|
Boys are a lot more devious and will do things like rape and science.
This may be the single greatest quote ever, and the best thing to come out of this thread.. just my two cents.
|
On June 07 2011 05:29 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 05:09 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 04:38 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 01:25 Asjo wrote:On June 06 2011 22:22 Nanoko wrote:On June 06 2011 17:40 Asjo wrote:On June 06 2011 09:30 Nanoko wrote:On June 06 2011 09:01 Asjo wrote:On June 06 2011 08:49 Nanoko wrote:On June 06 2011 08:34 Asjo wrote:
[quote]
Of course they can be that smart. As I have speculated earlier, he might have engaged in a similar pattern of behaviour that eventually lead to this, so he understands what will make the girls do what he wants. I think the part of this that is most likely cause actual resistance is the fact that he is being filmed and could risk a degree of exposure that he would find too much.
It's silly of your to assert that to understand anything you have to have experiences precisely that or have to have a degree. Me not being a child psychologist does not mean that I would not be able to understand a child better than one such would. And experiences with something similar would give me and understand of what could be going on in this situation.
And you poking fun at my statements or exaggerating them does not make them any less valid. My point stands. no,no,no you don't just get to side-step. i asked you from what personal Experiences did you draw your conclusions from. your Speculation is just that...speculation,unless you can provide some sort of evidence, from personal experience or a professional source, that proves that your speculation has the potential to be accurate, what you're saying is nothing more then inane prattle from a sexist. Furthermore, if you're suggesting he engaged in similar behaviour then there is also a likely chance that there is documentation, and possible news coverage of that incident....Furthermore implying that an elven year old has that sophisticated a concept of manipulation, which is exactly what it would be is a little bit preposterous. you said from your own experiences, from your own intuition you drew this conclusion specifically. What experience? what made you draw this conclusion? At the age of eleven I can say with confidence that nearly every eleven year old would find being publicly stripped too much exposure. Your insistence on evidence simply forces me to repeat my previous point; it's intuition, the sum of all our experiences. I am not going to write several pages of life experiences which might give me an insight into the different aspects of human behaviour that are represented in the situation. Suffice to say, most 27-year olds would have sufficient experience to make an informed interpretation of this situation. I doubt anyone will "document" other incidents, unless this went to court. I don't see what revelance it has to bring this up. You fail to answer with evidence, yet again, relying on your "intuition" reasoning as "evidence" for your beliefs. This is not evidence, you are not making a valid argument merely by saying "well based on past experiences and my knowledge i have drawn conclusion X" . it's like me saying "Well, based on my past experience and knowledge with religious people they are all overbearing Zealots who want o Burn gays at the stake without exception" and backing up my reasoning by saying "it's intuitive thinking for me, I don't need to provide evidence"....As for 27 year olds having experiences that would make them come to the same conclusions as you, well....as you said intuition is the some of our experiences correct? then to draw this conclusion it is not without reason to say that a person would have had to spend a significant amount of time either around children who are bullied in similar manners OR went through similar experiences as a child in order to INTUITIVELY determine conclusion X,Y, or Z Oh yes And By the way Sexism:" the belief or attitude that one sex is inherently superior to, more competent than, or more valuable than the other. It can also include this type of discrimination in regards to gender. Sexism primarily involves hatred of, or prejudice towards, either sex as a whole (see misogyny and misandry), or the application of stereotypes of masculinity in relation to men, or of femininity in relation to women.[2] It is also called male and female chauvinism." You're simply repeating your previous point. I will not limit myself to arguing whatever I can find scientific articles to support. What kind of experiences would be useful in making sense of the situation? Well, many different kinds, for instance: knowledge about bullying, sexual behaviour, mental make-up of youngsters, social dynamics of youth, dominance/submission, alienation, etc. I'm not sure why you quote a similar albeit differently worded definition of sexism. Doesn't go against what I said in the post you responded to. On June 06 2011 10:20 vetinari wrote:On June 06 2011 09:01 Asjo wrote:On June 06 2011 08:49 Nanoko wrote:On June 06 2011 08:34 Asjo wrote:
[quote]
Of course they can be that smart. As I have speculated earlier, he might have engaged in a similar pattern of behaviour that eventually lead to this, so he understands what will make the girls do what he wants. I think the part of this that is most likely cause actual resistance is the fact that he is being filmed and could risk a degree of exposure that he would find too much.
It's silly of your to assert that to understand anything you have to have experiences precisely that or have to have a degree. Me not being a child psychologist does not mean that I would not be able to understand a child better than one such would. And experiences with something similar would give me and understand of what could be going on in this situation.
And you poking fun at my statements or exaggerating them does not make them any less valid. My point stands. no,no,no you don't just get to side-step. i asked you from what personal Experiences did you draw your conclusions from. your Speculation is just that...speculation,unless you can provide some sort of evidence, from personal experience or a professional source, that proves that your speculation has the potential to be accurate, what you're saying is nothing more then inane prattle from a sexist. Furthermore, if you're suggesting he engaged in similar behaviour then there is also a likely chance that there is documentation, and possible news coverage of that incident....Furthermore implying that an elven year old has that sophisticated a concept of manipulation, which is exactly what it would be is a little bit preposterous. you said from your own experiences, from your own intuition you drew this conclusion specifically. What experience? what made you draw this conclusion? At the age of eleven I can say with confidence that nearly every eleven year old would find being publicly stripped too much exposure. Your insistence on evidence simply forces me to repeat my previous point; it's intuition, the sum of all our experiences. I am not going to write several pages of life experiences which might give me an insight into the different aspects of human behaviour that are represented in the situation. Suffice to say, most 27-year olds would have sufficient experience to make an informed interpretation of this situation. I doubt anyone will "document" other incidents, unless this went to court. I don't see what revelance it has to bring this up. And you bring up, "he may have secretly liked it". What kind of argument is this? "No, your honor. It wasn't rape, because she orgasmed. She secretly liked it! Besides, she was secretly engaging in behaviour that may have led to this, wearing slutty clothing. SHE HAD IT COMING". I'm not using it as an argument. You seem not only to have misunderstood what I was saying about it in all my post, but also to have missed the explanation I gave when confronted with a similar deduction: On June 06 2011 09:18 Asjo wrote:
Your comparison to murder holds little relevance. The reason I brought this up at all, other than provoking people into a different line of thought, is to point out the implications of the incident. I'm not saying that the boy did enjoy it, but that it's potentially ambiguous and not something that people should automatically make big deal out of (which is not necessarily in the interests of the boy). Whereas killing someone is pretty clear-cut and is certainly a big deal.
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. 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: 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. Hopefully that should remind you what we were actually talking about. 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. 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"  ... And the attitude you're adopting is different somehow? -If three boy are in this situation with a girl, there is obviously something more malicious going on and the girl is far more likely to be scarred because I think girls are more sensitive-, this is discriminatory towards males in the same way that saying "Women can't handle responsibility and decision making at a company" because in your example you say that men are more likely to be violent, sexual etc... and on the flip side women are more sensitive and more likely to be traumatized(both based off intuition). In my example I say women are more likely to make poor decisions and be irresponsible based on intuition... Your comparison to general knowledge isn't as consistent in this case because you're making a statement that can't be argued against like the example you gave in your last paragraph. What could anyone possibly give you other than anecdotal evidence which you've already rejected? No one is asking for absolute truths, but you can't possibly expect us to find your argument in any way convincing if all you're doing is using "intuition" to argue against gender equality. You haven't made any reasoned logic like you did in your last paragraph, you've simply said girls are more likely to be traumatized so it should be treated differently... What can anyone possibly say to that other than asking you to cite some sources or simply saying "No, boys can be just as traumatized and I don't believe your reasoning", and yes, I still believe it's a double standard. In your schooling example, you're providing an actual perspective as opposed to simply stating a generality based on intuition.
You're once again talking as if I say "X is true because my intuition says so". That's no what I do. I say: "I see X this way because ...". Re-read if the posts if you need. Anything can be argued in detail, even if, in the end, your intepretations of these details will never go beyond your own understanding (like anecdotal evidence). I'd dare say that there hasn't really been any specific argument about the reaction of the girls. The only way this subject has been represented was that I presented my view, this view was questioned, and I provided a few quick examples of relevant factors (which weren't very eleborate), and none of these have been specifically challenged.
However, say our arguement was that I said that in the context would be more sensitive and more likely to be traumatized while you said women would be more likely to make poor decisions and be irresponsible in this situation. Then I would provide reasoning for why I though these assumption to be true. To do this, I would operate from the sum of my past experiences, which would allow me to interpret such a sitation. You would, working off your own experience and thoughts, be able to challenge that or couter it with a competing interpretation of your own. You can provide your reasons, and I can challenge those. It's quite simple, really. I'm sure you understand it, and the reason why you're questioning this is the connotations you get when the word "intuition" is used in a debate, causing you to make certain assumptions or focus on particular aspects of what I'm saying.
|
On June 07 2011 05:51 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 05:29 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:09 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 04:38 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 01:25 Asjo wrote:On June 06 2011 22:22 Nanoko wrote:On June 06 2011 17:40 Asjo wrote:On June 06 2011 09:30 Nanoko wrote:On June 06 2011 09:01 Asjo wrote:On June 06 2011 08:49 Nanoko wrote:
[quote]
no,no,no you don't just get to side-step. i asked you from what personal Experiences did you draw your conclusions from. your Speculation is just that...speculation,unless you can provide some sort of evidence, from personal experience or a professional source, that proves that your speculation has the potential to be accurate, what you're saying is nothing more then inane prattle from a sexist. Furthermore, if you're suggesting he engaged in similar behaviour then there is also a likely chance that there is documentation, and possible news coverage of that incident....Furthermore implying that an elven year old has that sophisticated a concept of manipulation, which is exactly what it would be is a little bit preposterous. you said from your own experiences, from your own intuition you drew this conclusion specifically. What experience? what made you draw this conclusion? At the age of eleven I can say with confidence that nearly every eleven year old would find being publicly stripped too much exposure.
Your insistence on evidence simply forces me to repeat my previous point; it's intuition, the sum of all our experiences. I am not going to write several pages of life experiences which might give me an insight into the different aspects of human behaviour that are represented in the situation. Suffice to say, most 27-year olds would have sufficient experience to make an informed interpretation of this situation. I doubt anyone will "document" other incidents, unless this went to court. I don't see what revelance it has to bring this up. You fail to answer with evidence, yet again, relying on your "intuition" reasoning as "evidence" for your beliefs. This is not evidence, you are not making a valid argument merely by saying "well based on past experiences and my knowledge i have drawn conclusion X" . it's like me saying "Well, based on my past experience and knowledge with religious people they are all overbearing Zealots who want o Burn gays at the stake without exception" and backing up my reasoning by saying "it's intuitive thinking for me, I don't need to provide evidence"....As for 27 year olds having experiences that would make them come to the same conclusions as you, well....as you said intuition is the some of our experiences correct? then to draw this conclusion it is not without reason to say that a person would have had to spend a significant amount of time either around children who are bullied in similar manners OR went through similar experiences as a child in order to INTUITIVELY determine conclusion X,Y, or Z Oh yes And By the way Sexism:" the belief or attitude that one sex is inherently superior to, more competent than, or more valuable than the other. It can also include this type of discrimination in regards to gender. Sexism primarily involves hatred of, or prejudice towards, either sex as a whole (see misogyny and misandry), or the application of stereotypes of masculinity in relation to men, or of femininity in relation to women.[2] It is also called male and female chauvinism." You're simply repeating your previous point. I will not limit myself to arguing whatever I can find scientific articles to support. What kind of experiences would be useful in making sense of the situation? Well, many different kinds, for instance: knowledge about bullying, sexual behaviour, mental make-up of youngsters, social dynamics of youth, dominance/submission, alienation, etc. I'm not sure why you quote a similar albeit differently worded definition of sexism. Doesn't go against what I said in the post you responded to. On June 06 2011 10:20 vetinari wrote:On June 06 2011 09:01 Asjo wrote:On June 06 2011 08:49 Nanoko wrote:
[quote]
no,no,no you don't just get to side-step. i asked you from what personal Experiences did you draw your conclusions from. your Speculation is just that...speculation,unless you can provide some sort of evidence, from personal experience or a professional source, that proves that your speculation has the potential to be accurate, what you're saying is nothing more then inane prattle from a sexist. Furthermore, if you're suggesting he engaged in similar behaviour then there is also a likely chance that there is documentation, and possible news coverage of that incident....Furthermore implying that an elven year old has that sophisticated a concept of manipulation, which is exactly what it would be is a little bit preposterous. you said from your own experiences, from your own intuition you drew this conclusion specifically. What experience? what made you draw this conclusion? At the age of eleven I can say with confidence that nearly every eleven year old would find being publicly stripped too much exposure.
Your insistence on evidence simply forces me to repeat my previous point; it's intuition, the sum of all our experiences. I am not going to write several pages of life experiences which might give me an insight into the different aspects of human behaviour that are represented in the situation. Suffice to say, most 27-year olds would have sufficient experience to make an informed interpretation of this situation. I doubt anyone will "document" other incidents, unless this went to court. I don't see what revelance it has to bring this up. And you bring up, "he may have secretly liked it". What kind of argument is this? "No, your honor. It wasn't rape, because she orgasmed. She secretly liked it! Besides, she was secretly engaging in behaviour that may have led to this, wearing slutty clothing. SHE HAD IT COMING". I'm not using it as an argument. You seem not only to have misunderstood what I was saying about it in all my post, but also to have missed the explanation I gave when confronted with a similar deduction: On June 06 2011 09:18 Asjo wrote:
Your comparison to murder holds little relevance. The reason I brought this up at all, other than provoking people into a different line of thought, is to point out the implications of the incident. I'm not saying that the boy did enjoy it, but that it's potentially ambiguous and not something that people should automatically make big deal out of (which is not necessarily in the interests of the boy). Whereas killing someone is pretty clear-cut and is certainly a big deal.
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. 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: 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. Hopefully that should remind you what we were actually talking about. 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. 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" ... And the attitude you're adopting is different somehow? -If three boy are in this situation with a girl, there is obviously something more malicious going on and the girl is far more likely to be scarred because I think girls are more sensitive-, this is discriminatory towards males in the same way that saying "Women can't handle responsibility and decision making at a company" because in your example you say that men are more likely to be violent, sexual etc... and on the flip side women are more sensitive and more likely to be traumatized(both based off intuition). In my example I say women are more likely to make poor decisions and be irresponsible based on intuition... Your comparison to general knowledge isn't as consistent in this case because you're making a statement that can't be argued against like the example you gave in your last paragraph. What could anyone possibly give you other than anecdotal evidence which you've already rejected? No one is asking for absolute truths, but you can't possibly expect us to find your argument in any way convincing if all you're doing is using "intuition" to argue against gender equality. You haven't made any reasoned logic like you did in your last paragraph, you've simply said girls are more likely to be traumatized so it should be treated differently... What can anyone possibly say to that other than asking you to cite some sources or simply saying "No, boys can be just as traumatized and I don't believe your reasoning", and yes, I still believe it's a double standard. In your schooling example, you're providing an actual perspective as opposed to simply stating a generality based on intuition. You're once again talking as if I say "X is true because my intuition says so". That's no what I do. I say: "I see X this way because ...". Re-read if the posts if you need. Anything can be argued in detail, even if, in the end, your intepretations of these details will never go beyond your own understanding (like anecdotal evidence). I'd dare say that there hasn't really been any specific argument about the reaction of the girls. The only way this subject has been represented was that I presented my view, this view was questioned, and I provided a few quick examples of relevant factors (which weren't very eleborate), and none of these have been specifically challenged. However, say our arguement was that I said that in the context would be more sensitive and more likely to be traumatized while you said women would be more likely to make poor decisions and be irresponsible in this situation. Then I would provide reasoning for why I though these assumption to be true. To do this, I would operate from the sum of my past experiences, which would allow me to interpret such a sitation. You would, working off your own experience and thoughts, be able to challenge that or couter it with a competing interpretation of your own. You can provide your reasons, and I can challenge those. It's quite simple, really. I'm sure you understand it, and the reason why you're questioning this is the connotations you get when the word "intuition" is used in a debate, causing you to make certain assumptions or focus on particular aspects of what I'm saying.
This isn't about the semantics of "intuition", it's what you're actually arguing. I asked you to go over your actual arguments in regards to "hormones, fondless touch, desperation for contact" again so I could actually understand what you're saying, because I don't see any actual reasoning there, one could literally just replace the word male with female and keep the arguments the same.
|
On June 07 2011 05:45 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 05:37 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:20 Nanoko wrote: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. 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..... 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. I'm sorry... but I really don't understand your post, just like I didn't understand any of the shit you said earlier... Can you highlight your references to "hormones, fondless of touch(?) and desperation for contact(?)" because as far as I know, hormones work both ways, and the other two I'm not really sure about. As for your last paragraph, it's a bit of a mess and once I again I'm confused, it sounds like you're simply saying that it's more likely that it would have escalated to rape if it were three boys(once again based on your all powerful intuition) and that boys wouldn't mind girls taking it further(from the point seen in the video? once again based on intuition and once again, this blows my fucking mind) and then you end with girls raping boys isn't a big part of our consciousness... So we're not as aware of girls raping boys-... So let's not give a fuck when it actually happens despite expecting gender equality... Cool fucking beans.
I really think you should re-read that, since you seem to have completely misunderstood it. I hope it's not riddled with typos - I can be quite bad with those. If I wrote "fondless", what I meant was "fondness". These were things I referenced from my previous posts where I talk about the sensitivities that might be involved and how the situation might have different implication for boys and girls. I'm sure you cannot have missed it.
But yeah, re-read it, or, alternatively, point out the parts that cause you to misunderstand what I wrote. Nowhere did I say that girls raping guys was fine, and that the guys would appreciate this. In fact, I have previous written: "It has nothing to do with double standards, and I'm sure people would react strongly if the girls actually did rape the boy or something to that effect (if not, at least, then you can talk about double standards)".
And law is there to counteract crime. So, the females would only be charged with sexual assault if people thought it would lead to rape, just like a similar reaction towards males would be judged. Just like a lot of cases are ruled on the basis of common sense ...
|
On June 07 2011 05:59 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 05:45 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:37 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:20 Nanoko wrote: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. 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..... 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. I'm sorry... but I really don't understand your post, just like I didn't understand any of the shit you said earlier... Can you highlight your references to "hormones, fondless of touch(?) and desperation for contact(?)" because as far as I know, hormones work both ways, and the other two I'm not really sure about. As for your last paragraph, it's a bit of a mess and once I again I'm confused, it sounds like you're simply saying that it's more likely that it would have escalated to rape if it were three boys(once again based on your all powerful intuition) and that boys wouldn't mind girls taking it further(from the point seen in the video? once again based on intuition and once again, this blows my fucking mind) and then you end with girls raping boys isn't a big part of our consciousness... So we're not as aware of girls raping boys-... So let's not give a fuck when it actually happens despite expecting gender equality... Cool fucking beans. I really think you should re-read that, since you seem to have completely misunderstood it. I hope it's not riddled with typos - I can be quite bad with those. If I wrote "fondless", what I meant was "fondness". These were things I referenced from my previous posts where I talk about the sensitivities that might be involved and how the situation might have different implication for boys and girls. I'm sure you cannot have missed it. But yeah, re-read it, or, alternatively, point out the parts that cause you to misunderstand what I wrote. Nowhere did I say that girls raping guys was fine, and that the guys would appreciate this. In fact, I have previous written: "It has nothing to do with double standards, and I'm sure people would react strongly if the girls actually did rape the boy or something to that effect (if not, at least, then you can talk about double standards)".
Once again, I responded to that and the post you mentioned, the girls would not be required to rape the boy for it to establish a double standard since in the comparison mentioned, the boys wouldn't be raping the girl.
Also, this would be my response, girls are developing identities at that age? So are boys. They generally place more weight on appearances, I'm not sure what you mean here but so do boys, and this would damage a boys self image as well, there is an equal chance that this would affect a boy's relation to the other gender and I disagree with the statement in parentheses, I think there is openness and shyness on both sides. Also, how would being overpowered physically "make her very uneasy in the future" in comparison to a boy in this situation? It's not a boy losing a fight or bullying, which by the way can happen with girls as well, I simply don't agree with this.
This is where we reach our impasse because you've simply mentioned stuff that I don't think is true at all using "intuition", I can't argue or respond to these statements if I don't find the statements themselves to be true themselves, so the response simply becomes, if you're saying these things, cite some sources or it's a perfectly valid response to say that your actual points are bullshit and this is a double standard that you're perpetuating based on falsehoods.
|
On June 07 2011 05:37 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 05:20 Nanoko wrote: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. 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..... 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.
Ok you just keep going with lines like "Many people will have heard..." and "Generally, people will react very strongly..." without any evidence or citation, statistical or otherwise.
But instead of arguing about role reversal and how "Generally people react" I'm just going to throw out there that it doesn't matter and we shouldn't care about the perception of the situation because in this incident it was girls bullying boys. So without further ado, here's the Canadian law (where I live, its very similar to the American law on the subject outside of texas...) regarding the qualification of sexual assault:
Definition of assault:
+ Show Spoiler +Assault 265. (1) A person commits an assault when (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly; (b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or (c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs. Application (2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault. Consent (3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of (a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant; (b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant; (c) fraud; or (d) the exercise of authority. citation: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-177.html#h-83
Sexual contact:
+ Show Spoiler +SEXUAL CONTACT The intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. 18 USC http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s039.htm
Which fairly clearly outlines that "(s)he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly" is assault and that furthermore "This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault" whereby consent is defined by "no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant" and furthermore the act becomes sexual by the removal of clothing which falls under "The intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of...".
To add some additional evidence before I state my point, here's the legal statement of gender equality:
+ Show Spoiler +Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. citation: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Charter/page-1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_15
Hence, as "Every individual is equal before and under the law ... without discrimination based on ... sex" and as shown above the act which the girls preformed easily qualifies as sexual assault. Given this I don't think anyone should care about your personal rationalisation about hormones, the intent and/or further intent of the girls involved, or whether the double standard is justified; the boy in this article was sexually assaulted which is a criminal offence and should be brought to court in accordance with the law.
And law is there to counteract crime. So, the females would only be charged with sexual assault if people thought it would lead to rape, just like a similar reaction towards males would be judged. Just like a lot of cases are ruled on the basis of common sense ...
Incorrect please see above. Sexual assault is clearly defined outside the bounds of intercourse.
|
On June 07 2011 05:58 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 05:51 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:29 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:09 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 04:38 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 01:25 Asjo wrote:On June 06 2011 22:22 Nanoko wrote:On June 06 2011 17:40 Asjo wrote:On June 06 2011 09:30 Nanoko wrote:On June 06 2011 09:01 Asjo wrote:
[quote]
Your insistence on evidence simply forces me to repeat my previous point; it's intuition, the sum of all our experiences. I am not going to write several pages of life experiences which might give me an insight into the different aspects of human behaviour that are represented in the situation. Suffice to say, most 27-year olds would have sufficient experience to make an informed interpretation of this situation.
I doubt anyone will "document" other incidents, unless this went to court. I don't see what revelance it has to bring this up. You fail to answer with evidence, yet again, relying on your "intuition" reasoning as "evidence" for your beliefs. This is not evidence, you are not making a valid argument merely by saying "well based on past experiences and my knowledge i have drawn conclusion X" . it's like me saying "Well, based on my past experience and knowledge with religious people they are all overbearing Zealots who want o Burn gays at the stake without exception" and backing up my reasoning by saying "it's intuitive thinking for me, I don't need to provide evidence"....As for 27 year olds having experiences that would make them come to the same conclusions as you, well....as you said intuition is the some of our experiences correct? then to draw this conclusion it is not without reason to say that a person would have had to spend a significant amount of time either around children who are bullied in similar manners OR went through similar experiences as a child in order to INTUITIVELY determine conclusion X,Y, or Z Oh yes And By the way Sexism:" the belief or attitude that one sex is inherently superior to, more competent than, or more valuable than the other. It can also include this type of discrimination in regards to gender. Sexism primarily involves hatred of, or prejudice towards, either sex as a whole (see misogyny and misandry), or the application of stereotypes of masculinity in relation to men, or of femininity in relation to women.[2] It is also called male and female chauvinism." You're simply repeating your previous point. I will not limit myself to arguing whatever I can find scientific articles to support. What kind of experiences would be useful in making sense of the situation? Well, many different kinds, for instance: knowledge about bullying, sexual behaviour, mental make-up of youngsters, social dynamics of youth, dominance/submission, alienation, etc. I'm not sure why you quote a similar albeit differently worded definition of sexism. Doesn't go against what I said in the post you responded to. On June 06 2011 10:20 vetinari wrote:On June 06 2011 09:01 Asjo wrote:
[quote]
Your insistence on evidence simply forces me to repeat my previous point; it's intuition, the sum of all our experiences. I am not going to write several pages of life experiences which might give me an insight into the different aspects of human behaviour that are represented in the situation. Suffice to say, most 27-year olds would have sufficient experience to make an informed interpretation of this situation.
I doubt anyone will "document" other incidents, unless this went to court. I don't see what revelance it has to bring this up. And you bring up, "he may have secretly liked it". What kind of argument is this? "No, your honor. It wasn't rape, because she orgasmed. She secretly liked it! Besides, she was secretly engaging in behaviour that may have led to this, wearing slutty clothing. SHE HAD IT COMING". I'm not using it as an argument. You seem not only to have misunderstood what I was saying about it in all my post, but also to have missed the explanation I gave when confronted with a similar deduction: On June 06 2011 09:18 Asjo wrote:
Your comparison to murder holds little relevance. The reason I brought this up at all, other than provoking people into a different line of thought, is to point out the implications of the incident. I'm not saying that the boy did enjoy it, but that it's potentially ambiguous and not something that people should automatically make big deal out of (which is not necessarily in the interests of the boy). Whereas killing someone is pretty clear-cut and is certainly a big deal.
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. 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: 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. Hopefully that should remind you what we were actually talking about. 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. 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" ... And the attitude you're adopting is different somehow? -If three boy are in this situation with a girl, there is obviously something more malicious going on and the girl is far more likely to be scarred because I think girls are more sensitive-, this is discriminatory towards males in the same way that saying "Women can't handle responsibility and decision making at a company" because in your example you say that men are more likely to be violent, sexual etc... and on the flip side women are more sensitive and more likely to be traumatized(both based off intuition). In my example I say women are more likely to make poor decisions and be irresponsible based on intuition... Your comparison to general knowledge isn't as consistent in this case because you're making a statement that can't be argued against like the example you gave in your last paragraph. What could anyone possibly give you other than anecdotal evidence which you've already rejected? No one is asking for absolute truths, but you can't possibly expect us to find your argument in any way convincing if all you're doing is using "intuition" to argue against gender equality. You haven't made any reasoned logic like you did in your last paragraph, you've simply said girls are more likely to be traumatized so it should be treated differently... What can anyone possibly say to that other than asking you to cite some sources or simply saying "No, boys can be just as traumatized and I don't believe your reasoning", and yes, I still believe it's a double standard. In your schooling example, you're providing an actual perspective as opposed to simply stating a generality based on intuition. You're once again talking as if I say "X is true because my intuition says so". That's no what I do. I say: "I see X this way because ...". Re-read if the posts if you need. Anything can be argued in detail, even if, in the end, your intepretations of these details will never go beyond your own understanding (like anecdotal evidence). I'd dare say that there hasn't really been any specific argument about the reaction of the girls. The only way this subject has been represented was that I presented my view, this view was questioned, and I provided a few quick examples of relevant factors (which weren't very eleborate), and none of these have been specifically challenged. However, say our arguement was that I said that in the context would be more sensitive and more likely to be traumatized while you said women would be more likely to make poor decisions and be irresponsible in this situation. Then I would provide reasoning for why I though these assumption to be true. To do this, I would operate from the sum of my past experiences, which would allow me to interpret such a sitation. You would, working off your own experience and thoughts, be able to challenge that or couter it with a competing interpretation of your own. You can provide your reasons, and I can challenge those. It's quite simple, really. I'm sure you understand it, and the reason why you're questioning this is the connotations you get when the word "intuition" is used in a debate, causing you to make certain assumptions or focus on particular aspects of what I'm saying. This isn't about the semantics of "intuition", it's what you're actually arguing. I asked you to go over your actual arguments in regards to "hormones, fondless touch, desperation for contact" again so I could actually understand what you're saying, because I don't see any actual reasoning there, one could literally just replace the word male with female and keep the arguments the same.
So, you're asking to to expand on my initial thoughts. That's all good and fine.
"Fondness of thought" relates to us as biological beings. For people, emotions and physical experiences are closely related. We need that biological link to other people to activate and inspire emotions, which is why people who never get out are typically miserable. At a young age, you're more likely to be in the "clutches" of your immediate emotional needs (let's say, due to having a smaller super ego), by extension, physical needs. One such need can be the need of touch. Due to the emotional release it can cause, a young boy can come to discover that touch people is wonderful. However, not just any people, but girls specifically. Why so? Because it also connects with some other emotions inspires by instincts of getting close to the other gender. The boy might in fact have enjoyed the touch of other boys just as much, but he has been socialized into being awkward or more detached in regards to this. In chasing such sensations, the boy might do several things, based on part experience. If he sees the girls chasing down another boy and huddling in a pile on top of him because he threw a snowball at them, the boy might try to do the same. If he experiences being chased down by girls and them huddling on top of him, this might inspire him to do other things. He could, for instance, get the idea that it would be nice to wrestle the girls. He tries this, jumping at a girl and wrestling her, while laughing nervously. However, he finds out that the girl pulls away and is now more reluctant to interact with him. So, he might not have any viable strategy to fulfill this "need" until he experiences another situation. He accidentally makes a fool of himself in class, and afterwards he see the girls laughing at this together, poking fun at it. They approach him in a group and push him aorund toyingly. So, he decides that he will try to humiliate himself to get a similar reaction. This doesn't work. So, instead, he tries to agitate the girls, thinking that if they act against him in a group, they might exhibit similar behaviour. In the end, a pattern developed, where he agitates the girls and provokes a mild reaction. The girls get used to this, and in the end, it becomes fully leglitimate for them to treat the boy a little worse than the other boys. This escalates, and ends up with the girls forcibly undressing the boy. However, he is fragile and does not like this one bit, as it crosses a certain boundary. It's either too public or too humilating.
Hormones? I think this manifests in what could be considered erratic behaviour, pushing your limits and expanding your horizon. In my experience, girl to not become sexually aggressive in this age. The change that they experience causes inward reflection, setting about an enhanced search for identity, rather than causing an outward reaction. To put it in another way, one more commonly used (and support by some scientific studies, I'm sure), girls mature more quickly at this age and have other ways of reacting to hormones than "acting out". This, boys can be driven more by hormones and impulses, which in turn can make their social interaction more superficial, or, at least, based on different things. That means that they are less likely to be affected or inhibited by self-doubts and a strong search for identity might find, and a more focused on chasing experiences will will allow them to experience different emotions that are still to them. As they progress, such behaviour might make them more sexually forward or at least more driven by their sex drive. This will later be encourages and enhanced by culture and social norms, even if this probably plays a limited role at the age of 11.
"Desperation for contact" is about an inability to properly express that which you want to express. At this age, girls might take a more intellectual approach to some things, which will often mean that there is a bit of a divide between boys a girls - something that will be bridged once both the boys and girls get older and start being more conscious and reflective about their social interactions. If girls and boys go into two groups, this can act at two camps. Within each camp, it can be very natural to speak to other members, but the other camp seems ridden with inexplicacies and inspires irrational fear. These fears only really become active when the need to get closed to someone in the other "camp" arises. Whereas, the need for a big network of social contacts might not be great at this age, a boy might feel that there are some things that other boys can provide, while there are some things that girls will be able to provide. If he has just started being more curious about girls, getting to know them might seem like a very important part of what exploration he is currently doing. However, because suddenly other emotions are inspired by the encounter with girls, the boy becomes inhibited. He is young, and doesn't have great communication skills. As a matter of fact, he doesn't know how to deal with many of his problems. So, something that would usually be even more simply at this age than at an older age, seems like an impossibility. Not because the boy tries to do something about and fails, but because of his inability to act - he is stunned. Due to this, he might become more introvert, he might hit a girl, be very awkward, or try to establish himself as a leader of the male group to gain the position or confidence he feels he needs to accomplish his task.
The context of this, I believe, was mostly about who a boy might actually enjoy the acts carried out in the video - that the might somehow provide a release for him. As I have stated in a previous post, I no longer really think of this as a possibility (at least a very remove one) after having watched the video with sound on. However, if I recall correctly, was I mentioned about hormones also related to how a boy would like be affected by an assault by girls and how this might determine his behaviour after the incident.
|
On June 07 2011 06:20 dogmeatstew wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 05:37 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:20 Nanoko wrote: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. 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..... 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. Ok you just keep going with lines like "Many people will have heard..." and "Generally, people will react very strongly..." without any evidence or citation, statistical or otherwise. But instead of arguing about role reversal and how "Generally people react" I'm just going to throw out there that it doesn't matter and we shouldn't care about the perception of the situation because in this incident it was girls bullying boys. So without further ado, here's the Canadian law (where I live, its very similar to the American law on the subject outside of texas...) regarding the qualification of sexual assault: Definition of assault: + Show Spoiler +Assault 265. (1) A person commits an assault when (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly; (b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or (c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs. Application (2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault. Consent (3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of (a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant; (b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant; (c) fraud; or (d) the exercise of authority. citation: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-177.html#h-83Sexual contact: + Show Spoiler +SEXUAL CONTACT The intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. 18 USC http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s039.htmWhich fairly clearly outlines that "(s)he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly" is assault and that furthermore "This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault" whereby consent is defined by "no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant" and furthermore the act becomes sexual by the removal of clothing which falls under "The intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of...". To add some additional evidence before I state my point, here's the legal statement of gender equality: + Show Spoiler +Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. citation: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Charter/page-1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_15Hence, as "Every individual is equal before and under the law ... without discrimination based on ... sex" and as shown above the act which the girls preformed easily qualifies as sexual assault. Given this I don't think anyone should care about your personal rationalisation about hormones, the intent and/or further intent of the girls involved, or whether the double standard is justified; the boy in this article was sexually assaulted which is a criminal offence and should be brought to court in accordance with the law. Show nested quote +And law is there to counteract crime. So, the females would only be charged with sexual assault if people thought it would lead to rape, just like a similar reaction towards males would be judged. Just like a lot of cases are ruled on the basis of common sense ... Incorrect please see above. Sexual assault is clearly defined outside the bounds of intercourse.
I'm not talking about the law in technical terms. I'm talking about the motivation for making such laws and for how they are actually being used and interpreted in practice.
|
that's not bullying that's one lucky kid
|
On June 07 2011 06:34 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 06:20 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 05:37 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:20 Nanoko wrote: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. 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..... 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. Ok you just keep going with lines like "Many people will have heard..." and "Generally, people will react very strongly..." without any evidence or citation, statistical or otherwise. But instead of arguing about role reversal and how "Generally people react" I'm just going to throw out there that it doesn't matter and we shouldn't care about the perception of the situation because in this incident it was girls bullying boys. So without further ado, here's the Canadian law (where I live, its very similar to the American law on the subject outside of texas...) regarding the qualification of sexual assault: Definition of assault: + Show Spoiler +Assault 265. (1) A person commits an assault when (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly; (b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or (c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs. Application (2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault. Consent (3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of (a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant; (b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant; (c) fraud; or (d) the exercise of authority. citation: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-177.html#h-83Sexual contact: + Show Spoiler +SEXUAL CONTACT The intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. 18 USC http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s039.htmWhich fairly clearly outlines that "(s)he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly" is assault and that furthermore "This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault" whereby consent is defined by "no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant" and furthermore the act becomes sexual by the removal of clothing which falls under "The intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of...". To add some additional evidence before I state my point, here's the legal statement of gender equality: + Show Spoiler +Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. citation: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Charter/page-1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_15Hence, as "Every individual is equal before and under the law ... without discrimination based on ... sex" and as shown above the act which the girls preformed easily qualifies as sexual assault. Given this I don't think anyone should care about your personal rationalisation about hormones, the intent and/or further intent of the girls involved, or whether the double standard is justified; the boy in this article was sexually assaulted which is a criminal offence and should be brought to court in accordance with the law. And law is there to counteract crime. So, the females would only be charged with sexual assault if people thought it would lead to rape, just like a similar reaction towards males would be judged. Just like a lot of cases are ruled on the basis of common sense ... Incorrect please see above. Sexual assault is clearly defined outside the bounds of intercourse. I'm not talking about the law in technical terms. I'm talking about the motivation for making such laws and for how they are actually being used and interpreted in practice.
The motivation in making such laws is that sexual assault is an infringement of personal rights and has been deemed illegal as such.
The way in which they are being used and interpreted in practice is as they are defined through the judiciary system, hence why they're "laws" and not "the legal speculation of a TL reader".
|
Laws are just speculations by definition though, that's why justice is blind. Right and wrong can't be discerned completely with the law. It's just a statistical thing made to get the right result for the best %-age it can achieve, however stastics mean everything at a large population and absolutely nothing at a personal level.
That's why you get bogus sexual assault and harassment claims suits, and that why people are afraid to act normally or somebody might find some shitty pretext to sue them out of completely different reasons. This entire fiasco has no business beeing put into context with sexual assault.
|
On June 07 2011 06:31 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 05:58 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:51 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:29 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:09 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 04:38 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 01:25 Asjo wrote:On June 06 2011 22:22 Nanoko wrote:On June 06 2011 17:40 Asjo wrote:On June 06 2011 09:30 Nanoko wrote:
[quote]
You fail to answer with evidence, yet again, relying on your "intuition" reasoning as "evidence" for your beliefs. This is not evidence, you are not making a valid argument merely by saying "well based on past experiences and my knowledge i have drawn conclusion X" . it's like me saying "Well, based on my past experience and knowledge with religious people they are all overbearing Zealots who want o Burn gays at the stake without exception" and backing up my reasoning by saying "it's intuitive thinking for me, I don't need to provide evidence"....As for 27 year olds having experiences that would make them come to the same conclusions as you, well....as you said intuition is the some of our experiences correct? then to draw this conclusion it is not without reason to say that a person would have had to spend a significant amount of time either around children who are bullied in similar manners OR went through similar experiences as a child in order to INTUITIVELY determine conclusion X,Y, or Z
Oh yes And By the way Sexism:" the belief or attitude that one sex is inherently superior to, more competent than, or more valuable than the other. It can also include this type of discrimination in regards to gender. Sexism primarily involves hatred of, or prejudice towards, either sex as a whole (see misogyny and misandry), or the application of stereotypes of masculinity in relation to men, or of femininity in relation to women.[2] It is also called male and female chauvinism."
You're simply repeating your previous point. I will not limit myself to arguing whatever I can find scientific articles to support. What kind of experiences would be useful in making sense of the situation? Well, many different kinds, for instance: knowledge about bullying, sexual behaviour, mental make-up of youngsters, social dynamics of youth, dominance/submission, alienation, etc. I'm not sure why you quote a similar albeit differently worded definition of sexism. Doesn't go against what I said in the post you responded to. On June 06 2011 10:20 vetinari wrote:
[quote]
And you bring up, "he may have secretly liked it". What kind of argument is this? "No, your honor. It wasn't rape, because she orgasmed. She secretly liked it! Besides, she was secretly engaging in behaviour that may have led to this, wearing slutty clothing. SHE HAD IT COMING". I'm not using it as an argument. You seem not only to have misunderstood what I was saying about it in all my post, but also to have missed the explanation I gave when confronted with a similar deduction: On June 06 2011 09:18 Asjo wrote:
Your comparison to murder holds little relevance. The reason I brought this up at all, other than provoking people into a different line of thought, is to point out the implications of the incident. I'm not saying that the boy did enjoy it, but that it's potentially ambiguous and not something that people should automatically make big deal out of (which is not necessarily in the interests of the boy). Whereas killing someone is pretty clear-cut and is certainly a big deal.
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. 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: 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. Hopefully that should remind you what we were actually talking about. 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. 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" ... And the attitude you're adopting is different somehow? -If three boy are in this situation with a girl, there is obviously something more malicious going on and the girl is far more likely to be scarred because I think girls are more sensitive-, this is discriminatory towards males in the same way that saying "Women can't handle responsibility and decision making at a company" because in your example you say that men are more likely to be violent, sexual etc... and on the flip side women are more sensitive and more likely to be traumatized(both based off intuition). In my example I say women are more likely to make poor decisions and be irresponsible based on intuition... Your comparison to general knowledge isn't as consistent in this case because you're making a statement that can't be argued against like the example you gave in your last paragraph. What could anyone possibly give you other than anecdotal evidence which you've already rejected? No one is asking for absolute truths, but you can't possibly expect us to find your argument in any way convincing if all you're doing is using "intuition" to argue against gender equality. You haven't made any reasoned logic like you did in your last paragraph, you've simply said girls are more likely to be traumatized so it should be treated differently... What can anyone possibly say to that other than asking you to cite some sources or simply saying "No, boys can be just as traumatized and I don't believe your reasoning", and yes, I still believe it's a double standard. In your schooling example, you're providing an actual perspective as opposed to simply stating a generality based on intuition. You're once again talking as if I say "X is true because my intuition says so". That's no what I do. I say: "I see X this way because ...". Re-read if the posts if you need. Anything can be argued in detail, even if, in the end, your intepretations of these details will never go beyond your own understanding (like anecdotal evidence). I'd dare say that there hasn't really been any specific argument about the reaction of the girls. The only way this subject has been represented was that I presented my view, this view was questioned, and I provided a few quick examples of relevant factors (which weren't very eleborate), and none of these have been specifically challenged. However, say our arguement was that I said that in the context would be more sensitive and more likely to be traumatized while you said women would be more likely to make poor decisions and be irresponsible in this situation. Then I would provide reasoning for why I though these assumption to be true. To do this, I would operate from the sum of my past experiences, which would allow me to interpret such a sitation. You would, working off your own experience and thoughts, be able to challenge that or couter it with a competing interpretation of your own. You can provide your reasons, and I can challenge those. It's quite simple, really. I'm sure you understand it, and the reason why you're questioning this is the connotations you get when the word "intuition" is used in a debate, causing you to make certain assumptions or focus on particular aspects of what I'm saying. This isn't about the semantics of "intuition", it's what you're actually arguing. I asked you to go over your actual arguments in regards to "hormones, fondless touch, desperation for contact" again so I could actually understand what you're saying, because I don't see any actual reasoning there, one could literally just replace the word male with female and keep the arguments the same. So, you're asking to to expand on my initial thoughts. That's all good and fine. "Fondness of thought" relates to us as biological beings. For people, emotions and physical experiences are closely related. We need that biological link to other people to activate and inspire emotions, which is why people who never get out are typically miserable. At a young age, you're more likely to be in the "clutches" of your immediate emotional needs (let's say, due to having a smaller super ego), by extension, physical needs. One such need can be the need of touch. Due to the emotional release it can cause, a young boy can come to discover that touch people is wonderful. However, not just any people, but girls specifically. Why so? Because it also connects with some other emotions inspires by instincts of getting close to the other gender. The boy might in fact have enjoyed the touch of other boys just as much, but he has been socialized into being awkward or more detached in regards to this. In chasing such sensations, the boy might do several things, based on part experience. If he sees the girls chasing down another boy and huddling in a pile on top of him because he threw a snowball at them, the boy might try to do the same. If he experiences being chased down by girls and them huddling on top of him, this might inspire him to do other things. He could, for instance, get the idea that it would be nice to wrestle the girls. He tries this, jumping at a girl and wrestling her, while laughing nervously. However, he finds out that the girl pulls away and is now more reluctant to interact with him. So, he might not have any viable strategy to fulfill this "need" until he experiences another situation. He accidentally makes a fool of himself in class, and afterwards he see the girls laughing at this together, poking fun at it. They approach him in a group and push him aorund toyingly. So, he decides that he will try to humiliate himself to get a similar reaction. This doesn't work. So, instead, he tries to agitate the girls, thinking that if they act against him in a group, they might exhibit similar behaviour. In the end, a pattern developed, where he agitates the girls and provokes a mild reaction. The girls get used to this, and in the end, it becomes fully leglitimate for them to treat the boy a little worse than the other boys. This escalates, and ends up with the girls forcibly undressing the boy. However, he is fragile and does not like this one bit, as it crosses a certain boundary. It's either too public or too humilating. Hormones? I think this manifests in what could be considered erratic behaviour, pushing your limits and expanding your horizon. In my experience, girl to not become sexually aggressive in this age. The change that they experience causes inward reflection, setting about an enhanced search for identity, rather than causing an outward reaction. To put it in another way, one more commonly used (and support by some scientific studies, I'm sure), girls mature more quickly at this age and have other ways of reacting to hormones than "acting out". This, boys can be driven more by hormones and impulses, which in turn can make their social interaction more superficial, or, at least, based on different things. That means that they are less likely to be affected or inhibited by self-doubts and a strong search for identity might find, and a more focused on chasing experiences will will allow them to experience different emotions that are still to them. As they progress, such behaviour might make them more sexually forward or at least more driven by their sex drive. This will later be encourages and enhanced by culture and social norms, even if this probably plays a limited role at the age of 11. "Desperation for contact" is about an inability to properly express that which you want to express. At this age, girls might take a more intellectual approach to some things, which will often mean that there is a bit of a divide between boys a girls - something that will be bridged once both the boys and girls get older and start being more conscious and reflective about their social interactions. If girls and boys go into two groups, this can act at two camps. Within each camp, it can be very natural to speak to other members, but the other camp seems ridden with inexplicacies and inspires irrational fear. These fears only really become active when the need to get closed to someone in the other "camp" arises. Whereas, the need for a big network of social contacts might not be great at this age, a boy might feel that there are some things that other boys can provide, while there are some things that girls will be able to provide. If he has just started being more curious about girls, getting to know them might seem like a very important part of what exploration he is currently doing. However, because suddenly other emotions are inspired by the encounter with girls, the boy becomes inhibited. He is young, and doesn't have great communication skills. As a matter of fact, he doesn't know how to deal with many of his problems. So, something that would usually be even more simply at this age than at an older age, seems like an impossibility. Not because the boy tries to do something about and fails, but because of his inability to act - he is stunned. Due to this, he might become more introvert, he might hit a girl, be very awkward, or try to establish himself as a leader of the male group to gain the position or confidence he feels he needs to accomplish his task. The context of this, I believe, was mostly about who a boy might actually enjoy the acts carried out in the video - that the might somehow provide a release for him. As I have stated in a previous post, I no longer really think of this as a possibility (at least a very remove one) after having watched the video with sound on. However, if I recall correctly, was I mentioned about hormones also related to how a boy would like be affected by an assault by girls and how this might determine his behaviour after the incident.
Wow... Instead of being super long winded and making this a chore to read you could have just said, "Boys like touching... girls", to which I would respond, guess what, that's not exclusive to boys and it's not exclusive to boys liking to touch girls either.
For your second paragraph, this is another thing that I don't agree with without some source, I don't think boys are more prone to act on hormones and impulses and all that jazz. Girls to hit puberty earlier, but the whole superficial, chasing experiences thing isn't exclusive to boys, that's part of puberty for both genders.
The third point, that applies to both genders as well, I don't even really understand what this huge run-on is... This all seems equally possible for both genders to me.
|
On June 06 2011 11:22 IzieBoy wrote:
i haven't really read most of the comments... but i get the sense that everyone here thinks the girls should be subjected to more punishment than they got
the crime IS the attitude...are you saying manslaughter is the same as first degree murder? *sorry, i have a very sarcastic side, which literally just wants to type its way in here...just imagine what i could say here...patience is a thing i need to learn...argghgahgasg...anyways i'm being serious here...*
say 3 boys stripped a girl and taped it without her consent
there would be the REASONABLE assumption that the motive was sexual exploitation...
check the news next time and see if you can find a case where an underaged girl was stripped just for humiliation by men...actually you'll be lucky to find even a single case...most cases will be rape...and it happens EVERY day.
our scenario is BULLYING...the girls had no other intentions in mind
nowhere do i see the girls stripping the boy in order to SODOMIZE him. if this were their intention, then yes, they should be prosecuted to the fullest degree. It's really sad how people are over-reacting as if it's a gender equality issue...well i'm glad about the discourse... i just want to propose the idea that the two genders deserve the same rights and punishments...however due to certain historical circumstances, we have to observe that when a male gender perpertrates a crime it's usually for worse intentions than the female gender...if we can PROVE the girls had some intention of raping the boy, then yes, they really deserve some cell time and the heat they are getting. however this is quite difficult, due to the good behavior that the vast majority of females show.
just out of curiousity, in the justice system, it is safe to assume that men will always try to rape in these situations but when a girl does these things its safe to assume that her intentions weren't sexual and just a prank? I know the girl's intentions were probably just to humiliate and to make themselves feel better by entertaining themselves this way, but your point about males only doing this to rape is my question. Yes, historically it has been proven that men rape women more than women rape men, but is that enough to justify these assumptions? There could always be an exception to these cases. Females can get horny too and act out on these impulses just as men, however I admit that men are the majority in these cases, but that doesn't mean we should apply the majority to one incident unless there's no other solution? is this what the U.S. justice system is limited to?
|
On June 07 2011 06:48 Cyba wrote:
Laws are just speculations by definition though, that's why justice is blind. Right and wrong can't be discerned completely with the law. It's just a statistical thing made to get the right result for the best %-age it can achieve, however stastics mean everything at a large population and absolutely nothing at a personal level.
That's why you get bogus sexual assault and harassment claims suits, and that why people are afraid to act normally or somebody might find some shitty pretext to sue them out of completely different reasons. This entire fiasco has no business beeing put into context with sexual assault.
The term 'justice is blind' is to depict justice as being utterly objective; not taking the subjects wealth, power, gender, race etc. into account during the deliberation. It has nothing to do with 'not being able to see the correct answer' or anything equally ludicrous.
|
On June 07 2011 06:48 Cyba wrote:
Laws are just speculations by definition though, that's why justice is blind. Right and wrong can't be discerned completely with the law. It's just a statistical thing made to get the right result for the best %-age it can achieve, however stastics mean everything at a large population and absolutely nothing at a personal level.
That's why you get bogus sexual assault and harassment claims suits, and that why people are afraid to act normally or somebody might find some shitty pretext to sue them out of completely different reasons. This entire fiasco has no business beeing put into context with sexual assault.
Can you explain to me exactly why a young boy being pinned to the ground against his will while his clothing is forcefully removed has no business being put into context as sexual assault? If me and one of my male friends wrestled a 18yo girl to the ground and took off her clothes then put a video of it on youtube I'm fairly certain that would qualify as sexual assault and this situation is no different.
|
Good thing it wasn't a group of boys. media would be in a frenzy.. rape lawsuits.. glennbeck freaking out about how our country is falling apart to the liberals and feminist sticking 1 more tampon up there holes.
America.. Fuck ye!
|
On June 07 2011 06:10 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 05:59 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:45 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:37 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:20 Nanoko wrote: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. 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..... 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. I'm sorry... but I really don't understand your post, just like I didn't understand any of the shit you said earlier... Can you highlight your references to "hormones, fondless of touch(?) and desperation for contact(?)" because as far as I know, hormones work both ways, and the other two I'm not really sure about. As for your last paragraph, it's a bit of a mess and once I again I'm confused, it sounds like you're simply saying that it's more likely that it would have escalated to rape if it were three boys(once again based on your all powerful intuition) and that boys wouldn't mind girls taking it further(from the point seen in the video? once again based on intuition and once again, this blows my fucking mind) and then you end with girls raping boys isn't a big part of our consciousness... So we're not as aware of girls raping boys-... So let's not give a fuck when it actually happens despite expecting gender equality... Cool fucking beans. I really think you should re-read that, since you seem to have completely misunderstood it. I hope it's not riddled with typos - I can be quite bad with those. If I wrote "fondless", what I meant was "fondness". These were things I referenced from my previous posts where I talk about the sensitivities that might be involved and how the situation might have different implication for boys and girls. I'm sure you cannot have missed it. But yeah, re-read it, or, alternatively, point out the parts that cause you to misunderstand what I wrote. Nowhere did I say that girls raping guys was fine, and that the guys would appreciate this. In fact, I have previous written: "It has nothing to do with double standards, and I'm sure people would react strongly if the girls actually did rape the boy or something to that effect (if not, at least, then you can talk about double standards)". Once again, I responded to that and the post you mentioned, the girls would not be required to rape the boy for it to establish a double standard since in the comparison mentioned, the boys wouldn't be raping the girl. Also, this would be my response, girls are developing identities at that age? So are boys. They generally place more weight on appearances, I'm not sure what you mean here but so do boys, and this would damage a boys self image as well, there is an equal chance that this would affect a boy's relation to the other gender and I disagree with the statement in parentheses, I think there is openness and shyness on both sides. Also, how would being overpowered physically "make her very uneasy in the future" in comparison to a boy in this situation? It's not a boy losing a fight or bullying, which by the way can happen with girls as well, I simply don't agree with this. This is where we reach our impasse because you've simply mentioned stuff that I don't think is true at all using "intuition", I can't argue or respond to these statements if I don't find the statements themselves to be true themselves, so the response simply becomes, if you're saying these things, cite some sources or it's a perfectly valid response to say that your actual points are bullshit and this is a double standard that you're perpetuating based on falsehoods.
You contest several points here, and either make vague counter-claims or pose questions. For the sake of clarity, allow me to outline them:
1) Developing identities - "both guys and girls do this"
2) Place weigh on appearance - "both guys and girls do this"
3) Become uneasy about the other gender as a result of forceful physical contact - "equal chance for both guys and girls"
4) Openness and shyness - "the case for both guys and girls"
Point 1: Of course they both do this. The question is; at what rate and to which effect. I would say that, for boys, developing an identity with the context of school is mostly focused on finding a role within the school. There can several reasons for this, and I won't claim one to be more valid than the other. It could be because society more often encourages boys to be competitive at an early age, and fulfilling this expectations satisfies a claim to identity. It could also be that dominance is an important quality, due to a macho instinct, meaning that once the question of dominance is established by you finding a role within the group, this generally puts you at ease. Meanwhile, as expected in my post before this, the search for identity will often be different for girls and will have more intellectual properties. Girls might feel more obliged to filfull a role in several contexts and therefore feel the need for an identity than can emcompass all of this. So, girls will often try out different identities, trying to find something that can give them a clear self-image which makes sense in many contexts. This can make them more sensitive to events that expose them in various ways as it forced them to rethink their self-image, because it's more fragile, or greatly challenges it.
Point 2: Perhaps this ties in with some of the other behaviour described. If you physically act out your emotion, instead of intellectualizing them or putting them into a great frame of identity, you will look outward rather than inward. This is only enhanced if you generally act on impulse, heavily affected by your emotions, because you rarely get the time to reflect on other things than what you are immediately dealing with. Therefore, many boys will go around completely oblivious about how they appear to others unless it relates to some of the things which play a major role in their perception, for instance, their role within their group. If they are wrestled onto the ground and stripped, thus being put in a humiliating, it will matter because of how it affects their social status, less so because of his it exposes their physical appearance or other body language that could be communicated in such a situation.
Point 3: As I already mentioned, boys will have been physically overpowered many times. It's fully acceptable to do this to boys, so people won't hold back and have much fear as to how it will affect them (to a certain extent, of course, when it comes to parenting). Some girls could have similar experience, of course, but there will often be many spheres where heavy physical contact will be much more legitimate if directed at a boy, simply because it feels more "natural". If a boy has been fighting or wrestling other boys, this element will not stand out when it comes to the incident that we discuss. Whereas, for girls, the heavy physical contact might trigger many insecurities, both due to the stigma that society might attach to it, but also due to it simply not feeling as natural. Also, the physical contact might confuse her about her approach to boys. As I believe I mentioned, the goal with interaction with boys, might rather be to explore potential for friendships rather than fulfill specific emotional needs. Because of the insecurities triggered, the girl will now have to understand the physical behaviour of the boys much better for it not to be a hinderance to her feeling safe about establishing said friendship.
Point 4: Argh ... I have been writing a lot, and at this point, I really cannot remember where this played a role. Isn't it included in the other things I have detailed in this post and my last one?
|
On June 07 2011 06:49 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 06:31 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:58 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:51 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:29 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:09 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 04:38 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 01:25 Asjo wrote:On June 06 2011 22:22 Nanoko wrote:On June 06 2011 17:40 Asjo wrote:
[quote]
You're simply repeating your previous point. I will not limit myself to arguing whatever I can find scientific articles to support.
What kind of experiences would be useful in making sense of the situation? Well, many different kinds, for instance: knowledge about bullying, sexual behaviour, mental make-up of youngsters, social dynamics of youth, dominance/submission, alienation, etc.
I'm not sure why you quote a similar albeit differently worded definition of sexism. Doesn't go against what I said in the post you responded to.
[quote]
I'm not using it as an argument. You seem not only to have misunderstood what I was saying about it in all my post, but also to have missed the explanation I gave when confronted with a similar deduction:
[quote] 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. 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: 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. Hopefully that should remind you what we were actually talking about. 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. 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" ... And the attitude you're adopting is different somehow? -If three boy are in this situation with a girl, there is obviously something more malicious going on and the girl is far more likely to be scarred because I think girls are more sensitive-, this is discriminatory towards males in the same way that saying "Women can't handle responsibility and decision making at a company" because in your example you say that men are more likely to be violent, sexual etc... and on the flip side women are more sensitive and more likely to be traumatized(both based off intuition). In my example I say women are more likely to make poor decisions and be irresponsible based on intuition... Your comparison to general knowledge isn't as consistent in this case because you're making a statement that can't be argued against like the example you gave in your last paragraph. What could anyone possibly give you other than anecdotal evidence which you've already rejected? No one is asking for absolute truths, but you can't possibly expect us to find your argument in any way convincing if all you're doing is using "intuition" to argue against gender equality. You haven't made any reasoned logic like you did in your last paragraph, you've simply said girls are more likely to be traumatized so it should be treated differently... What can anyone possibly say to that other than asking you to cite some sources or simply saying "No, boys can be just as traumatized and I don't believe your reasoning", and yes, I still believe it's a double standard. In your schooling example, you're providing an actual perspective as opposed to simply stating a generality based on intuition. You're once again talking as if I say "X is true because my intuition says so". That's no what I do. I say: "I see X this way because ...". Re-read if the posts if you need. Anything can be argued in detail, even if, in the end, your intepretations of these details will never go beyond your own understanding (like anecdotal evidence). I'd dare say that there hasn't really been any specific argument about the reaction of the girls. The only way this subject has been represented was that I presented my view, this view was questioned, and I provided a few quick examples of relevant factors (which weren't very eleborate), and none of these have been specifically challenged. However, say our arguement was that I said that in the context would be more sensitive and more likely to be traumatized while you said women would be more likely to make poor decisions and be irresponsible in this situation. Then I would provide reasoning for why I though these assumption to be true. To do this, I would operate from the sum of my past experiences, which would allow me to interpret such a sitation. You would, working off your own experience and thoughts, be able to challenge that or couter it with a competing interpretation of your own. You can provide your reasons, and I can challenge those. It's quite simple, really. I'm sure you understand it, and the reason why you're questioning this is the connotations you get when the word "intuition" is used in a debate, causing you to make certain assumptions or focus on particular aspects of what I'm saying. This isn't about the semantics of "intuition", it's what you're actually arguing. I asked you to go over your actual arguments in regards to "hormones, fondless touch, desperation for contact" again so I could actually understand what you're saying, because I don't see any actual reasoning there, one could literally just replace the word male with female and keep the arguments the same. So, you're asking to to expand on my initial thoughts. That's all good and fine. "Fondness of thought" relates to us as biological beings. For people, emotions and physical experiences are closely related. We need that biological link to other people to activate and inspire emotions, which is why people who never get out are typically miserable. At a young age, you're more likely to be in the "clutches" of your immediate emotional needs (let's say, due to having a smaller super ego), by extension, physical needs. One such need can be the need of touch. Due to the emotional release it can cause, a young boy can come to discover that touch people is wonderful. However, not just any people, but girls specifically. Why so? Because it also connects with some other emotions inspires by instincts of getting close to the other gender. The boy might in fact have enjoyed the touch of other boys just as much, but he has been socialized into being awkward or more detached in regards to this. In chasing such sensations, the boy might do several things, based on part experience. If he sees the girls chasing down another boy and huddling in a pile on top of him because he threw a snowball at them, the boy might try to do the same. If he experiences being chased down by girls and them huddling on top of him, this might inspire him to do other things. He could, for instance, get the idea that it would be nice to wrestle the girls. He tries this, jumping at a girl and wrestling her, while laughing nervously. However, he finds out that the girl pulls away and is now more reluctant to interact with him. So, he might not have any viable strategy to fulfill this "need" until he experiences another situation. He accidentally makes a fool of himself in class, and afterwards he see the girls laughing at this together, poking fun at it. They approach him in a group and push him aorund toyingly. So, he decides that he will try to humiliate himself to get a similar reaction. This doesn't work. So, instead, he tries to agitate the girls, thinking that if they act against him in a group, they might exhibit similar behaviour. In the end, a pattern developed, where he agitates the girls and provokes a mild reaction. The girls get used to this, and in the end, it becomes fully leglitimate for them to treat the boy a little worse than the other boys. This escalates, and ends up with the girls forcibly undressing the boy. However, he is fragile and does not like this one bit, as it crosses a certain boundary. It's either too public or too humilating. Hormones? I think this manifests in what could be considered erratic behaviour, pushing your limits and expanding your horizon. In my experience, girl to not become sexually aggressive in this age. The change that they experience causes inward reflection, setting about an enhanced search for identity, rather than causing an outward reaction. To put it in another way, one more commonly used (and support by some scientific studies, I'm sure), girls mature more quickly at this age and have other ways of reacting to hormones than "acting out". This, boys can be driven more by hormones and impulses, which in turn can make their social interaction more superficial, or, at least, based on different things. That means that they are less likely to be affected or inhibited by self-doubts and a strong search for identity might find, and a more focused on chasing experiences will will allow them to experience different emotions that are still to them. As they progress, such behaviour might make them more sexually forward or at least more driven by their sex drive. This will later be encourages and enhanced by culture and social norms, even if this probably plays a limited role at the age of 11. "Desperation for contact" is about an inability to properly express that which you want to express. At this age, girls might take a more intellectual approach to some things, which will often mean that there is a bit of a divide between boys a girls - something that will be bridged once both the boys and girls get older and start being more conscious and reflective about their social interactions. If girls and boys go into two groups, this can act at two camps. Within each camp, it can be very natural to speak to other members, but the other camp seems ridden with inexplicacies and inspires irrational fear. These fears only really become active when the need to get closed to someone in the other "camp" arises. Whereas, the need for a big network of social contacts might not be great at this age, a boy might feel that there are some things that other boys can provide, while there are some things that girls will be able to provide. If he has just started being more curious about girls, getting to know them might seem like a very important part of what exploration he is currently doing. However, because suddenly other emotions are inspired by the encounter with girls, the boy becomes inhibited. He is young, and doesn't have great communication skills. As a matter of fact, he doesn't know how to deal with many of his problems. So, something that would usually be even more simply at this age than at an older age, seems like an impossibility. Not because the boy tries to do something about and fails, but because of his inability to act - he is stunned. Due to this, he might become more introvert, he might hit a girl, be very awkward, or try to establish himself as a leader of the male group to gain the position or confidence he feels he needs to accomplish his task. The context of this, I believe, was mostly about who a boy might actually enjoy the acts carried out in the video - that the might somehow provide a release for him. As I have stated in a previous post, I no longer really think of this as a possibility (at least a very remove one) after having watched the video with sound on. However, if I recall correctly, was I mentioned about hormones also related to how a boy would like be affected by an assault by girls and how this might determine his behaviour after the incident. Wow... Instead of being super long winded and making this a chore to read you could have just said, "Boys like touching... girls", to which I would respond, guess what, that's not exclusive to boys and it's not exclusive to boys liking to touch girls either. For your second paragraph, this is another thing that I don't agree with without some source, I don't think boys are more prone to act on hormones and impulses and all that jazz. Girls to hit puberty earlier, but the whole superficial, chasing experiences thing isn't exclusive to boys, that's part of puberty for both genders. The third point, that applies to both genders as well, I don't even really understand what this huge run-on is... This all seems equally possible for both genders to me.
The long-windedness comes from establishing a context tha allows you to see how my different points have been connect. While you take this as a given in this post, it really seems to have been the major issue throughout the debate.
I have given specific reasons as to why I think this, on general level, differers between. You have not addressed these specific arguments, but simply re-iterate the vague point that you think it's rather equal. Afterall, I'm not making it up; it is based on a whole lot of observation
|
damn, i would have taken my clothes off with out their help.
|
On June 07 2011 07:01 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 06:10 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:59 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:45 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:37 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:20 Nanoko wrote: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. 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..... 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. I'm sorry... but I really don't understand your post, just like I didn't understand any of the shit you said earlier... Can you highlight your references to "hormones, fondless of touch(?) and desperation for contact(?)" because as far as I know, hormones work both ways, and the other two I'm not really sure about. As for your last paragraph, it's a bit of a mess and once I again I'm confused, it sounds like you're simply saying that it's more likely that it would have escalated to rape if it were three boys(once again based on your all powerful intuition) and that boys wouldn't mind girls taking it further(from the point seen in the video? once again based on intuition and once again, this blows my fucking mind) and then you end with girls raping boys isn't a big part of our consciousness... So we're not as aware of girls raping boys-... So let's not give a fuck when it actually happens despite expecting gender equality... Cool fucking beans. I really think you should re-read that, since you seem to have completely misunderstood it. I hope it's not riddled with typos - I can be quite bad with those. If I wrote "fondless", what I meant was "fondness". These were things I referenced from my previous posts where I talk about the sensitivities that might be involved and how the situation might have different implication for boys and girls. I'm sure you cannot have missed it. But yeah, re-read it, or, alternatively, point out the parts that cause you to misunderstand what I wrote. Nowhere did I say that girls raping guys was fine, and that the guys would appreciate this. In fact, I have previous written: "It has nothing to do with double standards, and I'm sure people would react strongly if the girls actually did rape the boy or something to that effect (if not, at least, then you can talk about double standards)". Once again, I responded to that and the post you mentioned, the girls would not be required to rape the boy for it to establish a double standard since in the comparison mentioned, the boys wouldn't be raping the girl. Also, this would be my response, girls are developing identities at that age? So are boys. They generally place more weight on appearances, I'm not sure what you mean here but so do boys, and this would damage a boys self image as well, there is an equal chance that this would affect a boy's relation to the other gender and I disagree with the statement in parentheses, I think there is openness and shyness on both sides. Also, how would being overpowered physically "make her very uneasy in the future" in comparison to a boy in this situation? It's not a boy losing a fight or bullying, which by the way can happen with girls as well, I simply don't agree with this. This is where we reach our impasse because you've simply mentioned stuff that I don't think is true at all using "intuition", I can't argue or respond to these statements if I don't find the statements themselves to be true themselves, so the response simply becomes, if you're saying these things, cite some sources or it's a perfectly valid response to say that your actual points are bullshit and this is a double standard that you're perpetuating based on falsehoods. You contest several points here, and either make vague counter-claims or pose questions. For the sake of clarity, allow me to outline them: 1) Developing identities - "both guys and girls do this" 2) Place weigh on appearance - "both guys and girls do this" 3) Become uneasy about the other gender as a result of forceful physical contact - "equal chance for both guys and girls" 4) Openness and shyness - "the case for both guys and girls" Point 1: Of course they both do this. The question is; at what rate and to which effect. I would say that, for boys, developing an identity with the context of school is mostly focused on finding a role within the school. There can several reasons for this, and I won't claim one to be more valid than the other. It could be because society more often encourages boys to be competitive at an early age, and fulfilling this expectations satisfies a claim to identity. It could also be that dominance is an important quality, due to a macho instinct, meaning that once the question of dominance is established by you finding a role within the group, this generally puts you at ease. Meanwhile, as expected in my post before this, the search for identity will often be different for girls and will have more intellectual properties. Girls might feel more obliged to filfull a role in several contexts and therefore feel the need for an identity than can emcompass all of this. So, girls will often try out different identities, trying to find something that can give them a clear self-image which makes sense in many contexts. This can make them more sensitive to events that expose them in various ways as it forced them to rethink their self-image, because it's more fragile, or greatly challenges it. Point 2: Perhaps this ties in with some of the other behaviour described. If you physically act out your emotion, instead of intellectualizing them or putting them into a great frame of identity, you will look outward rather than inward. This is only enhanced if you generally act on impulse, heavily affected by your emotions, because you rarely get the time to reflect on other things than what you are immediately dealing with. Therefore, many boys will go around completely oblivious about how they appear to others unless it relates to some of the things which play a major role in their perception, for instance, their role within their group. If they are wrestled onto the ground and stripped, thus being put in a humiliating, it will matter because of how it affects their social status, less so because of his it exposes their physical appearance or other body language that could be communicated in such a situation. Point 3: As I already mentioned, boys will have been physically overpowered many times. It's fully acceptable to do this to boys, so people won't hold back and have much fear as to how it will affect them (to a certain extent, of course, when it comes to parenting). Some girls could have similar experience, of course, but there will often be many spheres where heavy physical contact will be much more legitimate if directed at a boy, simply because it feels more "natural". If a boy has been fighting or wrestling other boys, this element will not stand out when it comes to the incident that we discuss. Whereas, for girls, the heavy physical contact might trigger many insecurities, both due to the stigma that society might attach to it, but also due to it simply not feeling as natural. Also, the physical contact might confuse her about her approach to boys. As I believe I mentioned, the goal with interaction with boys, might rather be to explore potential for friendships rather than fulfill specific emotional needs. Because of the insecurities triggered, the girl will now have to understand the physical behaviour of the boys much better for it not to be a hinderance to her feeling safe about establishing said friendship. Point 4: Argh ... I have been writing a lot, and at this point, I really cannot remember where this played a role. Isn't it included in the other things I have detailed in this post and my last one? '
Point 1: I don't think this is relevant in any significant way to any crime or offense whatsoever, I don't even understand what you're drawing on here... Boys can be sporty/Girls can be brainy therefor girls feel worse if they're held down and stripped... What? I'm thoroughly confused by this and in general don't agree with any of this. Yes, boys and girls tend to have varying interests growing up but that's not relevant in any way to this situation or any situation of offense.
Point 2: I disagree with this, I don't think this is the case at all, sure girls may be more interested in their own looks though I don't think this is overwhelmingly the case at all, I'd say it's pretty even as you go up in age and I absolutely disagree that a boy would only feel(or be more) upset about the aspects of them being held down and stripped that relates to social status, it would be just as much about being powerless and naked.
Point 3: Sure boys may be rougher with each other but this makes no sense in this frame of reference once again even if you think this is overwhelmingly the case. Honestly, it's like "Hey, this boy grew up with three brothers and is probably used to being beaten up so we're not going to make a big deal of this assault case because he's probably used to it". It doesn't fucking matter, this varies so heavily based on upbringing and environment and is irrelevant to assault or any crime or offense whatsoever. "They're probably used to it, so we shouldn't care as much". It doesn't fucking matter, this is entirely irrelevant even if it were true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
