THIS MAN'S ARMY

Same-Sex Sexual Assault At Prince Harry’s Royal Military Base

We’re not sure what form the assault against a young soldier at Wattisham Air Base in England took—mere roughhousing that got out of hand or serious sexual violation—but it’s clear Prince Harry, who’s stationed at the base, wasn’t involved.

The Daily Mail is reporting that on Saturday night, three drunken soldiers pinned a fellow trooper down as he was sleeping and “subjected the young man to a terrifying sexual assault” that had him running naked and “screaming for help.”

The Mail is one of England’s most notorious shit-stirring tabloids, though, and called the incident a “drunken ‘gay sex attack'” in its headline. So without any details it’s hard to say if these drunk Brits just teabagged their mate, seriously violated him, or what.

Also unclear is why this soldier was chosen for the assault. (Like the U.S., Britain allows gays and lesbians to serve openly in the Armed Forces.)

Though the Ministry of Defense won’t comment on an ongoing investigation, a spokesperson said “action will be taken against all those who fall short of the Army’s high standards.”

We’ll update this story with any more info.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #england #military #princeharry stories and more

7 Comments

  • FreddyMertz

    I find this report a little suspicious. In other reports, the Prince was not even at the base, why his name is used to prominently in the headline makes me think that for some reason they are trying to say had he been there his “virtue” might have been in danger. LOL It also doesn’t say if the men who did the attack are gay…why not use “A soldier was sexually attacked at Wattisham AB”? “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark”

  • the crustybastard

    NO NO NO!! Calling this a “gay sexual assault” or a “same-sex sexual assault” is equal parts incorrect and offensive.

    It’s a sexual assault unless and until it is determined the perpetrator’s sexual orientation had something to do with the attack. So, until it is determined that the drunken perps are a cadre of gay sex predators (an almost vanishingly unlikely prospect), IT IS NOT A GAY SEXUAL ASSAULT even if balls touch!

    Goddamitsomuch. Could you try a little harder not to do Scott Lively’s work for him?

    (In other news, it’s important to add that Prince Harry was not at the scene when I was a crime victim last week. Good christ, he has fuck-all to do with the incident, why does he even bear mention?)

  • Robert in NYC

    The Daily Mail is a gay-baiting rag, up there with the Daily Telegraph. The victim may not even be gay, let alone the perpetrators. Calling it a gay sex attack is typical Daily Mail sensationalism to stoke anti-gay sentiment. It is nothing more than a sexual assault issue and has no bearing on anyone’s orientation. Anything the DM says you can take with a grain of salt. It’s the equivalent of the NY Post.

  • Curtis

    Oh man, gotta love you drunk, horny Brit boys :(

  • Troy

    As a gay male, I would consider unwanted “teabagging” to be a sexual assault on my person.

    It appears that Queerty only believes there is assault if there is full on penetration.

    Idiots.

  • bienclar

    I dislike the wording in this article. “Like the US, Britain allows gays and lesbians to serve openly” makes it sound like the Americans did it before we did and we just copied, when really we’ve allowed it for more than a decade and your government’s only just cottoned on to the fact it’s a debasing violation of human rights. I know that makes me sound like a complete arshcloch but what the hell.

Comments are closed.