Feb
4

For God’s Sake, Guys, Just Pay for a Hooker




Posted at 15:51 by Brad

How lame, pathetic and desperate do you have to be to do something like this:

An incident involving three men accused of masturbating over a sleeping University of Connecticut student is sparking calls to change the state’s sexual assault laws.

The men, who are also students at the school, face disorderly conduct and public indecency charges. But they will not be charged with sexual assault because there was no physical contact with the female victim during the September incident, said Elizabeth Leaming, the assistant state’s attorney prosecuting the case.

And no, for your information, this isn’t what Seb, Gavin and I do for fun on weekends.

26 Comments »

  1. Pere Ubu said,

    February 4, 2006 at 17:09

    I’m not going to suggest that they were College Republicans. ‘Cause that would be wrong to jump to conclusions like that.

    But I bet you they are, anyway.

  2. Brad R. said,

    February 4, 2006 at 17:13

    At the very least, frat boys.

  3. D. Sidhe said,

    February 4, 2006 at 17:53

    Don’t give them any ideas, Brad. They seem like exactly the sort of creeps who would beat a hooker.

  4. Mudge said,

    February 4, 2006 at 17:55

    What would happen if you threw a semen pie at Anne Coulter?

    You have pushed snark into a dark corner..are you proud of yourself?

  5. LA Confidential Pantload said,

    February 4, 2006 at 18:01

    Future Keyboard Kommandos, honing their fighting skills by practicing the mysterious Oriental art of bukkake….

  6. SoulLight said,

    February 4, 2006 at 18:28

    Calling this a sexual assault is a bit like calling a fight attempted murder. It’s a similair behaviour. It can indeed escalate into the worse behaviour. But it is not in and of itself the worse behaviour. It is a lesser crime.

    Seriously though, wtf was this about? They give no details as to circumstances. anway, These charges sound about right. Charging someone for a crime because they do something similiar but in no way of the same order of maginitude is not justice.

  7. Marq said,

    February 4, 2006 at 19:25

    Because you opened your big mouth, and I can’t resist (rather similar to these boyz, no?)…

    And no, for your information, this isn’t what Seb, Gavin and I do for fun on weekends.

    So, that’d be weeknights, then?

  8. GuinnessGuy said,

    February 4, 2006 at 22:03

    And you three have the decency to pay a hooker to let you three do it, instead of taking advantage of some drunk.

  9. Anonymous said,

    February 4, 2006 at 23:01

    I agree with SoulLight – what these guys did was wrong and demeaning, not to mention fucking idiotic, but I for one am really glad they didn’t rape the woman instead, and I’m sure she is to. To charge them as if they had would erase the distinction, which I think would be a mistake. I’d worry that it would encourage people to ‘go all the way’ when they’re considering being fucktards, for one thing. And rape has really only been taken seriously by the justice system for like a decade or two, so conflating lesser acts with real sexual assults might undermine the stricter sentencing for the greater acts that has only just begun to be in place.

  10. Taube said,

    February 5, 2006 at 8:57

    Maybe charging them with forcible rape, for example, would be excessive, but what they did was obviously a sex crime that violated the victim. Flashers are routinely charged with sex crimes, and that is several orders of magnitude less intrusive and demeaning than what these guys did. If these three rapists-in-training (cause you know they are) can’t be put on a sexual offenders list for this, then I think they damn well better change the laws. This sort of reasoning, taken to the extreme, is why people think that a guy who has non-consensual sex with a drunk girl at a party isn’t really raping her. Asinine and quite misogynistic to think that its not a sex crime unless its forced sex at knifepoint or something.

  11. Taube said,

    February 5, 2006 at 9:01

    Oh, and one more things. How is punishing lesser sex crimes going to lead to worse sex crimes? Wouldn’t letting these guys get away with a slap on the wrist give them the idea that even when they’re caught, they still can pretty much do anything they want to women, so maybe they should try something a little more intense next time? Maybe we shouldn’t punish shoplifters with anything more than disorderly conduct because it might make them want to steal more. Seriously, WTF.

  12. Random Guy said,

    February 5, 2006 at 9:27

    Taube, you’re missing the point.

    Your shoplifting analogy is perfect for this situation: do you think people who shoplift should be charged with the same crime or sentenced for the same amount of time as someone who commits armed robbery?

    That’s what we’re arguing for: just as there’s a legal distinction between shoplifting and armed robbery, there should be a legal distinction between jerking off over someone and raping them repeatedly. That’s not to say that shoplifters or these wankers (hehe, couldn’t resist) shouldn’t be charged, just that they shouldn’t be charged for a greater crime than they actually committed.

  13. Random Guy said,

    February 5, 2006 at 9:43

    …Oh, and as for the second point: don’t you think that if shoplifting and armed robbery had the same penalty, some who might otherwise only shoplift would feel that they might as well rob a bank rather than ‘five finger discount’ a CD or two? After all, they’re looking at the same penalty if they get caught!

  14. Bill S said,

    February 5, 2006 at 17:45

    For some reason, GuinessGuy, that makes me think of three people in a restaurant trying to split the bill. (I’ll leave the conversation to all of your filthy imaginations. ‘Cause I’m feeling lazy today.)

  15. bulbul said,

    February 5, 2006 at 18:28

    there should be a legal distinction between jerking off over someone and raping them repeatedly
    Isn’t that the difference between sexual assault and rape?

  16. GuinnessGuy said,

    February 5, 2006 at 21:09

    For some reason, GuinessGuy, that makes me think of three people in a restaurant trying to split the bill.

    “Egggnh…okay, Gav came first, he has to leave the tip.”
    I’m a bad, bad man.

  17. Michael said,

    February 6, 2006 at 4:16

    If there’s one good thing to come out of the porn onslaught the net has dumped upon us, it’s that jerking off near people is just as good as, you know, actual sex.

  18. Taube said,

    February 7, 2006 at 6:34

    Random Guy, bulbul made a good point. And you’re also missing my point. I said they shouldn’t be charged with rape. Likewise, I would agree that it would be stupid to charge a shoplifter with armed robbery. However, the crimes that they *are* being charged with are not adequate for the offense. The shoplifter is not charged with loitering, for example, but with the shoplifting charge. However, these guys are only being charged with charges that one could just as easily get for streaking.

    My position is that the law needs to be changed so that they can be charged with a sexual offense (there are many different kinds and degrees of sexual assualts, after all), which will likely carry more stigma and punishment.

    Sorry if I’m being bitchy, but most of you are being awfully cavalier about this. As a woman who was raped, I don’t find this situation terribly funny, but I do find several things in this story extremely serious: the group mentality of ganging up on one person, the degree of violation, the helplessness of the victim, the potential for them to have committed worse crimes, the deviant nature of the crime, etc. that point to the fact that the guys involved in this are at high risk for escalation.

    I don’t think that’s going to be helped if they get away with this. And, in general, the cultural attitude that it is okay to take advantage of women for sexual gratification is not helped by being lenient on and amused by a particular case. It is a rather privileged position for a man to be dismissive about a sex crime.

  19. raj said,

    February 7, 2006 at 14:58

    Posted by: Taube | February 7, 2006 06:34 AM

    Flashers are routinely charged with sex crimes…

    Prosecutors routinely overcharge, in hopes of avoiding a trial based on a plea-bargain. The most that flashers would be guilty of is something like indecent exposure, which is not a sex crime.

  20. raj said,

    February 7, 2006 at 15:05

    Flashers are routinely charged with sex crimes…

    Prosecutors routinely overcharge, in hopes of avoiding a trial based on a plea-bargain. The most that flashers would be guilty of is something like indecent exposure, which is not a sex crime.

    Isn’t that the difference between sexual assault and rape?

    Rape is a form of sexual assault, but sexual assault is broader. What constitutes sexual assault will vary from state to state, but in California it is succinctly described at http://www2.ucsc.edu/title9-sh/whatissa.htm

  21. Random Guy said,

    February 7, 2006 at 16:05

    raj – that’s what I thought.
    Taube – my apologies if I sound cavalier, and I’m not trying to defend these guys, but if they’re charged with sex crimes, don’t they go on the sex offenders’ list? I think that’s too much for this situation. What they did is stupid and in many ways unconscionable, but I don’t think it is deserving of marking them with that kind of stigma.

  22. Marq said,

    February 8, 2006 at 1:56

    Far be it from me to defend these idiots–and, they are knuckleheads–but to charge them with higher crimes because the incident could have escalated would be flat wrong. They should be charged with the actual crime they committed. Period. Anything else would reek of Bushian “Unlawful Combatant”ism. Sorry if that leaves them able to commit greater crimes, but until they have, they aren’t actually guilty of them.

  23. anon said,

    February 10, 2006 at 23:15

    Sex act perpetrated without consent on helpless individual (who almost certainly would not have consented if asked) — sounds like a sex offender to me.

  24. Mischa said,

    February 11, 2006 at 23:17

    That most definitely is a sexual offense and should be treated as one. They should be on a sex offenders list because that IS a sex offense

  25. Christopher said,

    February 12, 2006 at 0:31

    “I think that’s too much for this situation. What they did is stupid and in many ways unconscionable, but I don’t think it is deserving of marking them with that kind of stigma.”

    It absolutely fucking is deserving of that kind of stigma.

    What if they’d put their dicks on her face? Seriously, that’s the next closest thing I can think off, and I have a really hard time imagining that that offense woldn’t get somebody labeled a sex offender.

    And really, why should semen be a different class then the actual dick? What’s the difference?

    The Courant story is much more detailed, and I want to particularly draw attention to one sentence:

    “She decided to sleep in his room because it was late and she didn’t feel safe walking home alone and fell asleep on a futon in the room.”

    The fact that these shitheads knew she was feelng vulnarable does not endear them to me, or incline me to mercy.

    I’ll close by asking: How would you feel if you woke up to find your face covered in semen?

  26. Rachael Edwards said,

    February 20, 2006 at 6:16

    Is anyone considering the health-hazard aspects of this incident? Semen is a carrier fluid for hepititis, herpes, HIV and Christ on a bicycle knows what else.

Leave a Comment

  • Things of Interest

  • Meta Goodness

  • Clunkers

  • httpbl_stats()