8th grade Girls Attack/Strip 11-Year-Old Boy - Page 36

On June 06 2011 23:44 Shirolol wrote:


Rape and science, 2 things only males do. Devious bastards.

On June 06 2011 23:37 Gummy wrote:
People keep saying how if 4 boys were doing this to a girl it would be a shitstorm. I think that it would be and justifiably so, since girls are generally more pleasant and good-natured than guys. Girls will only go so far as pulling pranks. Boys are a lot more devious and will do things like rape and science. That's why there are so many more men than women in prison.

On June 06 2011 23:49 gold_ wrote:

Very poor response, and sexist at that. Generalizing men/boys as devious is totally pathetic. Maybe YOU are more devious than other people, don't include every other male person into your conclusion. Maybe there are more men in prison than there are women because the judges all think as pathetic as you do, and give lighter sentences to them as such? Or maybe a lot of them just couldn't handle the pressure of "being a man and being strong" because of the sexist views that men should be strong, and turned to drugs then crimes to pay for the drugs. All because of sexist opinions of men having to "deal with it" or "be a man!"?

On June 06 2011 22:22 Nanoko wrote:

your constant insistence to refer to this intuition you seem to have developed, one where 11 year old kids like being assault in this case because of hormones. Just holds no water, not on any moral grounds and certainly not in a logic based argument. any random 27 year old joe blow does not have the experiences necessary to say that they have a significant "understanding of the "Mental make-up of youth/Social dynamics of youngsters".It is not possible to say that you, based on your past experiences have such a good understanding of the way a childs mind works as to say he probably enjoyed it. Furthermore to suggest that it might be a generally accepted thing is even more ridiculous, you form your opinions on "intuition" intuition is inherently biased, why? because not everyone has the experiences, persoan A goes through situation F and draws conclusion X from it, person B goes through it and draws conclusion Y about it, person C goes through it and they get Z from it.

A could be a racist because of their experiences, B could be sexist because of their experiences, and C could be an rapist because of their experiences. Not everyone will get to the same conclusion from the same set of experiences as well, because of their morals and different other factors in their life and their different beliefs in general. what you're saying is utter nonsense, From your logic, from your argument i can say, and apparently be right or even be agreed with by the majority, "person X was assaulted because of reason Y, I can say this intuitively therefore it is true and most likely a majority of people agree with me" Do you see what's wrong with this way of thinking? Based on your responses, probably not, it is more then likely that you have a twisted set of moral standards and your experiences "with sexual behaviour, child mentality/social dynamics of youth are heavily skewed based on personal experiences, saying that based on your intuitive thinking it must be trued is biased, skewed in one direction, and is completely illogical and irrelevant to this discussion because of it's inherent bias.

On June 06 2011 06:06 Asjo wrote:
The reason that people would react differently if it was a bunch of boys would only be due to rationalizations in regards to the sexual aspect of it. People interpret behaviour, consider what it might lead to, and act preventatively. Perhaps this might sometimes lead to an overreaction, but that doesn't mean that you should also overreact to a single instance of bullying by girls in the name of equality. As it is, it was a bunch of young kids acting immaturely and getting physical about it. Obviously, the school/parents will react to avoid things escalating, but as such there is nothing outrageous about the interaction.

On June 06 2011 22:34 Nanoko wrote:

there is no ambiguity in this situation, kid is being bullied there is a difference between touching and throwing a kid to the ground, violently, you adding the possibility of "femdom" to this equation makes you look even more ridiculous then you did a few minutes ago. you can't twist someones point if they don't have one everything you've said is bias, and has no place in this discussion at all.

On June 06 2011 06:36 Asjo wrote:
Add to that the fact that most of us get humiliated terribly during our younger years, often against our will. More often than not, it does not weaken us. We learn from it and grow. It's an integral part of interaction at this stage, and if we never get to be foolish kids and act out all our ugly feelings and go through all the motions, there is little chance of use growing up as wise and well-balanced adults. This doesn't mean that kids should behave and treat each other well, but often this comes as part of a process. There will be bullying, people will act to stop the bullying, and hopefully everyone will learn from it.

On June 06 2011 08:04 Asjo wrote:


I would say you have a very narrow-minded interpreation of what I am saying. My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. I haven't watched the video with sound (sitting on an old computer with no sound right now), so I don't know whather than would change my perception. However, I do know that even if he got enjoyment from it, he would certainly react vividly and show his dismay. This, as such, is what would serve to encourage to girls and also keep up appearances. He doesn't want it to be known that he enjoys it.

On June 06 2011 19:25 sunprince wrote:
it certainly does highlight an inherently sexist social view of sexual assault, even if it stems from gender roles that are simultaneously misogynistic and misandrc.

Sexist things happen to girls? Misogyny!
Sexist things happen to boys? Misogyny still!

I don't suppose it has ever occured to you that it's not black-and-white, and that society can hold views that are both misogynistic and misandric?

It's more likely that this incident will be overlooked by the feminist community entirely, since harm to boys is not one of their concerns. I certainly haven't seen any sort of discussion of this going on at Jezebel, Feministe, Shakesville, or the rest of the feminist blogosphere.

However, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, Lorena Bobbitt was widely hailed as a feminist hero when that incident occurred.

On June 07 2011 02:12 Asjo wrote:


Not that it matters, but in terms of interpreting what goes on in the video, I would have to say that I agree that the boy very likely did not enjoy it. I just had the chance to watch it with sound, which reveals how he's crying hystically like a small child, which I won't assume anyone would fake. When you just watch the image, the boy does't necessarily seem to be putting up any great resistance, but of course something like that is hard to judge from clips that last only a few seconds and does not reveal any context (at that point he might just have had it and was busy feeling sorry for himself, not finding the strength to fight it, or he might have been fatigued).

On June 07 2011 01:25 Asjo wrote:


The word "intuition" seems to have played a trick on you. I have argued all my points, explained my reasoning - go back and check if you like. Never have I simply entered the discussion by only saying: "I think this - this is intuition". Nor have I in any way made sexist remarks. One such would be "women are inherently weak, and therefore have to be treated more carefully". Whereas, I'll have you note that I'm saying "most young girls at this specific age tend to have higher sensitivities to specifics things in a particular context". You see the difference? In the first example, you a specific stereotype caused you to promote a specific attitude towards a gender and causes you to devaluate that gender. In the second example, you try to make use of lived experience to accomodate people and make the best of a situation. This doesn't carry through to a general attide or behaviour, but simply gives you an awareness which might help you to understand a specific situation.

The reason that we use "sexism" as a concept is that it represents instances where people try to jusify prejudice by making ill-thought blanket statements instead of relating ot things specifically or thoughtfully. So, "sexism" gives us an awareness of how this prejudice can be easily accepted by individuals who, within a specific context, don't have the surplus or mental fortitude to confront it or specific cultures where tradition have made related practices commonplace. The discourse that this creates serves to ensure that no gender suffers oppression or inequality from such ideas through their implementation into everyday life. It's not, however, a tool prevent gender debate or classify any generalized statements regarding gender as a political or personal standingpoint.

With your comments about "majority rule", it would seem that you have missed my point of saying that I think the interpretation I present is common. As I feel this is quickly turning into a debate of semantics, I'd rather bring your attention to my original point (which has been re-iterated) than trying to expand the arguement:



Hopefully that should remind you what we were actually talking about.

On June 07 2011 04:38 Mordiford wrote:


Yes, but you have no backing for all the shit you say, you're arguing with things that would have to be argued with things that would have to be argued some more. That's where it's requested that you bring forth some source you can cite otherwise it's utter drivel.

I can say based on my intuition that a black person getting beaten up by three white guys is different from a white person getting beat up by three black guys and make up all the same bullshit and cite intuition and all this fucking nonsense, but when applying it to a general situation like you are(and you are) it would still make me a fucking racist, just like what you're saying makes you a sexist perpetuating double standards.

It doesn't matter how you word it, you're still making a blanket statement with no evidence other than "intuition". Here, let me try... "Most women at a specific age tend to be incredibly incapable of handling responsibility and making good decisions in a 'particular context'", from this, I will infer that it's okay to keep bitches in the home so they don't fuck shit up in my company. I'm not a sexist, though, don't worry about it.

On June 06 2011 06:06 Asjo wrote:
I see this as a harsh prank by the girls, not a legal matter. Also, I think we have to consider that maybe the kid secretly liked this. The video aside, it's mostly playing around involving close physical contact with girls ...

The reason that people would react differently if it was a bunch of boys would only be due to rationalizations in regards to the sexual aspect of it. People interpret behaviour, consider what it might lead to, and act preventatively. Perhaps this might sometimes lead to an overreaction, but that doesn't mean that you should also overreact to a single instance of bullying by girls in the name of equality. As it is, it was a bunch of young kids acting immaturely and getting physical about it. Obviously, the school/parents will react to avoid things escalating, but as such there is nothing outrageous about the interaction.

I don't know if the comments in this thread about child porn are serious. However, just because someone underage is filmed nude, does not in any way make it child porn. Nudity is the most natural thing in the world. Child porn is about exploitation of children and the often sexualized depiction of such.

On June 06 2011 20:39 BlackFlag wrote:There's no lawsuit, not because those "evil feminists" want men raped, but because this boy didn't fit in his role given by society.

On June 06 2011 23:51 zbedlam wrote:


Relax man he was trolling. The reason there are more men in prison isn't because we are all rapist scientists. Its because we are more physically violent and more driven by money.

On June 07 2011 05:09 Asjo wrote:


In your precise example in your last paragraph you assume a general attitude towards a particular gender and act in a discriminatory way where you devalue women. So, this is another example that missed the mark.

And as you your argument about arguing - you're just repeating what the other guy said, making the assumption that arguments not supported by scientific research is "useless drivel". In fact, most observations we make are based on common knowledge, a part of which is actually made up of different reserach, among other things research into human behaviour. Research into things that go beyond simply measuring is often coloured greatly by our current assumptions about them. Just like we interpret the things we see, the researchers will have to interpret the results and are limited to our current understanding of the subject.

If you say, like in your example, that a black person being beaten up by white guys is likely to have certain implications, you argue that point, explaining the logic behind your reasoning. Others might fault that logic or provide knowledge to the contrary. You might be able to see disconnects in their logic or explain their faulty assumption, and thus argue your point that way, explaining how this relates to your original assertion. In the end, it's a debate and people share both feeling, experiences and thought, hoping that joint understanding will emerge from this intersect. People are able to make a connection between feelings and thoughts, and do so actively when confronted with those of others. You should be happy that people are actually able to debate their own line of thought and the debate won't go: "X scientiest says this! But X scientist says this! No, but X scientists contradicts that with this!". Would likely be much less enlightening, as the most important part of this process concerns learning about learning about other people, something that gets lost if you turn debates into a fight about absolute thruths.

If I argue "I think that pupils are more likely to skip classes if their teacher does mainly participatory teaching. It will often disengage them, because school, acting as part of a socialization, is basically a power structure similar to many others that help us establish communities within society. Just like with military camp, you have to use methods which help establish authority, because that will promote a feeling of membership. Feeling will often not be involved if it seems that you're simply dealing with an abstract idea. And since doing exercised on your own is very non-committal, it will feel just like that - you will not relate to it personally", you could respond in various ways. You could refer to some scientific articles, that I might be able to dispute. Or you could use your own intelligence or particular insight and argue what point you might have: "No, schools work through a circular process, where past experiences act as feedback that actively shape future experiences. Unlike the family unit, schools are a neutral area when it comes to membership. To people, it will act as more of an 'activity area', and, as such, what commitment you will ever get will come from personal motivation derived from interest and curiousity. There is no 'magic glue', and, if they don't have such motivation, the pupils only attend the school because they have to. The commitment needed in the military is different. Here, you actually create an emotional dependancy because people have to exceed their own boundaries to actively participate in its activities. This would be counter-productive in schools, and is would take too much of the focus. In schools, you have a wide arraw of things that will, at first encounter, render the pupils stunned or at least slightly overwhelmed, and it is basically impossible for the students to fully encompass all that the school is. Tasks in the military are much more simple, and rather than heavy exercise of your brain, they will require discipline." - to which I might see my disconnect. Or you could stick with "I disagree with you. You're wrong" ...

On June 07 2011 05:09 Asjo wrote:


In your precise example in your last paragraph you assume a general attitude towards a particular gender and act in a discriminatory way where you devalue women. So, this is another example that missed the mark.

And as you your argument about arguing - you're just repeating what the other guy said, making the assumption that arguments not supported by scientific research is "useless drivel". In fact, most observations we make are based on common knowledge, a part of which is actually made up of different reserach, among other things research into human behaviour. Research into things that go beyond simply measuring is often coloured greatly by our current assumptions about them. Just like we interpret the things we see, the researchers will have to interpret the results and are limited to our current understanding of the subject.

If you say, like in your example, that a black person being beaten up by white guys is likely to have certain implications, you argue that point, explaining the logic behind your reasoning. Others might fault that logic or provide knowledge to the contrary. You might be able to see disconnects in their logic or explain their faulty assumption, and thus argue your point that way, explaining how this relates to your original assertion. In the end, it's a debate and people share both feeling, experiences and thought, hoping that joint understanding will emerge from this intersect. People are able to make a connection between feelings and thoughts, and do so actively when confronted with those of others. You should be happy that people are actually able to debate their own line of thought and the debate won't go: "X scientiest says this! But X scientist says this! No, but X scientists contradicts that with this!". Would likely be much less enlightening, as the most important part of this process concerns learning about learning about other people, something that gets lost if you turn debates into a fight about absolute thruths.

If I argue "I think that pupils are more likely to skip classes if their teacher does mainly participatory teaching. It will often disengage them, because school, acting as part of a socialization, is basically a power structure similar to many others that help us establish communities within society. Just like with military camp, you have to use methods which help establish authority, because that will promote a feeling of membership. Feeling will often not be involved if it seems that you're simply dealing with an abstract idea. And since doing exercised on your own is very non-committal, it will feel just like that - you will not relate to it personally", you could respond in various ways. You could refer to some scientific articles, that I might be able to dispute. Or you could use your own intelligence or particular insight and argue what point you might have: "No, schools work through a circular process, where past experiences act as feedback that actively shape future experiences. Unlike the family unit, schools are a neutral area when it comes to membership. To people, it will act as more of an 'activity area', and, as such, what commitment you will ever get will come from personal motivation derived from interest and curiousity. There is no 'magic glue', and, if they don't have such motivation, the pupils only attend the school because they have to. The commitment needed in the military is different. Here, you actually create an emotional dependancy because people have to exceed their own boundaries to actively participate in its activities. This would be counter-productive in schools, and is would take too much of the focus. In schools, you have a wide arraw of things that will, at first encounter, render the pupils stunned or at least slightly overwhelmed, and it is basically impossible for the students to fully encompass all that the school is. Tasks in the military are much more simple, and rather than heavy exercise of your brain, they will require discipline." - to which I might see my disconnect. Or you could stick with "I disagree with you. You're wrong" ...

On June 07 2011 05:20 Nanoko wrote:

Never have I simply entered the discussion by only saying: "I think this - this is intuition"
My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. nuff' said about that i think, unless you want me to Cite other examples? no..Are you sure?...No?..Ok Then we can move on. The only thing i am arguing is these lines right here "I see this as a harsh prank by the girls, not a legal matter. Also, I think we have to consider that maybe the kid secretly liked this" and "The reason that people would react differently if it was a bunch of boys would only be due to rationalizations in regards to the sexual aspect of it." Why is there a sexual aspect just because their boys doing it? that is a Gender Double Standard.....

On June 07 2011 05:34 Nanoko wrote:

calling anyone who randomly disagrees with you a guy is sexist, thanks for asking btw

On June 07 2011 05:37 Asjo wrote:


In the example you give, there is no need for any further explanation than that which I have already given about hormones, fondless of touch, desperation for contact. It's a pretty general thing, which I'm sure everyone can understand. Note, I wasn't argued that he enjoyed it, only that it was a possibility to consider before anyone went apeshit about or, went to the media or courts with it.

In the second quote, I simply outline the morale of my point, telling others what conclusion I have personally reached in regard to the morality that had been discussed. This then branched out through my entire argument, where I constructed an understanding of the situation that would not necessitate punishing the girls by taking this to court.

Ýour third example, about the sexual rationalizations, is about forceful physical contact, carried out boys onto girls. I think the connection here is quite simply. Many people will have heard about or experienced that this is how such things start or escalate and turn into rape or the like. They will have seen other kind of behaviour where this approach of "no regard" is a way for boys to be "sexually forward". Generally, people will react very strongly to any such physical behaviour simply because they know that a lack of reaction might legitimize taking it a step further. Since they don't fear the girls taking it a step further, as this often won't be the care, it wouldn't play a conscious part of their interpretation if the roles were reversed, which would mean that other factors would be more important (social behaviour, bullying, group disharmony, etc.). Therefore, many people will overreact. In the end, those people are the ones who decide the law, and thus the boys risk ending up being charged with sexual assualt in a similar situation. Now, if girls raping boys because a problem of similar proportions and became as big a part of people's consciousness as rape carried out by males (just like, relating to my previous example, people are more conscious about terrorists being more dangerous than other criminals these days), the reaction would be different.