Gung-ho cops caught testing toddlers for drugs

[Toogoodman]

I dunno. How I about I come and shove something up your penis?

What if the mother has a history of abuse? what if she drugs up her kids to keep them quiet while her and daddy drug abuser do what ever the fuck they do. I think a forced catheterization was well within the social workers right to keep the kids safe. If the kids had hardcore drugs in their systems, this article would be singing a different song.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

Urethral penetration isn't sexual. The urethra is not a sexual thing.

The urethra is contained inside of the male genitals. Gaining access to the urethra in this instance requires manipulation of the genitals without consent. How would this be considered assault but not sexual assault? Also the urethra is considered a sexual organ, and the act requires the penetration of a sexual organ without consent, which is basic textbook definition of sexual assault.

[LMuhlen]

The urethra is contained inside of the male genitals. Gaining access to the urethra in this instance requires manipulation of the genitals without consent. How would this be considered assault but not sexual assault? Also the urethra is considered a sexual organ, and the act requires the penetration of a sexual organ without consent, which is basic textbook definition of sexual assault.

Is fore skin surgery a sexual assault?
Cavity search?
Vaccine shot on the bums?
Intra-vaginal ultrasound?
Touch exam for breast cancer?
Colonoscopy?

Health related professionals handle all parts of the human body for different procedures and that has zero sexual connotation.

They are collecting pee, they are messing up with the urinary tract, which coincidentally happens to involve the penis. But the penis isn't even the target, it's the bladder.

It was poorly approached, unnecessarily brutal, a privacy violation with the filming thing. But not sexual.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

Is fore skin surgery a sexual assault?

There's already a raging debate about this, so I'm not sure what this specific example is supposed to be proof of.

Cavity search?

Depends upon how it is conducted. If it had been performed in the scenarios described yes, as it would have been illegally conducted (No search warrant, performed on someone not already incarcerated, etc) and the procedure would then fall under acts defined as sexual assault.

Vaccine shot on the bums?

Probably not, though if it involved stripping the child and being administered without consent (in this case consent of the guardian, which was clearly not given in the situations described here) you could possibly make an argument that way.

Intra-vaginal ultrasound?

Performed without consent? Yes.

Touch exam for breast cancer?

Performed without consent? Yes.

Colonoscopy?

Performed without consent and without following proper legal procedure (warrant, so on)? Yes.

Health related professionals handle all parts of the human body for different procedures and that has zero sexual connotation.

And are fine if conducted with consent or following proper legal procedure and at an appropriate medical facility.

They are collecting pee, they are messing up with the urinary tract, which coincidentally happens to involve the penis. But the penis isn't even the target, it's the bladder.

It was poorly approached, unnecessarily brutal, a privacy violation with the filming thing. But not sexual.

I understand that, but the person I was quoting was considering it assault but not sexual assault, even though the physical action required for the procedure fits the requirements of sexual assault. So I was wondering at their rationale for the classification.

[LMuhlen]

I just don't see how consent turns something not sexual into something sexual.

IMO, It turns something from assault into not assault.

If it's sex related, it can turn a sexual act into a sexual assault.

But I guess it depends on the laws of the country... In a country of deep sexual repression such as the States, it wouldn't surprise me much if you were right.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

I just don't see how consent turns something not sexual into something sexual.

IMO, It turns something from assault into not assault.

If it's sex related, it can turn a sexual act into a sexual assault.

But I guess it depends on the laws of the country... In a country of deep sexual repression such as the States, it wouldn't surprise me much if you were right.

Well there's two parts here. We'll use one of your examples, the breast exam.

A breast exam is basically massaging the breast. You may have a non-sexual goal, but then you run into the issue where context plays a huge role because without it the act is clearly sexual in nature.

So the first part is, for whatever reason, a woman says "No I don't want you to give me a breast exam." Then you say "Too bad, I'm giving you a breast exam." What you're inferring is that when a woman says "I do not want you to touch my breasts." your argument is that "I'm going to touch your breasts anyway but its ok because I'm looking for cancer." is acceptable. Without consent, it would qualify as an act of assault. Since the act being performed would fall under the legal description of a sexual assault in the US, that's what it would be considered. The act, not the intent, is what is addressed regarding legal classification. Otherwise you would open up the capacity for a doctor to go around groping women and say "Its okay, just checking!"

Which brings up the second part, which is that the scenario is then absurd. If a woman declines a physical exam, what scenario exists where she would be forced to undergo one? You can't really force medical treatment on someone if they refuse it (unless you can prove some glaring mental deficiency). But the hypothetical scenario of "No, we WILL massage your breasts to look for cancer!" over the objections of the patient is relying on a nonsensical chain of events, nor would there be any legal justification for doing so.

[Zabatakis]

The urethra is contained inside of the male genitals. Gaining access to the urethra in this instance requires manipulation of the genitals without consent. How would this be considered assault but not sexual assault? Also the urethra is considered a sexual organ, and the act requires the penetration of a sexual organ without consent, which is basic textbook definition of sexual assault.

Give up now. People who are so obtuse they can't see how forcibly holding someone down against their will to fuck with their junk can be sexual assault will not likely yield to reason.

- - - Updated - - -

Excellent contribution, too bad it neither refutes my point nor presents a coherent counterargument. Feet are sexual to some people, but in the eyes of the law feet are not treated as sexual objects if they are not acted upon in a sexual way.

But I guess your response is just what happens when you don't have anything relevant to say but just can't bring yourself to accept that you're wrong.

If it makes you feel better to think that after you ignore all logic you don't agree with and then get butthurt when people write you off for doing so then by golly go for it. You will forgive me if I don't put to much weight into your input when you are so naive to think urethral penetration can't be sexual because it is a medical procedure, even going so far as to compare it to a stomach pump (lol).

So for now, good day. When your lesser mind expands a bit I will engage you more but until then I may as well debate politics with the neighbors dog.

[Jonnusthegreat]

Not approving of this in any way, but how is a catheterization a sexual assault?

Don't they go up your ass?

[LMuhlen]

Otherwise you would open up the capacity for a doctor to go around groping women and say "Its okay, just checking!"

It would still be an assault if he was running around checking women for cancer. And it's not just groping, I assume there is some procedure for checking breasts for cancer.

Which brings up the second part, which is that the scenario is then absurd. If a woman declines a physical exam, what scenario exists where she would be forced to undergo one? You can't really force medical treatment on someone if they refuse it (unless you can prove some glaring mental deficiency). But the hypothetical scenario of "No, we WILL massage your breasts to look for cancer!" over the objections of the patient is relying on a nonsensical chain of events, nor would there be any legal justification for doing so.

There could be a myriad of highly unlikely scenarios where forced boob checking would be required. Smuggling inside implants, infectious disease containment, boob bombs... Just mix boobs and anything that terrifies the average american and you would have mandatory boob groping!!

Anyways, agree to disagree and all that. I just think all this excessive puritanism and sexual repression is too old fashioned to be enforced by law. When a health agent has no issue forcibly collecting blood or hair but can be charged for child sexual abuse when collecting urine, it looks messed up to me. Your private parts aren't precious untouchable gems, just another part of your body.

[Tikaru]

Wouldn't like it anymore than someone shoving something up my nose... It's a medical procedure, not sexual abuse. Do you yell rape when you get your prostate examined?

If I don't agree to it, yes.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

It would still be an assault if he was running around checking women for cancer. And it's not just groping, I assume there is some procedure for checking breasts for cancer.

There is a procedure, but essentially its still massaging the breast regardless of what procedure you follow. The physical act is effectively the same.

There could be a myriad of highly unlikely scenarios where forced boob checking would be required. Smuggling inside implants, infectious disease containment, boob bombs... Just mix boobs and anything that terrifies the average american and you would have mandatory boob groping!!

Smuggling implants or, as you say, boob bombs, would likely be checked via ultrasound. You certainly wouldn't manually start massaging a breast if you suspected it contained explosives. Also any of these would require a warrant, which was not provided when they forcibly cathatered the child, and would be conducted at a medical facility with proper inspection equipment, also not done with the child.

Anyways, agree to disagree and all that. I just think all this excessive puritanism and sexual repression is too old fashioned to be enforced by law.

America's sexual repression is a different argument.

When a health agent has no issue forcibly collecting blood or hair but can be charged for child sexual abuse when collecting urine, it looks messed up to me. Your private parts aren't precious untouchable gems, just another part of your body.

See here's where you run into problems. It was police and social workers, not a 'health agent'. Also this type of invasive procedure typically requires a warrant to be conducted without consent and should be conducted at a medical facility. It was not, and the child subsequently developed an infection. There is also no reason they simply couldn't place the child on a children's potty and wait to collect a sample rather than subjecting the child to a painful medical procedure with no medical staff present.

Instead the child was medically assaulted by a painful procedure which resulted in infection. If that qualifies as assault, then it is also legally sexual assault, as it involved 'penetration of a sex organ'. Remember this whole back and forth started because a different poster posited it was assault but not sexual assault, but I don't see how legally that can be the case, since the legal definition deals with the act and whether or not they were looking for contaminated urine is irrelevant in this instance.

Give up now. People who are so obtuse they can't see how forcibly holding someone down against their will to fuck with their junk can be sexual assault will not likely yield to reason.

You misunderstand why I'm on here good sir. This is a distracting and entertaining time waster while I'm running long experiments at work and have not a lot to do (or am aggressively avoiding making powerpoint slides) but must be present while the experiment is running. I could care less if I convince anyone of anything.
Hell, there have been times on here I've argued a point I don't agree with or used a bad argument just as a mental exercise for my own amusement.

[Dug]

Lol if somebody is trying to force a catheter on me they're getting punched. Don't care who you are.

[jackofwind]

Give up now. People who are so obtuse they can't see how forcibly holding someone down against their will to fuck with their junk can be sexual assault will not likely yield to reason.

- - - Updated - - -



If it makes you feel better to think that after you ignore all logic you don't agree with and then get butthurt when people write you off for doing so then by golly go for it. You will forgive me if I don't put to much weight into your input when you are so naive to think urethral penetration can't be sexual because it is a medical procedure, even going so far as to compare it to a stomach pump (lol).

So for now, good day. When your lesser mind expands a bit I will engage you more but until then I may as well debate politics with the neighbors dog.

As I've said many times before, I think it's a horrible thing to do and completely out of line. Don't get confused into thinking I agree with the actions of the police here. I just think it will not be found to be sexual assault considering the context.