**** with a metal pipe is no more **** than if I were to **** you at Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2. "Oh HO!!! The metal pipe coincides with sexual gratification!"... There's nothing more gratifying than cramming a nuke down another person's throat! I'm sure it can even be sexually gratifying for some. ...OR another example would be the **** of Neutral Belgium by Germany. Just because you can apply some other definition or usage of **** doesn't mean that it falls under the category of sexual assault. People might say you ***** them with a pipe because of the similarity of orifices used, but it is only assaulting someone with a weapon and attempted murder. That weapon being a pipe. You might could weasel your way into sexual charges by saying that the body parts involved were sexual organs or were tampered with for sexual gratification, but the definition implied by this thread is sexual intercourse....not insertion of iron pipes.
Actually, the crime would technically be called "Sexual battery", which according to wikipedia:
Sexual battery may be defined as non-consensual touching of the intimate parts of another. At least in Florida, "Sexual battery means oral, ****, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the **** or vaginal penetration of another by any other object": See section 794.011[2].
Which would include being ***** by a pipe anally.
Continuing, the World Health organization defines it :"
hysically forced or otherwise coerced penetration â" even if slight â" of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts or an object".[19]
Really. It is rare to find a definition that does not consider raping someone in the but with a pipe ****.
They were asking why is it that a woman who has sex with an underaged male gets a lesser punishment than a man who has sex with an underaged female. The other application of this thread was to two grown adults of their respective sexes raping the others. If you remember wedding crashers you'll remember that one of them men was tied down to a bed and then forcibly made to have sexy fun time against his will. He was ***** by a woman. If you switch the roles played by the respective genders then we've got the other side of the spectrum. Getting tied down and ***** is not equatable to having an iron pipe shoved up your ***.
And by most definitions, yes, "Getting a pipe shoved up your ***" is considered similar to **** by tying someone down and raping them.
I do realize that that is what this started out as, but that is hardly what it is now. How many people in the last page had talked about statutory ****?
If a woman has shoved a pipe up someone's butt, then she's committed a far more serious crime than ****. You might be able to justify it as **** if she's getting some sort of sexual excitement from doing it, but she's done far more than ****. It would be better represented as **** + assault + (insert offense here)= case instead of **** = case.
Adding "assault" hardly makes it a more serious crime, considering that you would get a hell of a punishment for the one offense. You might as well add jaywalking to the list, for all the good it will do. Depending on the damage, it may also get another more serious punishment, but the point is, if a male rapes a female and does the same damage as a female raping a male, then shouldn't they both be the considered an equally hideous crime?
2 scenarios...
1. I thrust a bendy straw at you and scratch your skin.
2. I thrust a knife at you and give you much more than an abbrasian.
1. Assault.
2. Battery.
They do have different laws for things like that.
Obviously they were the same actions, but with different tools... so therefore they're equatable!
But it isn't different tools same action, it is different tools same effect. It would me more like me stabbing you in the left lung with a knife compared to me stabbing you in the right lung with a katana. The damage is the same weather a man rapes a female or a female rapes a man.
I would prefer that the punishment fit the specific crime moreso than I would like to see punishments given to fit a label w/o regard to severity of the specific crime in question. I would prefer them have more than a slap on the wrist, but I wouldn't say that women by definition of not being men should therefore get a lesser punishment for **** charges. I would rather the trend exist if it in fact does only because their actual crimes committed on a whole just happened to be to a lesser degree of severity than their male counterparts.
How is one **** worse then the next? More damage done? Force used? Threat used? Weapon used? Unless an additional crime is committed, I can't tell how you could tell one case of **** from another.
Just because a trend like this exists doesn't mean that it is discrimination.
It is possible, but how do you measure the severity of ****?
