Hacker News Reader

You're right, Mike. This wasn't sexual "assult". It was sexual battery. Let me help you parse this out:

Official Code of Georgia, Title 16:

16-6-22.1. Sexual battery.

(a) For the purposes of this Code section, the term "intimate parts" means the primary genital area, anus, groin, inner thighs, or buttocks of a male or female and the breasts of a female.

(b) A person commits the offense of sexual battery when he intentionally makes physical contact with the intimate parts of the body of another person without the consent of that person.

(c) A person convicted of the offense of sexual battery shall be punished as for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

He's lucky he "fumbled". It otherwise would have been aggravated sexual battery; a felony, in Georgia.

Hope that helps.

Thanks for quoting that tptacek, but that's just a law. :P

But seriously: it's arbitrary words on paper. And just one possible jurisdiction. I guess my take is that every legal jurisdiction can have a different definition. And even assuming that jurisdiction is the pertinent one from purely a legal standpoint, it is tangential to whether, in a more substantive sense whether an "assault" occurred, or rape, or whether violence occurred, or whether anyone was actually harmed in RL -- not in theory, not in some textbook.

All I've personally heard for sure, in this case, is that one guy made some moves in a bar which were waaay too forward relative to what the woman liked. Because she did not like it, she publicly names him and accuses him of "assault". I would bet you money that if she liked what he did then she would not have did that and nobody here would be talking about it. I think this element of it is what makes it so tricky, and so controversial for some folks.

It's the jurisdiction, Mike.

(It's "criminal sexual abuse" in my jurisdiction, and in the circumstances described it's already a class 4 felony. That makes me happy.)

Again, these are arbitrary words on paper. :) They could be changed or deleted or rearranged tomorrow if we wanted.

How I'm approaching it -- and this is really really important in order to understand why I'm saying what i'm saying so I'm going to draw it out a bit to emphasize it further -- is that we should listen to this story, and consider the details of this incident in terms of the physical activities that occurred, and the context in which it occurred, and come to our own independent judgement as to whether what happened was (1) evil, and (2) what was the magnitude of it (if it was), and (3) was their actual harm done (not imagined harm, not theorized harm, not genericized extrapolated harm, etc.) but real harm, and (4) if whether the very same incident were to occur except that the woman liked it, would we still consider it to be a big deal, and would we still consider it a crime or think it should be a crime.

I clearly am coming down on the side that says that what happened should not have happened, but, oh darn, it's really not that big of a deal and she'll be fine. The guy misread how forward he could be, and/or was drunk and/or she was also drunk, and/or one or both were flirtatious and things went too far. It can happen. It's going to happen. It will keep happening just as long as humans are sexual and have to play the mating dance with incomplete and imperfect knowledge of the other's intentions and desires, and heck, even of their own.

And look, by her own admission, it's not like a case where he dragged her into an alley at knifepoint and violently raped her, leaving her bruised, bleeding, in pain, etc. That is stereotypical rape, and is evil, and I think there's a very large social consensus that that is bad and should be a crime and be punished. We are not talking about that kind of event in this particular case. But some people seem to have the same emotional baggage in mind when they evaluate it. And I think that's a misleading and weak position to be arguing from.

I think I would care much less about this particular case if (1) the guy was not named, and (2) it was not blogged about publicly, and (3) here on HN. I mean at most, this is a situation for her, that other guy, and the legal system (and that, arguably) to deal with. The fact that it's been laundered here makes me want to play Devil's Advocate with the hopes of illustrating what I think are extremely important distinctions that should be considered, but often are not.

I'm not judging the veracity of the story, Mike. All I'm saying is that in the story she told, the guy committed an actual crime. It has a name, and everything.

I understand. And in all of my comments, I've never argued from the position that this was definitely not a paper crime. It may or may not be, depending on what actually happened. Only two people know for sure. And a judge, etc. But I was arguing from the position of whether this should be a crime. And whether this should be made public, and names named, at this point in the game. And my take on both of these points was no and no. Or at least "very probably not" and "definitely no," respectively.

I don't want to live in a society where we care more about whether something is literally legal or illegal, and not more about whether something is right or wrong, and in making subtle judgements and comparisons about how right or how wrong something is, in the grand scheme of things. Ultimately, it should not matter whether something is technically legal or illegal because we can change the laws, and, laws are being changed all the time, and laws are getting bought by special interests all the time. They are literally just words on paper. What should matter is the purpose and intent of laws -- why do we have them? Why should we have them? When do they work well and when are they broken or could use improvement. I think all of these issues are at play in this particular case. And this is way more interesting to me, both as a geek and as a citizen, than whether what happened is literally a crime or not. That's for cops and DA's and judges to decide. But we can, in theory, ultimately decide what those laws should be.

thanks for sparring with me on this!

(According to her) he put his hand INSIDE her underwear. AFTER she said she wasn't interested. If it had only been the unwanted kiss, and she said no, don't touch me, and he said, oh I'm sorry, and left it at that, then yes...it was probably just a drunken misunderstanding.

Shoving your hand INSIDE another person's (of any gender) underpants after being expressly told that said person was not interested in you sexually is absolutely sexual assault.

If that's sexual assault because it's defined to be sexual assault, then it is. Can't argue with that. Words can mean whatever we want. I think the point I was making is that, at least in my case, I had a definition of "assault" long before I ever heard of the term "sexual assault" and I believe the latter is more of a legal term than a common sense, everyday term. Assault involves violence and planning. If there was no violence, and also possibly no planning/premeditation, I personally find it hard to swallow calling this "assault" of any kind. I mean, to put it in perspective, we're talking about, at worst, one adult male putting his hand inside the underwear of another adult female, at a bar, late at night, very likely while one or both parties are drunk, and one or both parties have been flirting or otherwise being touchy-feely with lots of folks all night preceding it. Add to this people who don't read body language and attraction cues perfectly well. And add to this some men wanted to be sexually aggressive and dominant toward a woman they find attractive -- and add to that many women wanting and liking men to do that -- and this adds up to a recipe where I could see something like this happening, and honestly, it should not be such a big deal. Slap on wrist? Sure. Crime? Not so sure.

And again: what about the concept of no harm, no foul. It's life. Move on.

Just for corroboration, the term "sexual assault" is generally understood to include situations exactly like this one. My alma mater's policy on sexual misconduct has a reasonably nice definition: "Sexual assault is intentional sexual contact with another person without that person’s consent. Consent exists when a person freely and knowingly agrees at the time to participate in a particular sexual act with a particular person. Consent is not effective, for example, when force, threat, or coercion is used. Consent is not effective when sexual contact is with a person who is unable to say no or otherwise resist because of the use of alcohol or drugs or because he or she is asleep or unconscious."

The same policy defines sexual contact as including but not being limited to: "sexual intercourse, penetration of an orifice (anal, oral or vaginal) with the penis, finger, or other object in a sexual manner, intentional touching of the genitals, buttocks, or breasts, or coercion to force someone else to touch one’s genitals, buttocks, or breasts. Sexual contact can occur over clothing."

Most people in this thread will be viewing the term similarly to the definition above.

That said, I'll let other folks deal with the rest of your post; I won't be able to do so dispassionately.

> If there was no violence

"Violence is...compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence)

"I tried to push him off, and told him I wasn’t interested ... He responded by jamming his hand into my underwear and fumbling." (from the article)

To me that sounds like "against one's will" and ergo an act of violence.

Interesting! I've never heard violence defined like that.

When I was a kid and first learning words like that, "violence" meant physical harm and attack. A punch. A gunshot. A bomb explosion. That was violence. I think this other definition you cited is a rather newer and more "lawyer-y" definition.

That said.

Even if that's the definition we're going to use, then, by that definition, this case still did not involve violence. The alleged evildoer in this case did not do anything against another's will "on pain of being hurt." Sounded like he was waaaaaaay too forward, I'd agree. :) But by her admission there was no threat, no pain and no use of "old-fashioned" violence (no attack or physical harm).

I'm going to go read up on the latest arbitrary definition du jour of "rape" and "sexual assault" tonight. What I expect to see is that especially the latter will be defined so loosely that if a guy merely touches a women's arm after she has drunk a glass of alcohol, then he could possibly be charged with the crime of sexual assault. That's how ridiculously overreaching this area of our laws seem to be.

Um. No pain?

If someone forces their hands into your underwear, it is disgusting. Who knows where that hand has been, and now it's in your private area? This is not about touching an arm. I'll agree with the other commenter that much of your posts does seem troll-like, especially when trying to say that shoving your hand into someone's underwear is no worse than touching someone's arm.

FWIW, however, I'm not sure that this necessarily needs to be a "throw in jail" kind of crime. Public humiliation on the Internet, however, seems like the best way to handle a crime of this nature.

Some men simply do not understand that it is not acceptable to put their hands in strange ladies' underwear. This is not a phenomenon that is limited to tech conferences. http://www.frumforum.com/the-prowl-getting-groped-in-the-dis...

Public awareness of this problem is a far better solution than sweeping it under the rug.

Most men don't do this. It'd be nice if in addition to being the great human beings that they are, if they'd step in when they see a woman being accosted in this way.

It'd be nice if in addition to being the great human beings they are if they wouldn't try to excuse piss poor behavior on other men's parts.

In case it's not intentional, I'd just like to point out that many of your responses in this thread come across as very "troll-like" in nature. This may be because I disagree with your content but--if it's not the impression you're intending to give--you might want to reconsider how you present your view.

Thanks for letting me know. I am not intending to troll.

I do realize that the position I'm arguing from risks being un-PC, especially with certain HN demographics, and if it's reacted to in a way that doesn't account for the subtle specifics of what I'm saying. But sometimes it's important to stick up for what you believe in, and say what you think is true and right, even if it's not popular with everyone. On the whole, it seems that what I'm saying is resonating with some of the readers here, which is good. I'd hate to live in a society where much or even all of sexuality becomes considered evil or a crime, and in a society where we're unable to make subtle distinctions, and we go after non-violent "crimes" more than massively violent non-crimes (war, invasions, government-ordered bombing or missile strikes, etc., for example).

So, just to be clear. If you or one of your friends did this, would you think it was okay?

Let's assume, for the purpose of argument, that you've correctly identified this list of factors that may have contributed to this event. How does that make it any less big of a deal?

Let's say the exact same thing happened as described in the story, except that the woman was sexually attracted to the man in question -- it would not be described as assault, just a man being aggressive and the woman liking it and being glad he did.

I can't believe this comment is getting upvoted - by this logic, a random guy who comes up and punches me in the fact shouldn't be convicted of a crime because I let random guys in our dojo try to punch me during Aikido class(and some of them succeed when I screw up my blocking/avoidance technique).

BTW, the legal definition of assault doesn't require direct violence, merely the threat of violence: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault

I hardly think correct use of a technical term (in this case, in the field of law) is an "abuse of the language"; see http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/assault.html

The rest of your argument seems to boil down to the same behavior would have been fine if it were consensual, and that kind of situation makes it easy for the guy to misinterpret consent. This reasoning is absolutely ludicrous. First, he kissed her, then "I tried to push him off, and told him I wasn’t interested (I may have been less eloquent, but I don’t think I was less clear)", then he jammed his hand down her underwear. How would that be misread?

You seem to not understand why people would call this violence, nor why serious harm could come from it. It might behoove you to take time to learn about why others might hold a different position. Not to sound sarcastic, but given that a sixth of women have experienced sexual assault in their lifetimes, it shouldn't be difficult to find someone who has been a victim of this who is willing to share their thoughts with you, especially if you approach them with a sincere desire to understand another viewpoint.

Edit: incorrect statistic.

Here's a thought experiment. Say we define "sexual assault" as being any case where a person is touched on their skin by another person, without that other person first getting explicit permission from the "victim" person to do that. By that definition, I'd wager that 99%+ of all women alive today have been sexually assaulted -- or if they haven't already, 99% will be.

Now, in this thought experiment, let's start narrowing the requisite conditions. Say, that the area touched has to be near genitals or buttocks or breasts. Bet the percentage drops some, but still high. Let's say we widen it so it can be outside of clothing -- not necessarily on bare skin. Guess what, the percentage goes back up. Now let's specify that the touchee is not sexually attracted to the toucher. Percentage drops. Now we could narrow it further, or widen it, whatever, and we're going to end up with whatever percentage we want -- even one we want to call "high" or "prevalent" or an "epidemic", if we wanted. Let's add in some error margins and uncertainty because (1) people don't always tell the truth, and (2) people don't always remember things perfectly. Now the importance and validity of your percentage becomes, well, let's say arguable and ambiguous, at best.

Have some women been "raped" (in the clearest, most old fashioned sense of the word) -- hell yes. And that's horrible. And should not happen. But to say that a third of all women are "sexually assaulted" in their lifetimes and/or to say that that is (always and necessarily) an evil thing -- that part I'm not so sure of.

Rape? Bad.

Sexual assault? Depends on particulars of the specific case -- not what words/laws say.

This might be a bit crude.

If things truly happened as she stated in her account, he didn't touch her boob. He didn't casually touch her in a way anyone could have accidentally done in a crowded bar.

She said she was wearing a skirt and bike shorts (and presumably panties) underneath the skirt. To do what he allegedly did, he had to reach under her skirt (already not a socially acceptable action) and get past two layers of fabric and elastic (and bike shorts fit pretty tight). He didn't touch her through her clothing, or touch some 'taboo' area revealed via skimpy clothing. He would have had to physically move her clothing out of the way in order to touch her genitals after being explicitly told that she did not want to be touched by him.

I don't see why you are so up for debating the semantics of the phrase 'sexual assault'.

Here's a thought experiment. You (I am assuming you are a heterosexual man, maybe you are, maybe you aren't, but I'm betting I'm right) go to a tech conference. You go to an after-party, have a few beers, have fun, chat with your peers. Another guy comes up to you and asks if you want to talk. You say sure. Suddenly grabs you and kisses you. You shove him away and say, "Whoa man, sorry, I don't go that way." He then grabs your belt buckle with one hand and shoves the other down the front of your pants and squeezes your cock.

Do you feel violated? Have you been assaulted? Hell yes, you were just sexually assaulted, 'in the particulars of your specific case'. And it's horrible. And it should not happen.

Edited to Note:

I only chose the homosexual example to highlight the fact that the physical contact was undesired. My point stands equally even if it were the hottest woman in the world and after the kiss you said, 'No sorry, I'm married.' or any other type of no including just straight up 'No'. If after the no, she still reached down your pants and grabbed your genitals it would still be sexual assault.

And while after reading some of your other posts I gather you feel our current sexual assault laws are too broad, and I support your right to have that opinion, and indeed even open a dialogue about it or campaign to have the law changed in your jurisdiction, I find it in extremely poor taste to have said dialogue in the commentary of such a clear example of sexual assault.

First, I made a mistake: 1 in 6 women will be victims of sexual assault in their lifetime. [1] My apologies; despite the mistaken figure it's still a large number. This figure represents the number of women who will claim they have been a victim of sexual violence.

You are claiming that some (likely significant) portion of these claims do not meet your definition of harm or violence. I'm not looking to get into a pedantic argument here about what kind of touching counts as sexual assault, or how far an assailant needs to go before the victim is "really" hurt. All I'm suggesting you do is talk to someone you know who considers themselves a victim and try to understand why they do; I really think you might learn something new. All you've said so far is that sexual assault isn't really a big deal because you don't think it's a big deal -- something of a circular argument.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault#cite_note-1

It's really simple my friend. Imagine this happens to your daughter/wife/girlfriend/mom. Then come back here and help us rationalize whether or not it was an assault.

Generally, getting emotions involved is not the way to decide upon proper punishment for a crime.

This is textbook assault, though.

Agreed, but the OP was in fact arguing that this does not constitute assault.

I think really stretches and abuses the language.

Yeah, but the damage is long done. These definitions are already codified into law.

Laws can be changed. Just words on paper. We could have all such laws changed throughout the country by the end of the month -- at the latest -- if we collectively wanted to. (Obvious adjustment in time window for whatever arbitrary rules/laws/processes are in place that would slow this down further, etc., etc.)