"Our biggest concern is that these kids are going to do it again," the mother of an 11-year-old Tucson boy told The Arizona Republic. "My son had something shoved up his butt seven or eight times. If that's not sexual assault, what is?"

Prosecutor James Landis told a judge at last week's hearing that the "broomsticking" was a hazing ritual and a punishment, not sexual assault.

The plea agreement describes the assault charge as "a non-dangerous, non-repetitive offense."

Landis told the judge the case was never viewed as "sexual in nature," partly because prosecutors could not prove the two young men had sexual intent.

But legal experts, sex-crimes prosecutors and victims'-rights lawyers say the acts clearly fit the definition of sexual assault.

"They could have been charged with sexual assault," said Sue Eazer, supervisor of the Pima County Attorney's Special Victims Unit. "Sexual assault is oftentimes not motivated by sexual desire."

Requiring proof of intent in a sexual assault case is a "red herring," according to Andrew Vachss, a New York lawyer specializing in child cases who is also a best-selling author on the subject. He said intent in this case is being used as an excuse to cut a deal.