Quote:
Originally Posted by MageB420666
It was, at least, assault. But, it was not neccessarilly sexual assault, I believe most of you are jumping to that conclusion, assuming that it was a case of latent homosexuality being mixed with aggression. It really could have had nothing to do with sex. It could have simply one guy, trying to gain dominance over another. No, that doesn't make it any better, but it does not make it sexual. I believe that most of you are assuming it's sexual because it involves two males and a rectum.
It could very well have been sexual assault, but that will be up to the court to decide, most likely through a psychiatric evaluation. I'm just saying, don't jump to conclusions.
|
I see where you're coming from, and I can't claim to know the laws on this matter. But in the case of sexual
harassment, whether it's sexual and whether it's harassment is entirely the victim's call. If a person engages in behavior that is percieved as another as sexual harassment, whether or not it was intended to harass, it
IS sexual harassment.
I don't see why this should be any different. If the victim felt violated in a sexual way, why isn't it sexual assault?
Look, rape isn't inherantly sexual; most of the time it's about power. You could call it "assault with penis". Why is rape different from simple assault from the legal point of view? Because it's percieved so very differently by the victim!