I didn't explain myself properly.

The school authorities think that its major enough to put in their log-book thingy, and I think that its major enough that if anything happens again the law will be involved.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Absolutely agree with this. Prevention is always better than cure for the victims, but the only way to prevent sex offenders without at least one victim is to find them guilty and lock them up without them having done anything wrong. From here its a rapid downward spiral until you get to Judge Death.
I just think if you label a kid a sex offender aged 8, he is potentially screwed for life so you better have the decency to be damned sure.

Lock them up? Are you still talking about 8 year olds? I don't think anyone has suggested prison.

What they actually do with adult sex offenders (for the long haul, over hear at least), is make them warn their neighbors, to neutralize that rose-colored-glasses effect that I mentioned in my last post (which endangers victims too, not just deters investigators).

Logically there must be a line. I'm just not certain enough about this incident to say for sure it has crossed it and should be considered sexual assault beyond all doubt. I wouldn't be happy to rule either way with certainty and thankfully its not my job to do so.

"I'll know it when I see it" is a coward's answer. I know it's hard to take a stand, but I'm asking you to do so anyway.

Your argument of willing participation might just as well apply to the situation of someone getting annoyed at a traffic warden ... can probably expect to get assaulted if they do the job long enough. Still assault in any UK court, I suspect a US court would view it the same way.

What if the victim decides not to press charges (depending of course on their willingness to engage in the conflict in the first place)?

I agree, technically it absolutely IS assault. Is it sexual assault though? I don't think it is in this case. "Pantsing" someone is technically assault, but again is it sexual assault just because you leave them exposing themselves?

Why wouldn't it be? Do you think it's accidental that the target exposure area is the genitals? Or is that the entire point in the first place?

By the way, I thought "pantsing" usually left the victim's underwear unmolested. "Underpantsing?" Is that what happens over there? I might be torn on whether "pantsing" is inherently sexual, but "underpantsing" definitely is. It's not in the same league as "shoesing" or "hatting" would be (which by the way is not a thing, precisely because of the sexuality distinction).

If I were investigating the incident from the OP, I would talk to the boys involved and try to find out why they did what they did. Typically 8 year olds are not good liars, I don't imagine it would be too bough to clear it up one way or the other with a reasonable certainty.

Holy hell. Really? You don't think the anomalous 8-year-old psycho-sexual sociopath might just happen to also be better at lying than the rest? I hope you have a plan B.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Its the same act but totally different contexts which changes everything about what happened.

Not for the victim.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by badidea 

See, you're the best example why children shouldn't get spanked. When they grow up, they'll think that violence is the right way to explain something is wrong and become just like you!
And I am not blind - your perspective has changed!
I also have the impression that the last couple generations of children are worse than my generation but my father was a teacher for 40 years and denied that. Nothing has changed (at least at his school)!

You don't seem to be able to grasp the difference between violent beatings that involve anger and properly administered spankings that don't.

I've also heard some people say that today's children aren't any worse, and it's bunk.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Lock them up? Are you still talking about 8 year olds? I don't think anyone has suggested prison.
What they actually do with adult sex offenders (for the long haul, over hear at least), is make them warn their neighbors, to neutralize that rose-colored-glasses effect that I mentioned in my last post (which endangers victims too, not just deters investigators).

I wasn't necessarily talking about 8 year olds with that comment, no.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"I'll know it when I see it" is a coward's answer. I know it's hard to take a stand, but I'm asking you to do so anyway.

And jumping to conclusions without the facts and evidence you'd have if you were involved more closely with the matter is foolish. I've already pointed out numerous reasons how a simple description can give you the wrong mental image. The subject matter in this case makes it all the more difficult to be objective and open minded.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What if the victim decides not to press charges (depending of course on their willingness to engage in the conflict in the first place)?

The victim often has that right. Sometimes nothing will happen in an assault case until/unless the victim reports the incident and requests that their attacker be charged. To my knowledge, this has yet to happen as the result of an incident on a sports field (It should have - Eric Cantona's infamous flying kick on a fan) but I suspect it will happen one day.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Why wouldn't it be? Do you think it's accidental that the target exposure area is the genitals? Or is that the entire point in the first place?

I'm repeating myself again: It might be, it might not. The intention might simply have been to embarrass. Or to learn something. The fact that I don't know is what makes me refrain from jumping to a conclusion. The people involved will know the kids that were involved. They will have a much better idea of whether or not this should be thought of as a sexual assault. If I had to draw a line for your benefit, I guess I'd say that if the perpetrator(s) had done it before and been disciplined for it properly, then there is a case for deeming it to be sexual assault. If its a first offence (I gather its not) or their lists of prior misdemeanours are of a different non-sexual nature, there should probably be benefit of the doubt as far as the sexual element goes. It should of course be flagged and used as justification to keep a closer eye out in future.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

By the way, I thought "pantsing" usually left the victim's underwear unmolested. "Underpantsing?" Is that what happens over there? I might be torn on whether "pantsing" is inherently sexual, but "underpantsing" definitely is. It's not in the same league as "shoesing" or "hatting" would be (which by the way is not a thing, precisely because of the sexuality distinction).

I'm no expert, I actually think its more of an american thing, but I'm pretty sure the point is to embarrass the victim, not scare them or gain sexual gratification, arousal or pleasure from the act. I don't want to put words in his mouth but I think this automatic assumption that if genitals are involved it must be sexual is what Athens had a problem with. Do you consider it a sexual or masturbatory act every time you urinate because you have to touch your penis to do so? (OK, you don't have to). Do you consider it sexual assault if someone kicks you in the nuts?

I think its very important to understand the intent when determining the sexual component of any assault.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Holy hell. Really? You don't think the anomalous 8-year-old psycho-sexual sociopath might just happen to also be better at lying than the rest? I hope you have a plan B.

How many sociopathic sex-offending 8 year olds do you think there are? I'm pretty sure there aren't too many. Thinking you can tell when a hardened criminal is lying or not is one thing, catching out an 8 year old is another. If you can't guilt him or scare him into telling the truth, you better be able to trick him or catch him out. Sociopath or not, he's still only 8.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

And jumping to conclusions without the facts and evidence you'd have if you were involved more closely with the matter is foolish.

That's exactly what I'm asking you for: what facts and evidence would you need?

The victim often has that right. Sometimes nothing will happen in an assault case until/unless the victim reports the incident and requests that their attacker be charged. To my knowledge, this has yet to happen as the result of an incident on a sports field (It should have - Eric Cantona's infamous flying kick on a fan) but I suspect it will happen one day.

So in other words, I was right. Willingness is the distinction.

If its a first offence (I gather its not)

I'm no expert, I actually think its more of an american thing, but I'm pretty sure the point is to embarrass the victim, not scare them or gain sexual gratification, arousal or pleasure from the act.

And that embarrassment is achieved by leveraging their sexuality. I don't see how that can possibly disqualify it from being "sexual."

I don't want to put words in his mouth but I think this automatic assumption that if genitals are involved it must be sexual is what Athens had a problem with.

There is an automatic assumption that if genitals are targeted then it must be sexual. If you throw a dart (or a kick) and randomly happen to hit genitals, then that is not sexual. If you try explicitly to hit/touch/expose/ridicule genitals as opposed to other body parts, then there is a reason for that.

Do you consider it a sexual act every time you urinate because you have to touch your penis to do so?

Um, yes? Isn't that precisely why we have private gender-specific rooms/closets for that type of stuff, because of the sexual angle? Because it's sexually revealing, it makes us sexually vulnerable, and it's potentially sexually offensive?

If bodily functions can be separated from sexuality, there aren't separate rooms for it. Look at sneezing (or eating!). There's no demand for privacy when doing these things, let alone gender-specific privacy. It's because sexuality isn't a byproduct of those things (mostly ).

I think its very important to understand the intent when determining the sexual component of any assault.

It really isn't that difficult. If the attacker went for the genitals intentionally, then that's sexual. If it's a round-about reason like they went for the forbidden zone and it's forbidden because it's sexual, that is not some sort of hippy loop-hole making the whole event non-sexual.

How many sociopathic sex-offending 8 year olds do you think there are?

You shouldn't set up your strategy to only fail at precisely the moment you need it most. If you do you might as well not try in the first place.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You don't seem to be able to grasp the difference between violent beatings that involve anger and properly administered spankings that don't.

I've also heard some people say that today's children aren't any worse, and it's bunk.

I don't think children today are any worse per say then Children of 25 years ago. What has changed is supervision levels, parenting and the drugging of children like ADHD.

What has absolutely changed is how society view children now. Thats clear in this thread. Some laws have yet to update for the modern world too. Look at the children that are being turned into sex offenders and lives being ruined for the simple act of sexting on cell phones. The very law that is supposed to protect children from pedophiles and twisted adults is being used to put children and teenagers away. But thats a different topic on its own. I think we unrealistically expect more out children now then we used to in the past.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Not for the victim.

And yes it does change things for the person being pants too. If a friend pants me on a beach out of fun and as a prank, I would feel totally different about it then if some one pants me to just gock at my gentiles and went home to masturbate from what he saw. One I would be annoyed with, second one I would feel violated with. Thats another thing that has changed over the years.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I'm no expert, I actually think its more of an american thing, but I'm pretty sure the point is to embarrass the victim, not scare them or gain sexual gratification, arousal or pleasure from the act. I don't want to put words in his mouth but I think this automatic assumption that if genitals are involved it must be sexual is what Athens had a problem with. Do you consider it a sexual or masturbatory act every time you urinate because you have to touch your penis to do so? (OK, you don't have to). Do you consider it sexual assault if someone kicks you in the nuts?

I think its very important to understand the intent when determining the sexual component of any assault.
.

It is mostly a American thing. Its why you see 2 very divided groups on this topic. Most for the Sexual Assault camp are American. Most not automatically assuming its a sexual assault or any sort of sexual exploitation are non American. A few don't post locations with the profile.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's exactly what I'm asking you for: what facts and evidence would you need?

Premeditated intent. One thing for a boy to randomly touch some one else inappropriately or do something inappropriately at that age. But a planned assault with intent like leading a 4 year old from the hall into a secluded room followed by undressing her and molesting or worst followed by threats so they don't tell. That would be a clear sexual assault which would require serious intervention. A quick prank while worked up and excited during a game out in the open with other peers with no premeditation is just inappropriate behavior requiring appropriate punishment.

And that embarrassment is achieved by leveraging their sexuality. I don't see how that can possibly disqualify it from being "sexual."

No by leveraging the Private Zone, which from a early age they are taught as a special place and a big deal is made out of it. Showing off a private zone is in itself the amusing part for the kid. Being exposed is the embarrassing part for other kid. It has nothing to do with getting a hard on, dreaming about inserting a penis into a vagina and ejaculating cum (sexual) these are not occurring in any of there heads, victim or the jerk or the other kids seeing it on the play ground. Whats going through there heads is haha I see your private area or haha you have no pants or haha i see your bum or in the case of a boy haha I see his pee pee.

Um, yes? Isn't that precisely why we have private gender-specific rooms/closets for that type of stuff, because of the sexual angle? Because it's sexually revealing, it makes us sexually vulnerable, and it's potentially sexually offensive?

We have unisex change rooms in many public pools here with optional private rooms as well. SFU is experimenting with unisex washrooms. I suspect the same in Europe and Australia too. We have nude beaches here. When I go to Wreak Beach I actually feel out of place if I don't get naked. I dont cuz I hate my body.

If bodily functions can be separated from sexuality, there aren't separate rooms for it. Look at sneezing (or eating!). There's no demand for privacy when doing these things, let alone gender-specific privacy. It's because sexuality isn't a byproduct of those things (mostly ).

All Girls schools. All Boys schools. All girls book clubs. 60 Years ago the demand was to separate the Black people from the White people. Guess that's sexual too. Blacks and Whites didn't exactly eat with each other or share the same seating on the bus. A woman can assault a woman as easily as a boy can. A boy can assault another boy just as easily as a girl can. Separated rooms based on gender is a out dated concept. Just like how Muslim woman need to keep there faces covered.

It really isn't that difficult. If the attacker went for the genitals intentionally, then that's sexual. If it's a round-about reason like they went for the forbidden zone and it's forbidden because it's sexual, that is not some sort of hippy loop-hole making the whole event non-sexual.

So I guess art works of naked people are sexual.....

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You don't seem to be able to grasp the difference between violent beatings that involve anger and properly administered spankings that don't.

Either the kid is level-headed enough to be open to reason; then physical violence is unnecessary. The parents have done something right.

Or the kid is ****ed up and won't respond to coherent/emotional arguments; then physical violence is useless.

You fail to realize that you didn't turn out okay because of spankings, but DESPITE them.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

per say

per se

then

than

how society view children now

views

Thats clear in this thread.

That's

But thats a different topic on its own.

that's

the person being pants

pantsed

If a friend pants me

pantsed

then

than

gock

gawk

gentiles

genitals

Thats another thing that has changed over the years.

That's

It is mostly a American thing.

an

Its why you see

It's

its

it's

[Athens]

**** you

[hyteckit]

It's depants, not pantsed.

[Athens]

Ya well Uncle Skeleton has just taken a new low. To think he actually defended me once since its pretty dam public that I'm dyslexic and now he pulls this because he can't win a argument. Hope you can sleep tonight knowing how ****ing hurtful this is. Might as well tip over some one in a wheel chair or trip a one legged man because its just as bad. Pathetic loser. Guess I could consider this emotional assault, maybe I should sue.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I'm sorry, I didn't know. But it really does interfere with basic communication.

You do insert yourself into a lot of threads. And there's plenty of technology available to help you with grammar and spelling. If you choose a hobby where your disability hinders yourself and others, you should make the extra effort to do better. I wouldn't tease a blind person (legally blind, but can see a little, to make the scenario work) for not being able to play video games, but if they choose to play and fumble all over getting in everyone's face, and refuse to use technological assistance like the Universal Access tools and a bigger monitor with stronger contrast, I wouldn't feel bad about telling them to shape up and be considerate of others.

But I wouldn't have been as crass if I had known.

[subego]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

It's depants, not pantsed.

That's regional. The term where I come from has always been pantsed. Where my ex is from it's depantsed.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm sorry, I didn't know. But it really does interfere with basic communication.

You do insert yourself into a lot of threads. And there's plenty of technology available to help you with grammar and spelling. If you choose a hobby where your disability hinders yourself and others, you should make the extra effort to do better. I wouldn't tease a blind person (legally blind, but can see a little, to make the scenario work) for not being able to play video games, but if they choose to play and fumble all over getting in everyone's face, and refuse to use technological assistance like the Universal Access tools and a bigger monitor with stronger contrast, I wouldn't feel bad about telling them to shape up and be considerate of others.

But I wouldn't have been as crass if I had known.

It seemed like you understood everything he meant, at least enough for a long-form grammar flame.

How much of a hinderance you expect us to think this is for you? I've never had a problem. I've never even needed to ask for clarification that I recall, unlike with people who aren't similarly afflicted.

[brassplayersrock²]

As I see it, athens has been an asshat most of the thread, and now Uncle pushed back a bit, and now it's clear how athens can easily dish it out, but can't eat it; so he starts whining.

It's obvious now why Athens thinks what the boys did was okay, he's a bully himself, and if given the chance, would probably do the same (as the boys did) to someone.

[iMOTOR]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Ya all this thread has shown me is how pathetic American society has gotten. I mean its taken a entire new level of stupidity I didn't think was possible.

Nice Ad Hominem there, pal.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Bulls***, kids aren't spanked enough, that's part of the problem.

I agree with you on everything but this. There’s a statistic I recall that points to a significant number of people who are incarcerated in the US were physically abused as children. How do you know the kids that assaulted the Op’s daughter were never spanked?

[Shaddim]

Why is it when I mention calm, non-violent, corporal punishment to the backside of a child every Liberal nutter within earshot goes into a panic and starts waving their hands in the air? Spanking isn't physical abuse and you won't convince any rational person otherwise.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens 

And yes it does change things for the person being pants too. If a friend pants me on a beach out of fun and as a prank, I would feel totally different about it then if some one pants me to just gock at my gentiles and went home to masturbate from what he saw. One I would be annoyed with, second one I would feel violated with. Thats another thing that has changed over the years.

A 7 y/o little girl isn't able to distinguish such a thing, and shouldn't have to because it makes no damned difference at all. People can just keep their bloody hands to themselves when it comes to that area.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

It's obvious now why Athens thinks what the boys did was okay

How on EARTH can you even say that with a straight face. Have you READ anything in this thread or you just like making shit up.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Why is it when I mention calm, non-violent, corporal punishment to the backside of a child every Liberal nutter within earshot goes into a panic and starts waving their hands in the air? Spanking isn't physical abuse and you won't convince any rational person otherwise.

Probably the same reason some retards on here think that I think its OK what the boy did to the girl. Some peoples comprehension abilities are below that of a chimp in a research facility.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

A 7 y/o little girl isn't able to distinguish such a thing, and shouldn't have to because it makes no damned difference at all. People can just keep their bloody hands to themselves when it comes to that area.

Just like 7 and 8 y/o kids are not going to automatically relate pranks/bulling/inappropriate behaviors with sexual advances.

Originally Posted by iMOTOR 

I agree with you on everything but this. There’s a statistic I recall that points to a significant number of people who are incarcerated in the US were physically abused as children. How do you know the kids that assaulted the Op’s daughter were never spanked?

All statistics can be manipulated. On top of that there is a line between physical punishment and abuse. A spanking is not physical abuse unless the spanking is so bad that it becomes physical abuse. Its physical punishment. Do the stats know how many people had physical punishment and did not end up in Jail to compare with. And how do you explain the lack of criminals 60 years ago when physical punishment was the most common form. I think it would be a safe bet that 99% of children growing up in the 40's and 50's got spanked.

Originally Posted by subego 

It seemed like you understood everything he meant, at least enough for a long-form grammar flame.

How much of a hinderance you expect us to think this is for you? I've never had a problem. I've never even needed to ask for clarification that I recall, unlike with people who aren't similarly afflicted.

Thank you... and he is being dishonest, he knows I'm dyslexic. The post was deliberate. Its kinda ironic that a thread about bulling and embarrassment that he would choose to publicly embarrass me and publicly hurt me and even after a apology leaves it up anyways. And so has the mods......

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Just like 7 and 8 y/o kids are not going to automatically relate pranks/bulling/inappropriate behaviors with sexual advances.

If you aren't a complete idiot you teach your kids to keep their hands to themselves when it comes to that area. And yes, kids are taught that people shouldn't touch them there. Surely you aren't stupid enough to believe that trying to remove a girl's panties against her will isn't a traumatic experience.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Athens
Because when I look at "your" which is supposed to be "you're" I see it as "you're" not as your so it will get totally missed. Most of the time I only catch them much later after reading my own post again. You can point it out as often as you want but nothing will change this problem. your, you're, there, their are some of the worst ones for me. I have been taken more care in actual spelling though...

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...6/#post4080750

Just had to point out the dishonesty and how deliberate it was. One of a few examples.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

If you aren't a complete idiot you teach your kids to keep their hands to themselves when it comes to that area. And yes, kids are taught that people shouldn't touch them there. Surely you aren't stupid enough to believe that trying to remove a girl's panties against her will isn't a traumatic experience.

Yes kids are taught its a private place and that its bad if adults touch them there. But you avoided the question. The automatic association of it being sexual.

I said

Just like 7 and 8 y/o kids are not going to automatically relate pranks/bulling/inappropriate behaviors with sexual advances.

in reply to what you said

A 7 y/o little girl isn't able to distinguish such a thing, and shouldn't have to because it makes no damned difference at all. People can just keep their bloody hands to themselves when it comes to that area.

You already said a 7 y/o isn't going to distinguish between prank and sexual assault. But you have yet to prove that a 7 y/o is going to associate the area as sexual period. They associate the area as a bad place, a forbidden place and thanx to some parents a dirty place. But they don't associate it as sexual. Adults make that label and associate it as such. Not kids. When 2 kids play doctor by your definition its sexual assault vs exploration.

[Athens]

And Kids go through trauma all the time growing up. Its part of growing up. The fat kid gets called names for being fat. A girl gets called ugly because some one is trying to hurt her feelings. A kid gets excluded from the group because some one does not like the kid. A kid gets pushed down for being different. The level a trauma a kid experiences is also related to how much of a victim they are made out to be by others as well. Emotional transference or Emotional contagion. Emotional contagion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If a toddler falls down, the response of the parent usually decides the response of the toddler. A parent that rushes over to the toddler making a big deal of the fall transfers the emotion and the toddler cries and clings to the parent. A parent that ignores it or reacts in a calm way usually results in a child that remains calm or only cries a little before going back to play. A parent that laughs at a toddler that has fallen down can even cause the toddler to laugh as he gets back up. The victimization a child experiences from an incident like this can easily be made 10x worse by the reaction of the adults around them. And its the transference of those adults that really victimizes the child not the act itself.

And the message the adult sends to the child can also dictate how big of a event it was to the child and the longer term trauma they experience.

Child Psychology was one of the courses I took in College before I dropped out. Over reacting and applying Adult labels and context to situations of harmless play is dangerous and wrong. The very worst was a behavior inappropriateness that requires early correction before it develops into something serious at a later age. Its why its called inappropriate behavior not Sexual Assault. Most things in the adult world do not apply with Children. Its why most countries have a legal limit at how young a child can be subject to criminal prosecution which is 12 in most jurisdictions.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Yes kids are taught its a private place and that its bad if adults touch them there. But you avoided the question. The automatic association of it being sexual.

I didn't avoid anything, it is sexual (regardless of intent) and it is assault because she was being forcefully restrained. The boy(s) who did it needs to be taken away from the other kids to protect them, until they can evaluate him and he can receive therapy (and a good spanking and grounding).

Kids shouldn't be holding each other down while grabbing privates or removing underwear. If you think they should then you're an imbecile.

Twist it how you want, I don't give a sh**. It's wrong, it isn't common, and it shouldn't be happening. That's it.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens 

And Kids go through trauma all the time growing up. Its part of growing up. The fat kid gets called names for being fat. A girl gets called ugly because some one is trying to hurt her feelings. A kid gets excluded from the group because some one does not like the kid. A kid gets pushed down for being different. The level a trauma a kid experiences is also related to how much of a victim they are made out to be by others as well. Emotional transference or Emotional contagion. Emotional contagion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If a toddler falls down, the response of the parent usually decides the response of the toddler. A parent that rushes over to the toddler making a big deal of the fall transfers the emotion and the toddler cries and clings to the parent. A parent that ignores it or reacts in a calm way usually results in a child that remains calm or only cries a little before going back to play. A parent that laughs at a toddler that has fallen down can even cause the toddler to laugh as he gets back up. The victimization a child experiences from an incident like this can easily be made 10x worse by the reaction of the adults around them. And its the transference of those adults that really victimizes the child not the act itself.

And the message the adult sends to the child can also dictate how big of a event it was to the child and the longer term trauma they experience.

Child Psychology was one of the courses I took in College before I dropped out. Over reacting and applying Adult labels and context to situations of harmless play is dangerous and wrong. The very worst was a behavior inappropriateness that requires early correction before it develops into something serious at a later age. Its why its called inappropriate behavior not Sexual Assault. Most things in the adult world do not apply with Children. Its why most countries have a legal limit at how young a child can be subject to criminal prosecution which is 12 in most jurisdictions.

Man, I don't give a damn what you took in college, you're wrong. It isn't "harmless", the girl was harmed, she cried and was traumatized. It may even have long lasting effects, for all we know. Down the road, if things like this are ignored then the kids involved will believe that such behavior isn't really that bad at all, which is dangerous. Also, I'm not talking about prosecuting a child, I've been talking about them getting therapy and being punished by their parents. Get you head out of your arse.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I didn't avoid anything, it is sexual (regardless of intent) and it is assault because she was being forcefully restrained. The boy(s) who did it needs to be taken away from the other kids to protect them, until they can evaluate him and he can receive therapy (and a good spanking and grounding).

Kids shouldn't be holding each other down while grabbing privates or removing underwear. If you think they should then you're an imbecile.

Twist it how you want, I don't give a sh**. It's wrong, it isn't common, and it shouldn't be happening. That's it.

No kids shouldn't be pulling down underwear. Its very inappropriate behavior. That's all it is, inappropriate behavior, something that needs to be corrected.

You are avoiding the question though. How does a 7 and 8 year old associate the action as sexual. That's how you, an adult associates it. But the question is how does a 7 and 8 year old associates it as sexual vs bulling. The whole premise of this being sexual assault is sexual intent. That means the kids involved both the boy and the girl need to associate it as sexual. You have not yet answered this question. If the kids do not associate it as sexual then how is it sexual assault.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Man, I don't give a damn what you took in college, you're wrong. It isn't "harmless", the girl was harmed, she cried and was traumatized. It may even have long lasting effects, for all we know.

Of course she is going to have long lasting effects if the adults around her over reacted as you have. Emotional transference. What would have been a case of embarrassment to peers gets turned into a sexual rape, more embarrassing, and whole range of emotional problems including probably self guilt.

Down the road, if things like this are ignored then the kids involved will believe that such behavior isn't really that bad at all, which is dangerous. Also, I'm not talking about prosecuting a child, I've been talking about them getting therapy and being punished by their parents. Get you head out of your arse.

Of course this should not be ignored. The boy needs correction and education of why its inappropriate. Not one person in this entire thread has said it should be ignored or allowed. And while your not talking about prosecuting the child your still labeling the incident as sexual assault as if the children involved associated it as a sexual act when it occurred. This is where you are wrong.

[Athens]

If it was my kid my reaction would have been this

To daughter "what that boy did was wrong, it was very inappropriate. This is something people do not do to other people." Go play

To school "what are you going to do to make sure this never happens again"
To parents "I hope you punish your boys for this inappropriate behavior, if it was my boy he would be grounded for 2 weeks"

Done

Im not going to subject my daughter to the notion she was sexually assaulted. Make her a victim and subject her to therapy that just reinforces the victim mentality and ruin her life over it because I see a adult situation in what isn't an adult situation. Who's the better parent is debatable but I would argue me for not creating a victim and putting a lot of emotional trauma onto a 8 year old kid.


To summarize everything in this thread

You think its Sexual Assault (It has some sexual intent behind it)
I think its just inappropriate behavior (It has some bullying intent behind it not sexual intent)

You ignore age and comprehension levels of the children
Im factoring in age and comprehension levels of the children.

We both agree that intervention and punishment is required to correct the kid before it turns into something serious later in life.


Does this sound about right?

[Shaddim]

I didn't say anything about sending the girl to therapy. Mattyb seems to be doing a great job talking with her and letting her know that she's going to be fine and that she didn't do anything wrong.

Yes, it is sexual, the boy likely knew it was sexual, kids that age don't live in a box and the ones today are aware of what that type of behavior means. Don't give me that emotional transference BS, she was crying and aware that the boys had picked her out so that they could harm her. You want to think that children that age are innocent, they often aren't. We live in the real world with vast sums of knowledge and information available to anyone at any time. This is usually a good thing, but it also takes a toll on youthful innocence. That's part of the trade-off we face living in a modern society. Sexuality is usually good, there's nothing wrong with nudity, but restraining someone so that you can molest them is wrong, regardless of age.

"I choose not to see your world view", blah, blah, blah... Well, tough, that's just the way it is, get over it.

[Athens]

Knowing that a penis goes into a vagina and grasping what it really means emotionally are 2 different things. Kids may know more today then they did before but the ability to grasp what it means is no different. The same developmental limitations apply, this is why AGE is a important factor. Kids are innocent, all of them. Its failures in parents and adults that creates monsters when they grow up. If you teach a kid what death is at 4 years old. Or teach a kid at 6 what death is, they both don't understand the concept of it until around 9 and 10. Even though you have taught them about it at a younger age. The development of the brain isn't advanced enough yet to understand it. Knowledge does not mean understanding. The complex emotions like empathy and many social interaction emotions just are not fully developed at those ages no matter how MUCH they have learned.

To summarize everything in this thread

You think its Sexual Assault (It has some sexual intent behind it)
I think its just inappropriate behavior (It has some bullying intent behind it not sexual intent)

You ignore age and comprehension levels of the children
Im factoring in age and comprehension levels of the children.

We both agree that intervention and punishment is required to correct the kid before it turns into something serious later in life.


Does this sound about right?

[Shaddim]

I don't ignore age all-together, but at that boy knew it was sexual. He may not completely understand the full breadth of it, but he knows enough to derive some type of enjoyment from harming the girl in that way. He was trying to remove her panties, not her socks, that's an important cue.

[Athens]

You said it, he may not completely understand the full breadth of it. That's the problem with calling it a sexual assault. The child would need to have full understanding and comprehension of the action to be held accountable in the context of a sexual assault. If the child does not have full understanding and comprehension of what the act is and how it affects some one and what it means, then its not a premeditated assault of that nature. This is why courts do not prosecute children because the brains have not developed enough to be of full understanding of what they might have done. At that age they are still learning emotions, concepts and behaviors. Just knowing what sex and sexuality is from TV, other students, parents is not the same as fully understanding it. At 12 they should have full understanding of it which is why from that age on it would be a sexual assault. This is why I refuse to call it anything other then inappropriate behavior. I don't think the boy has full understanding of what he did. It is now up to his parents to parent the boy to prevent a repeat of this while he continues to develop complex emotions and understandings. I also don't think the girl has a full understanding of what happened and is probably confused by any attention it created.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens 

You said it, he may not completely understand the full breadth of it. That's the problem with calling it a sexual assault.

No, he understood enough. You keep bringing up prosecution and I never said that, stop putting words in my mouth.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You don't seem to be able to grasp the difference between violent beatings that involve anger and properly administered spankings that don't.

Not for the victim.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I don't ignore age all-together, but at that boy knew it was sexual. He may not completely understand the full breadth of it, but he knows enough to derive some type of enjoyment from harming the girl in that way. He was trying to remove her panties, not her socks, that's an important cue.

Now you surprise me! I would have guessed that you interpret removing socks as boy going after a proper footjob! Or will you now tell me that this can't be sexual because 8 year olds don't know what a footjob is? Either way, thanks for proving my point!
(and stop trying to push this debate in any political direction. Unfortunately parental violence isn't just a problem in the republican corner!)

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...6/#post4080750
Just had to point out the dishonesty and how deliberate it was. One of a few examples.

That doesn't say you have a disability, all it says is you're an inconsiderate jerk when you don't use the convenient tools right in front of your face. Wheelchair people probably hate your guts, because you have easy and free technology to make your disability totally transparent, yet you choose to be too lazy to use it. Meanwhile even the state of the art still costs them $$$ and even with it they are second-class citizens.

Originally Posted by subego 

It seemed like you understood everything he meant, at least enough for a long-form grammar flame.

How much of a hinderance you expect us to think this is for you? I've never had a problem. I've never even needed to ask for clarification that I recall, unlike with people who aren't similarly afflicted.

Look nothing against you, but that's rubbish. I'm sure you've seen this urban legend before:

"O lny srmat poelpe can raed tihs.

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, t he olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rgh it pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! if you can raed tihs psas it on !!"

Just because you can eventually decipher the note doesn't mean it's no hinderance. I wrote that post half for the benefit of those who came after me, so they wouldn't waste as much time as I did on the decoding.

(PS, even this urban legend only goes so far, notice it takes pains to only scramble words 7 letters or less and not the first and last letter, leaving only ~24 possible permutations, low enough that exhaustive trial-and-error can find the right word before the reader gives up, but it still takes a lot longer than reading correct spelling. It's the same reading Athens' posts, except when he makes the effort, then they're spelled as well as anyone else here).

Disabled people can be jerks too (does anyone watch Curb Your Enthusiasm? )

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

and thanx to some parents a dirty place.

Originally Posted by Athens 

You said it, he may not completely understand the full breadth of it. That's the problem with calling it a sexual assault.

You and all the other apologists are contradicting yourselves. On one hand you claim that society is to blame for making sex taboo in the first place and putting it on a pedestal, and then on the other hand you put "sexual" assault on a pedestal. If you really believe that sex is not to be specially protected, then you wouldn't make such a big deal about the distinction between sexual assault and regular assault.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by badidea 

Now you surprise me! I would have guessed that you interpret removing socks as boy going after a proper footjob!

Well to make it analogous with the OP, the boy would have threatened the girl with a footjob before starting

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You and all the other apologists are contradicting yourselves. On one hand you claim that society is to blame for making sex taboo in the first place and putting it on a pedestal, and then on the other hand you put "sexual" assault on a pedestal. If you really believe that sex is not to be specially protected, then you wouldn't make such a big deal about the distinction between sexual assault and regular assault.

The taboo attitudes towards sex and the putting of sex on a pedestal are massively contributing factors in the magnitude of trauma that can occur due to sexual assault. If you put sex on a pedestal, you have to put sexual assault on a pedestal too. This is not a contradiction. Don't forget that assault can range from a pretty mild tap in the presence of witnesses to a full blown beating with permanent injuries inflicted (Usually gets upgraded to GBH or ABH but still assault). Treating a sexual assault the same as someone getting slapped is pretty evil and cold when you know they are seriously psychologically distressed by it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

If you put sex on a pedestal, you have to put sexual assault on a pedestal too.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. If you take sex off the pedestal, you have to take sexual assault off the pedestal too. Stand behind your own argument, if you believe it.