AIBU to be angry that it's now ok to sexually assault overweight women?

[WithTwoGiantBoys]

Today Paul Gasgoine was cleared of sexual assault after he admitted forcefully and sloppily kissing a complete stranger on the lips. He somehow successfully argued that as the woman was a "fat lass" there was no sexual desire in his action, he was just cheering her up after some other prat had commented on her weight. I an FURIOUS that this decision erodes women's bodily autonomy, nobody should have to put up with a drunk man's attempted pity snog just because she is overweight.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-50068077

however I don't think we can assume it was sexual based on nothing more than media hype.

I actually fucking despair.

I think the trial was at Newcastle court and Gascogne is still a semi hero there so it doesn't surprise me at all.

Yeah, we fucking love drunken twats up here in the North and hero worship their every action...

Wasn't the crux of this whether there was a sexual element behind it. And in this instance the jury found there was not? So the intent wasn't sexual. It was an unacceptable drunken act with a different intent.

So does this mean that if the intent of the assault was to humiliate then it wouldn't be a sexual assault either just because the man didn't fancy the woman?

I'm not a lawyer but to me it's the action and intention to touch inappropriately that matters, not whether the abuser is getting off on it. If that isn't the case the law needs changing and urgently.

So does this mean that if the intent of the assault was to humiliate then it wouldn't be a sexual assault either just because the man didn't fancy the woman?

The definition of sexual assault by touching states that the touching must be sexual in nature ie. the accused did it in order to gain sexual gratification. If it was instead intended to humiliate, either a common assault or S4a of the public order act would be the most appropriate charge.

Fancying someone is absolutely nothing to do with sexual assault. It's common knowledge that rape and sexual assault is about power, not attraction, and forcibly kissing someone against their will is about power and control.

The ruling is a fucking joke and a huge step backwards.

I think the trial was at Newcastle court and Gascogne is still a semi hero there so it doesn't surprise me at all.

I must be doing Newcastle wrong then because he isn't a semi hero to me, nor to anyone I know.

'I know what it's about, I kissed a fat lass.'

He's a disgrace.

The definition of sexual assault by touching states that the touching must be sexual in nature ie. the accused did it in order to gain sexual gratification. If it was instead intended to humiliate, either a common assault or S4a of the public order act would be the most appropriate charge.*

So if a man shoved his fingers up your vagina in order to humiliate you, you don't believe a sexual assault charge is appropriate?

The law is going backwards. Plwnty of precedent that sexual desire is not an intrinsic prerequisite for sexual assault. Wtf

I can see how the “intent” could/should be used as a defence. Going to tap someone on the shoulder and they turn round at the same time so you accidentally tap their boob. Fine.

Don’t think it should be applied in this way at all though.

So if a man shoved his fingers up your vagina in order to humiliate you, you don't believe a sexual assault charge is appropriate?

Well exactly 😳. The law needs fucking changing if that is the case.

The Timmy Murphy case came immediately to my mind - what an idiot he was to plead guilty. He could have just said he was drunk and angry after she'd told him off for urinating on his plane seat.

I’m also surprised this made it to court, wondering if it’s mostly because he’s Gazza. Not sure it would have done if he were a ‘regular’ person. I only say this because I was assaulted by an ex in the street in broad daylight, he had also been stalking me for months. He admitted to it but the police wouldn’t press charges because the assault wasn’t ‘serious enough’ 🤷🏻‍♀️.

It was a female barrister who defended Gascoigne, and she's got form for demeaning victims of sexual offences.

www.shropshirestar.com/news/crime/2019/01/08/cricketer-rape-case-woman-breaks-down-under-court-questioning/

Ms Heeley said: "The fact it continued for ten minutes, I suggest, shows it was something you were actively enjoying and engaging in?"

The woman responded: "No. My eyes weren't open."

Ms Heeley went on: "Nothing that you had said or done would have told Mr Hepburn that you weren't enjoying this sex?"

The woman replied: "I pushed him off when I realised, but before, no."

This would just be run of the mill battery surely? It can still be assault without being sexually motivated.

Tbh given the circumstances of the kiss, I'm surprised the woman was brave enough to take it to court. The whole trial sounded frankly humiliating with her lack of attractiveness being both the instigator for the kiss and his defence.
I suspect such a verdict will discourage other women from coming forward.

YANBU He's a creep and got away with it.

Quite apart from the appalling behaviour of Gascoigne and the jury, it's very naïve to suggest that overweight women aren't sexually attractive and I'm surprised the prosecution didn't point out that calling someone voluptuous is not an insult.

OK, big women not generally seen as conventionally attractive as slim women, but there are several genres of porn dedicated to overweight women. They appear to be popular and becoming more so.

This article is quite interesting on the subject and provides an historical context. Should warn it's illustrated with topless shots of what are called BBW (big beautiful women) which are contrasted to classic paintings of similarly voluptuous women but nothing worse than that.

So if a man shoved his fingers up your vagina in order to humiliate you, you don't believe a sexual assault charge is appropriate

That’s a completely different offence (sexual assault by penetration). The whole is the touching sexual issue relates to more “minor” offences where there is the potential for ambiguity. For example, if a man on the tube strokes your hair, is that a sexual assault? The answer depends on whether he gets off on stroking your hair.

I think PPs are misunderstanding the different offences that exist under the sexual offences act, and that there are different points to prove for each one.

Disgusting. Also how arrogant is he to think a kiss from him would boost her confidence?!

I live in Newcastle. I don't think he's a semi hero here. But there's an awful lot of drunken loutish behaviour around. So he probably not alone in thinking that's acceptable behaviour.

He was cleared of sexual assault and also of common assault. Basically the jury thought it wasn't anything to worry about is my cynical interpretation.

Reading the poor woman's version I'd say (based on my abusive arrogant ex h) that she was ignoring him and his attempts to engage her and he kissed her as some power play.

Apparently he was drunk and didn't have his false teeth in. You can just imagine it can't you.

You will never convince me a small peck on the cheek is sexual assault
Last week a teenager was convicted of sexual assault for touching a girl on the arm and waist for 3-5 seconds. So clearly a peck is worse. I don’t know how they could convict that boy but let Gazza off?!

I am also furious that was he was acquitted - but his weird comments about trying to cheer her up because she was fat etc were not the reason he was acquitted.

He was acquitted because on the basis of the evidence, the jury didn't think the kiss was forceful or sexual in nature. That doesn't mean they accept that's it's OK to assault overweight women or that his reason for doing it was acceptable - it just means they didn't think the contact itself was sufficiently serious to warrant a conviction for the specific offence of sexual assault, which was what he was charged with.

As I say, personally I don't think he should have been acquitted as I don't think it's OK to randomly kiss women who haven't consented and I think the fact that the woman reported it at all clearly suggests that she felt upset and disgusted by it - but the press coverage of the verdict has been a bit misleading.

I think the trial was at Newcastle court and Gascogne is still a semi hero there so it doesn't surprise me at all

The trial was at Teesside Crown Court, which is in the North East granted, but it's not Newcastle. Although he did play for Middlesbrough (where Teesside crown court is) I'm not sure that would get him any favours from locals to be honest. I live relatively near Middlesbrough and nearly everyone I've spoken to about this thinks he's been let off lightly, or sadly that the 'fat lass' was being precious and only doing it for money. I don't think that's anything to do with geography and everything to do with the way women, and particularly fat women, are viewed by society. I've been groped and grabbed at without my consent far too many times, I work in a bar, and when I object the answer is usually that I should be grateful.
Why the fuck do some men think that being fat equals being desperate? And that a 'fat lass' should be grateful? It's hardly surprising though is it when you read some of the comments on here from women directed at women fatter than them. So if she'd been skinny, but called ugly would he have needed to make her feel better still? Or do we think the outcome may have been different because she automatically gets more respect for being slim than someone who's fat?
Would he have done that to a man? I very much doubt it, but if the motive wasn't sexual but trying to 'cheer someone up' then why not?
I'm furious that a man can force any contact on a woman and the defence is "she was fat so I didn't fancy her". What about if she didn't fancy him? Tough eh luv because you don't get a choice.