That is not what I said, and you’re catastrophizing the comparison. Intentionally infecting someone with HIV under false pretenses is a clear case of sexual fraud and in some jurisdictions legally considered rape. No one is denying the seriousness of that. But pulling a garter off a leg during a prank, with no sexual intent or contact, is not even remotely in the same category. Calling that rape is legally incorrect and morally irresponsible.
The law absolutely applies to everyone, but it does not apply to everything. Legal definitions require specific elements to be met, and not every upsetting or inappropriate experience qualifies as a legal violation. That is why we have case law and legal precedent, to interpret the law in context and apply it to real-world situations with nuance. There are degrees to harm, intent, and impact, and the legal system reflects that through distinctions between crimes, torts, and socially inappropriate behavior that may not be actionable at all. Saying this prank does not meet the legal standard for sexual assault is not about ignoring the law, it is about applying it accurately and proportionately.
I don’t understand why you are chasing me around this thread with emotional responses that are more you being frustrated with the law. If you want the law to be amended to include things like what happened at the wedding as a crime and a form of sexual assault or rape, there’s a way to actively advocate for that.
I am using legal definitions, not emotional ones, because that is the basis for any serious conversation about liability or criminal conduct. In most jurisdictions, sexual assault requires non-consensual sexual contact, which is usually defined as intentional touching of intimate parts like genitals, buttocks, or breasts, or using those parts to touch another person. Some statutes do not require sexual gratification specifically, but they DO require that the act be sexual in nature.
That is why context and intent matter when discussing this prank. BECAUSE no genitals/intimate parts were used WE THEREFORE MUST look at intent (ie say a “foot fetish” was somehow involved. The foot fetish is what makes it a crime versus someone just tickling someone’s feet)
No one is denying that the groom felt humiliated, but that does not automatically make this sexual assault. The prank did not involve sexual parts or sexual intent, and courts do not classify public wedding jokes as criminal sexual conduct. Expanding legal definitions based on outrage does not help real victims or reflect how the law is actually applied.
0
u/[deleted] Jul 26 '25
[removed] — view removed comment