High school wrestler faces sexual-battery charges after using the infamous “butt drag” on his teammate. What does their coach think?
“There’s nothing in wrestling tactics that would say, ‘When in doubt, insert.'”
(Full story here if you have trouble with the video.)
@50: Okay, I guess that’s a kind of an answer to my question, but it doesn’t really get to *why* this should be so. As in my example, we can all imagine an assault to a penis that wouldn’t be sexual (or do you disagree?). So why not an anus?
If the finger goes in, it’s sexual intercourse.
The implication then is that the anus is always, legally speaking, a sexual organ. That’s surprising to me, considering how much homophobic animus is rationalized by the “unnatural” nature of anal sex, and how taboo it is even for straight people. How many straight men think of their butts as sexual organs?
I get, obviously, how unconsentual penetration *can* be rape even without a sexual context or a penis involved. But even there, the assault is sexual in nature because it simulates a nonconsentual and generally taboo sex act – that’s where the extra humiliation comes from. In the case of the wrestling move, this aspect isn’t present, at least not without establishing separately an intent to humiliate. That’s why I (half jokingly) interpreted the lawsuit as an act of projection – in order for the violation to be humiliating instead of just painful, it has to be viewed by the violated as sexual. In this case, that seems view seems optional.
Obviously I’m giving this too much thought. I still think the lawsuit is stupid.
Or as the note on the latrine wall said, “I think I’m falling in love with Jake.”
Reach out and touch someone… on his cute little pooper.
It makes no difference whether the victim is comfortable using their anus as a sexual organ or not. Maybe somebody who is uncomfortable with it is feeling gay panic, but so what? If the victim had been a pro-buttsex male or female, would that have changed anything?
Mad Men had an episode of this nature: Don Draper thought a gay employee ought to be as willing to submit to involuntary gay sex to please a business client as he was with a chosen sex partner. Whether the victim is gay or straight, sexually active or not sexually active, or whether they think of the organ as a sexual no-go-zone or not, rape is rape.
It comes down to having a single standard for all: consent.
(Don Draper is a bad man.)
What I can state is this: In California, if knowledge comes to any school employee or volunteer that a possible sexual assault occurred, then that person must report what is known (or even just rumored) to the appropriate police agency within 24 hours.
If a father came in and declared that his son was assaulted, then both the police and child protective services would be contacted. The police will perform an investigation and arrest the alleged perpetrator if they deemed an assault took place (usually after several days of investigation if the alleged perpetrator is under 18).
Now, if the alleged perpetrator is over 18 (and the report did say he was much older than the younger kid) then he is going to be arrested much sooner, and most likely not allowed back on campus.
Compare that to the Texas cheerleader who got raped and had to cheer for her rapist (last month’s SLOG).
LMFAO @36
I understand what you’re saying, piminnowcheez, I was thinking about a situation where this could happen with a woman, and I could see a situation where this would be possible in ballet or figure skating during a lift, where it wouldn’t be sexual assault, but rather an accident, since the intent was not sexual. I think your take on this is interesting, and I must say, I don’t understand @31’s comments either, I didn’t read your comment as inappropriate regarding children, and I’m a mom.
I don’t understand how people can say anal penetration is not sexual assault just because he might not have had sexual intention. What if a man penetrated a womans vagina violenty and unconsentually but he was only doing it for the power-trip, nothing sexual. Would that suddenly make this not rape?
Also FWIW I do submission wrestling and BJJ and we call this “checking his oil.” It definitely happens because the back of the pants in a perfect spot for a grip. The only time I have ever seen it happen though it is always a mistake and its fine you move on. If this kid penetrated for 30 seconds humiliation was almost certainly the goal.
He played dirty, he should be kicked off the team for it, but this is NOT equal to rape, or child molestation, or other actual real sex assaults. “He basically targeted my son, pinned him to the ground, and assaulted him.” You conveniently leave out that your son targeted, tried to pin, and physically assaulted the other kid too. That’s wrestling! Should the guy have thumbed his butt? No. But wrestlers are encouraged to throw their opponents off guard to gain a second to pin them and win the match.
Also, how many male cheerleaders get too handsy when holding up the female cheerleaders? Answer: a lot. But they don’t end up in court at risk for being on the sex offender registry forever. They get reported and kicked off the team.
@59: Personally? If I were a cheerleader in the situation you described, I’d be fucking pissed if a guy got “handsy” (crotch/breast-grabbing, I’m going to assume, as that’s a fairly cute term for “digital penetration”) with me. He’d be specifically taking advantage of a situation where there’s *established trust* and where he knows there’s some in-built cover for his actions. How is that less reprehensible than a random stranger grabbing me on the street?
Of course I’d forgive accidents. But knowingly taking advantage of a teammate’s trust, just because you think you can get away with it because you’re both cheerleaders and what, cheerleading now includes the occupational hazard of being intentionally groped? Fuck that bullshit.
@57: Thanks, Canuck.
@54: It makes no difference whether the victim is comfortable using their anus as a sexual organ or not.
Really? Do you realize the import of what you’re saying? You’re saying that the anus is always to be considered a sexual organ, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. I actually think this is a defensible claim, but one quite outside either the legal or mainstream understandings of the issue.
If the victim had been a pro-buttsex male or female, would that have changed anything?
Well, yeah. I’m a pro-buttsex male, and it’s likely that that’s why I’m viewing this differently. If I’m in the middle of wrestling with someone, and he grabs my ass to move me around, and his fingers go in/near my asshole, then I imagine it as being surprising/annoying/outrageous, but as an out-of-bounds wrestling move rather than a *sexual* assault. Assholes are sexual only for people who want them to be, or for victims of rape who’ve had a sexual role for their anus forced on them. Everybody uses their anus for pooping; only a subset of people use it for sex. That’s why I can only imagine interpreting anal penetration in a non sex/rape context as sexual assault if you’re already on board with the anus as a sexual organ. I don’t know why a high school boy would be there without pre-existing tendencies.
@58: What if a man penetrated a womans vagina violenty and unconsentually but he was only doing it for the power-trip, nothing sexual. Would that suddenly make this not rape?
Of course not – “doing it for the power trip” is the whole point of rape. But the power trip of rape depends on the sexuality of the act. The rapist takes something by force that no-one wants to relinquish: the ability to exercise choice in sexual partners. You can take control of someone’s body by force without raping them, but rape adds the humiliation of making the completeness of the rapist’s control explicit, precisely because of the assumption that anyone who *could* prevent their sexual choice being taken, would. Torture works the same way; it’s not just that it hurts, it’s that it establishes the victim’s powerlessness because it’s assumed he would stop it if he could.
It’s *possible* that in this wrestling case, the butt-poker’s intent was to humiliate sexually. But what I’m arguing is that we can’t automatically infer that intent from the act. Charlie’s cheerleader example is a good one. Suppose a male cheerleader goes to lift a female; suppose he is incredibly stupid and does not get that grabbing her in the hoo-ha is not the way to do it. It’s inappropriate for sure, but it doesn’t *have* to be sexual assault just because a hoo-ha is involved.
You do not penetrate the anus for a butt drag. Butt drags suck, but it’s all cheek, no hole. The only wrestling where you penetrate the anus is on the internet, it’s done naked, people pay to watch it, and it’s consensual.
This mother fucker checked the other kid’s oil for 30 seconds? I’ve heard of accidental oil checks, or even “accidental” oil checks, but those are fast, in and out like a duck fucking. Not 30 seconds. 30 seconds is long enough for him to know what he was doing, to keep doing it, and clearly without consent. Even if he wasn’t getting off on it sexually, he was clearly sexually humiliating another kid for his own pleasure. TO argue this was a move is bullshit.
That’s not wrestling, that’s fucked. That’s not incidental, it’s not part of the game, it’s being a dick.
I’m with the people who are skeptical that anybody can achieve “full on penetration” for thirty seconds (a) through a tight unitard (b) with a crowded auditorium watching and (c) with the referees not noticing.
@63. While ‘possible’ it does seem a little unlikely, doesn’t it?
This was practice rather then a public match but your objections hold as there would be lots of teammates around, probably watching the practice match, as well as a coach watching their every move. The likelihood that someone sticking their finger up another player’s butt for 30 seconds while the victim is screaming at him to stop would go un-noticed seems very small indeed.