My school is doing it right.

[–]Ma99ie68 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Hardcorex14 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IndyDude119 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haleistheman2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sarstan0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rogersmith252 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think that statistics like 1 in [small number] [type of person] will be sexually assaulted undermines the issue. By grossly inflating the number of assaults in order to assert prevalence, they group insignificant incidents in with serious violent crimes. For example, we frequently see types of mild coercion get lumped into rape statistics - coercing an existing sexual partner into sex is not the same as sexual activity with an unconscious person.

It has reached the point where these inflated statistics are mocked: take the Family Guy joke where a College administrator explains to young women in a packed auditorium, "Look to your left. Now Look to your right. Statistics indicate both of these men will rape you."

While I think that it's a step forward to acknowledge that men are sexually assaulted by both women and men, I think that the current tactics for raising awareness need to change.

[–]drinkthebleach2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sarstan1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wonderloss4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sarstan1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BoringCode1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ENTP60 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MysticMarxist21 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]heldonhammer1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MysticMarxist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]heldonhammer1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hellzorak-6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Victory_Disease11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NemosHero14 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]texpundit5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ENTP4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Victory_Disease1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ENTP1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IceSuicida3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]heldonhammer1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tallwheel31 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]13 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JamesRyder8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]silverionmox2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JamesRyder2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]silverionmox2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JamesRyder2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]silverionmox2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sadbrigade1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sarstan4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]torrentfox8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wild-Eye5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]elreydelasur4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pizzaboy1922 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]elreydelasur2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Weed_n_Wisdom3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LickitySplit9393 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Baseburn3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Baseburn2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LickitySplit9392 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LickitySplit9392 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LickitySplit9391 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LickitySplit9390 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BrambleEdge1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This forced envelopment by a woman seems incredibly unlikely to me (I have never heard of this happening, and my mother is a Crown Attorney, my uncle a SV Cop), but it happens frequently in cases of males asserting dominance (ie in prison).

It's not exactly like the justice system takes it seriously. Most people are under the impression women cannot rape and quite a few don't think men can be raped. As a prime example take the CDC.

And I'm a little confused, primarily by your assertion that "males asserting dominance" choose to force their victim to penetrate them?

Secondarily, this study was about community rape, not prison rape.

Tertiarily, regarding prison rape most male inmates who were raped were raped by staff, not other inmates. The majority of staff-perpetrated rape was committed by female staff. Female inmates on the other hand reported higher rates of rape perpetrated by other inmates than rape by staff.

And finally, of the men who reported being raped by envelopment 80% reported a female offender. Here's an explanation of the stats.

[–]BrambleEdge1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cheio2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is how to do it right:

Name sources
Don't give 1/2 of the attention to the sex (I assume that there was/will be also a female victim awareness week in april, that makes two of four weeks that are only about the victims' sex)
Tell the reader where you have your facts from. Don't have him see it and call bullshit.
Don't just name the fact, tell the readers what to do when something happens to pop into their mind about the fact (like I know one of the 1/6, or even I am one of the 1/6)
Never claim, always prove. That's what most radfems loose their credibility with. They just claim and allude but never show any evidence that they are actually right which gives the impression that they are most probably not. Don't give that impression.
Give additional information (like why exactly 1/6, why 25, why the color of the ribbon)
If you work with numbers, explain them, and show them, that you didn't actually estimated them by touch or even made them up.
Scrap the flag thing. Noone should be waving a flag showing a "hey, look look at me, I'm a sexual assault victim" symbol, neither women nor men.
Claim does not equate to fact. (Not even if you say "It's a fact that..." or "Some studies show that..." or add a theory that sounds remotely believable, or know someone meaningful who happens to claim the same thing.)
Assess the amounts of facts about your subject and the time you have to present it. You can do better than four one-sentence-fun-facts about sexual assaults if you have a whole months.

Certainly not complete list. I hate the "1 in 4 females" posters, and I don't think I like a "1 in 6 males" poster much better, although it's quite uncommon.

[–]pizzaboy1922 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cheio1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]totoc331 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]e1349b1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TibsChris1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MattClark09941 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]insomniacat161 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]grindmonkey1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lawtonfogle1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SirSkeptic0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dm28737 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dm28725 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dm2871 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Khorib2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]1Down2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ReverendSalem1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wild-Eye0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SirSkeptic1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dm2874 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SirSkeptic2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]25 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SirSkeptic-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dm28711 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpaceDog77712 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpaceDog7771 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dm2873 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dm2871 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]silverionmox1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]silverionmox1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SirSkeptic3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kaikaibean13241 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SirSkeptic0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SirSkeptic2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SirSkeptic2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]seenloitering2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It depends a lot on the jurisdiction. Here (I'm Canadian) there doesn't need to be any damage or even contact for an act to be considered assault. Just threatening to touch someone without their consent is assault. A simple unwanted touch or "uttering threats" is assault. What judges are asked to do, is to determine the nature of the event given the reasons why we classify some assaults as sexual in the first place (which is a whole can of worms itself). I think it helps to remember that this isn't like determining guilt, but rather, is determining classification. The classification of an assault as sexual has nothing to do with the intention of the assailant. The intention matters when determining whether an assault occurred at all, rather than with determining the nature of the offense. Here is an example definition from stats Canada: A term used to refer to all incidents of unwanted sexual activity, including sexual attacks and sexual touching ( http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0033m/85f0033m2008019-eng.htm ). I think the criminal code doesn't actually define sexual, but I'm not certain.

(I'm not necessarily arguing this is how it ought to be, but how it actually is)

EDIT: I shouldn't say intention has "nothing" to do with determining whether damage has been done to the "sexual integrity" of the victim (the standard for determining sexual nature in assault), but that it isn't a necessary consideration except insofar as it contributes to the evidence that sexual integrity has been damaged.

[–]SirSkeptic1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SirSkeptic1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]so_witty_username1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SirSkeptic0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]so_witty_username1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How the fuck does a cop shove a baton up a woman's vagina without sexual intention?

Your schoolgirl example is ridiculous and dumb, and you're the one resorting to an extreme example. Cops using violence in genitals is an everyday, recommended practice, while boys in school grabbing a girls vagina until they cry is definitely not. Your example also fails to mention what the intention for the assault is, and why the sexual organs were targeted. And where the hell is this "most school girls aren't employed as police officers and are attacking rather then defending" coming from?

If so then quite a lit of rapes are not sexually motivated

How so? Humiliation and pain to satisfy a sexual urge is sexual in nature. BDSM. Domination. Roleplay. Rape is an act of violence, but it's an act of violence done through violent means with sexual intent. Or is the orgasm bit just a fuzzy afterthought? And how the fuck do you compare a rape to kicking a guy's balls just because they happen to take place in the same area?

[–]SirSkeptic1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Wow! Calm down.

You managed to say quite a bit without answering one of my questions. Well done. I'll answer yours though and then ask mine again.

How the fuck does a cop shove a baton up a woman's vagina without sexual intention?

The same way as he can kick a man in the balls. If it's one of the few options open to him in a scuffle, you do what you have to do.

Humiliation and pain to satisfy a sexual urge is sexual in nature.

You've kind of shot down your own point here. I'm arguing that many girls attack and sexually humiliate weaker boys in school by kicking them in the balls. And by specifically targeting their genitals it makes it a sexual assault. You've not so much argued but simply stated that this is not the case because it's not "sexually motivated" and then come back with the statement that causing pain and humiliation certainly can be sexual motivation. Make up your mind.

Now, I've answered your questions. Answer mine: What do you mean by sexually motivated? Or haven't you really thought all that deeply about it?

[–]so_witty_username1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The same way as he can kick a man in the balls

No, a similar response would be to kick a woman in her genitals. Shoving a baton up someone's vagina is not the same. At all. It couldn't even be done in a scuffle. It's not something that just happens.

I'm arguing that many girls attack and sexually humiliate weaker boys in school by kicking them in the balls.

What about boys who kick other boys in the balls? What makes a casual assault in a genital area a sexual assault? You say that merely targeting a sexual area makes it sexual assault. It isn't so. Pain and humiliation can be sexual in nature, but not in a casual scenario as is the one you describe. It's not a bedroom, it occurs in a public place, and nothing indicates sexual motives. The fact that pain and humiliation CAN BE sexual motivation, does not mean that every instance of it is sexual in nature, and that certainly is the case when only a minuscule facet of it is present like in this one.

What do you mean by sexually motivated?

Again, with the objective of deriving sexual satisfaction from the act. Just because you don't like my answers, does not mean you can ignore them and gleefully gloss over them and propose I didn't answer them.

[–]SirSkeptic1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Shoving a baton up someone's vagina is not the same. At all. It couldn't even be done in a scuffle. It's not something that just happens.

Are you saying that it's impossible for you to imagine a situation where a police officer is locked in a struggle and that's his/her only option at that time? How about if the cop really just wants to put the perp in her place in a violent and humiliating manner, without any 'sexual motivation' at all? Just to be an arsehole? Does it not count as sexual assault because they are just being an arsehole?

What about boys who kick other boys in the balls?

The same thing. I'm not making gender assumptions. If one male bully targets a weaker boy's genitals specifically to cause pain and humiliation it's also sexual assault.

What makes a casual assault in a genital area a sexual assault?

That's the point, it's not casual. It's very intentional and done in the full knowledge of the damage and humiliation that it causes.

Again, with the objective of deriving sexual satisfaction from the act.

I don't think you can say "again" as you've never said this to me before. Now I get the reference to "the orgasm bit just a fuzzy afterthought". I'm not being obtuse here, just trying to get where your reasoning comes from. You may feel like you answered the question, but from what you wrote, you really didn't. Are you saying that if the perpetrator of sexual violence doesn't orgasm or at least get hard/wet than it's not sexual assault?

[–]seenloitering1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sexual satisfaction isn't relevant. Rape with the objective of humiliation, revenge, or what have you, is still sexual assault, even when the objective is not sexual satisfaction. As I understand it, intention is only necessary when determining guilt, not when determining classification.

That said, in a way, you do have a point. For example, if an individual is assaulte, and punches their assailant in the balls, they are not guilty of sexual assault. But not because the act isn't sexual, it is. They are not guilty of sexual assault because they are not guilty of assault (assuming we consider that particular use of force a reasonable mode of self defense). So, with police, for example. They are authorized to use force, so the classification of that force is irrelevant until it becomes an offence. (though I think it's considered misconduct at apply force to sexual organs unless the office is at serious risk).

[–]HoopyFreud1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SirSkeptic1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HoopyFreud1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The problem is that the equivalent isn't really that equivalent. while women's pelvises are vulnerable to being broken and/or dislocated when the pubic symphysis is struck, it's no the most painful spot on the body to be hit in. The groin is usually a man's most vulnerable area; the fact that it's also a sex organ is usually a secondary consideration. While that's certainly not always the case, it's a twist of physiology that makes this kind of sexual assault hard to qualify. You could ask "what about a woman being punched in the cervix?" but that's not exactly likely to happen in the middle of a fight. Since she would have to be naked, probably immobilized, and fisted in the vagina for that to happen, I wouldn't call it equivalent to a man getting kneed in the balls during a barfight.

Think about the unintentional consequences of deeming this kind of thing sexual assault as well. Suddenly, people would be afraid of brushing up against the general area surrounding a man's crotch. Accidents suddenly have the potential to turn into serious problems. We spiral ever downward in our quest to achieve perfect political correctness as a masked 17th century pilgrim dances madly behind the scene of our lives, cackling insanely as we become shriveled, sex-averted freaks, just like him and his kind.

Except for that last bit. I think.

[–]seenloitering2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Here's a helpful way to think about it. The "sexual" part of sexual assault is not dependent on the mental state of the attacker, but rather, on the "sexual integrity" of the victim. Take a handshake for example. Imagine you are shaking someone's hand and from your perspective of the world, your personal perspective, handshaking has sexual significance. This fact about your experience makes handshaking a sexual activity to you. If someone shakes your hand without your consent, they have assaulted you (this is true without any imagination required). But if, they assault you in this way, and you are as previously described, a person for whom handshaking has sexual significance, your "sexual integrity" has been compromised and you have therefore been sexually assaulted. The person who sexually assaulted you doesn't even have to know that it is sexual, much less have intended it to be sexual.

BIG CAVEAT: this is how it works in Canada where the law revolves around "sexual assault" and "sexual integrity" rather than in the united States where it tends to revolve around "rape" and "bodily" integrity.

[–]HoopyFreud1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

While the experience of the victim is indubitably important, I maintain that intent matters. Take the classic example of a drunk woman who goes home with a stranger. Upon waking up in the morning, she feels that she has bee taken advantage of. From her perspective, she may feel violated; she might even feel like a victim of rape. If she feels that she needs counseling and support, then she should be able to get them. That said, I believe that it's possible for her to feel that she's been raped without her partner having raped anyone. My phrasing there was awkward; sorry. What I mean to say is that even if she has gone through the emotional trauma of rape, the stranger did not knowingly commit rape (assuming that she wasn't unconscious or close to it). Because she gave consent, albeit in a semi-impaired state, he did not assault her.

Where does this leave the two of them? She is unfortunately traumatized, but is able to receive support. He is probably confused and hurt, but he has not been charged with a crime, and though the incident might affect his social standing among his peers, he is ultimately not guilty of a crime.

I know that this isn't necessarily how the letter of the law is phrased, but it seems like the best solution to me. Of course I'm not suggesting that ignorance is an excuse for committing any crime; I'm just saying that the intent of the perpetrator always matters.

In your example, while the person whose hand has been shaken has been sexually assaulted, I would say that the person who shook her hand did not commit sexual assault.

As a side note, I would contend that if you try to bring an assault charge (sexual or not) against someone who shook your hand, you're going to have a bad time.

[–]seenloitering2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Most of what we're saying is consistent. Think of it as two questions: 1) has an assault occurred?; 2) is that assault sexual in nature? In the case of the drunk women, as you have presented it, a sexual act has transpired, but it wasn't assault. Therefore, it is not sexual assault. It is just sexual. But had it been an assault, it would have been a sexual assault. The fact that she feels damaged isn't enough to determine that a crime has been committed; however, it can determine the kind of crime, had there been a crime.

In the case of a handshake, I would have no problem getting a conviction of assault. A handshake without consent is called "grabbing someone's hand". If you do it to a police officer you may pay a heavy price. If someone assaults me that way, and I happen to attach sexual importance to hands, under the provisions of "sexual assault," I have been sexually assaulted (lets say "hands" instead of "handshaking" because handshaking implies consent).

"In your example, while the person whose hand has been shaken has been sexually assaulted, I would say that the person who shook her hand did not commit sexual assault."

A lot of people feel that way about it--and with good reason. Part of the problem is that when the public hears about someone being convicted of sexual assault, they don't think, "oh, someone was assaulted, and the assaulted person felt it threatened their sexual integrity." Instead they think, "oh, someone was sexually assaulted, so the person who did it must be a pervert." Which is the wrong way to think about it. In Canada this creates this weird reality where people convicted of sexual assault are treated differently than people convicted of assault, even though the difference is not necessarily determined by a difference in the offender but a difference in the victim (not just by the public, but by government too--under sex offender legislation). (I say "not necessarily", because the offender is considered in the difference, it's just not a requirement to categorize the crime as sexual).

In a lot of ways, this problem is a direct consequence of the way laws are organized. We want to capture, under one charge, the concept of differing kinds of damages to victims and differing kinds of actions by criminals, as if the two are always matched one for one. We also have the deep desire to punish criminals in a way that parallels the damage experienced by the victim, even when the criminal could not reasonably have predicted those damages.

[–]SirSkeptic1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HoopyFreud1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Mainly because I'm not talking about accidental, incidental or survival based kicks to the balls. I'm talking about the incredibly common, grrl-power girl going up the weedy guy from behind and sexually assaulting him.

And this, of course, comes back to your own question:

What, in the legal sense, do think is a sexual motivation? Is it something that can be identified externally in a court of law?

The reason that most people jump to a fight or accident is because, in most men's experience, that's when and how they've been hit in the balls. What you've posited is, indeed, a clear case - but (I would argue) it's not typical. That conflicts with what you've said:

Any way you want to set it up; kicking, grabbing, hitting, twisting. How is intentionally targeting someones genitals not sexual assault?

It's mainly your overbroad definition that I disagree with, not the validity of actual sexual assault.

[–]SirSkeptic1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HoopyFreud1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Is "intentionally targeting someone's genitals" the definition with which you disagree?

Yes, because there are numerous circumstances in which that assault is not sexual in nature. In my experience, being kicked in the balls happens most often by accident, or if somebody is fighting dirty. The sexual motivations doesn't exist, as far as I can tell, except in instances where an individual is attacked and humiliated.

Based on conversations I've had in all male and all female groups it seems most men have experienced it and most females brag about having done it for the most trivial of slights.

I can't say that I've really experienced this; based on your writing, I'd assume that you don't live in the US. Perhaps this is a cultural thing, because I haven't seen it around here. That doesn't excuse it, of course, but it provides a little perspective; if this sort of thing is prevalent where you live, I can see where you're coming from.

And still nobody has given me a usable criteria for what makes an assault "sexual".

As I said, it seems to me that it depends on intent. It's not a satisfactory answer, but it's all I have. There's a difference between murder and manslaughter, and there's a difference between domestic abuse and BDSM.

[–]SirSkeptic1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]notarapist72-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jovtoly-8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]loungedmor8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dysgraphia_add4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CrossHook0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dysgraphia_add-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jovtoly1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Title	My school is doing it right.
Author	pizzaboy192
Upvotes	1012
Comments	150
Date	April 11, 2013 1:38 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/1c3u2u/my-school-is-doing-it-right/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/my-school-is-doing-it-right.1610259 https://theredarchive.com/post/1610259

Comments